pinniped

Hold my Fat Tire while I drive up to EGE to catch my nonstop flight to London.

84fiero

COSPILOT

OP, now that I've had to time think even more about it, are you suggesting a 3 hr drive to EGE is way better than a 1hr drive to DEN? Not logical, but forgetting that for a moment, where would they fly from EGE that would justify this? That's 6 hrs per/week you're asking for simply because the airport is small and looks cool. I suppose once a year flyers might not care, but EGE is about as practical for DEN based flyers as a Vegan showing up to a steak restaurant.

DCP2016

The major "big" airports in this country are a joke, even if some of them (like ATL and DFW) are more efficient than others (like JFK, LAX).

Secondary airports to major cities like MDW, DAL, FLL, HOU, and BWI are great because they have less traffic which means less delays taxing/taking off/landing, access to good if not great public transportation, and can even be closer in some cases to the cities they are supposed to serve.

Then we have behemoths like JFK, EWR, ORD, ATL, MIA, DFW, LAX, SFO, and BOS which are plagued with overcrowding, waiting almost an hour for takeoff during rush hour, and face hours of delays when there is a cloud anywhere in the vicinity.

Some airports like DEN, DTW, MSP, IAH, etc are the odd ones out because while they are large airports, they are efficient and the areas aren't as big as some of the coasts so they don't face the congestion. LGA and DCA are also the odd ones out because while secondary, they are in high population areas and are too small for the number of flights scheduled into there.

Cloudship

Wouldn't COS make a lot more sense as an alternative to DEN than EGE?

COSPILOT

DenverBrian

This. And COS would certainly be used by some folks south of Lincoln Avenue, possibly south of County Line Road or Dry Creek.

BearX220

From the sweeping generality desk.

A "joke" on what count(s), exactly? Aircraft congestion, poor / insufficient concourse or gate space, not enough ground transport, too far from the city, slow security, too many footsteps to gate, aging / degenerating facilities, poor runway layout, long taxis, weather vulnerability, inhospitable to transfer pax, not enough lounges?

Every airport on earth falls short on some metric or another. I am sure there are FTers who will write off an entire airport as a "joke" because parking is expensive or one concourse is missing a Starbucks, but there are many metrics in play, some not visible to the passenger.

As far as I'm concerned the only US airports that fall short on on every count are LAX and EWR. Many airports I enjoy: DTW, MSP, SLC, SFO, PDX, DFW, IAH, parts of JFK, parts of BOS, PHX. More have some positive qualities and are being improved with huge reinvestment campaigns: LGA, ORD, CLT, DCA, PHL. They are not "jokes." They are hugely complicated, vital pieces of infrastructure comprising a national system that runs pretty well considering the volume they cope with and extreme (and getting more so) US weather.

Sometimes people return from HKG or SIN, get stuck waiting for an arrival gate at SFO, and declare that compared to those other places the US system of airports is a joke. Well, most other countries operate one or two major hubs. The US has 50 or 60 major airports and hundreds more minor ones. Imagine how different AMS, HKG, KUL, or other national showplaces might be if their governing authorities had to operate -- and continually upgrade -- 50 or 60 of them.

I am close to someone in commercial aviation who spends his share of time stuck in long taxis, recovering from irrops, waiting out weather, etc. and he reminds me of two things: the passenger's view of the system is partial and very limited; some airports that passengers can find tedious are actually great for aviating (think ATL). And 80 percent of the time, given the number of passengers and aircraft underway, it is amazing how well the system actually holds up -- amazing enough that all the talk in this thread of incentives to abandon convenient, diverse major airports for dinky, remote alternates is a little bit off base.

pinniped

Some of the problems we attribute to airports are in part due to congested Northeast airspace. I'll pile on the decrepit bus depot that is La Guardia as much as the next guy, but the congestion problems aren't really the airport's fault. And one day LGA will actually finish its construction, and I'll need a new whipping boy. (The new terminals are actually quite nice, leaving my biggest remaining complaint to be the traffic associated with the remaining construction.)

And Denver is a pretty well-designed hub that performs well given the weather they have. I'd much rather have a winter connection through DEN than ORD or any other snowy city. Takes a pretty serious blizzard to take down DEN. Not sure how this thread decided to pick on it - it's probably the last big hub I'd have a go at.

DCP2016

What in the world are you talking about? I work in commercial aviation as well and passengers like to blame two things:

1. The airlines themselves
2. ATC

The airlines of course choose the routes they operate (in the case of the majors) and times (depending on the airport) but they don't like delays because that messes up with their on time performance, crew scheduling, and aircraft scheduling.

ATC is limited due to weather, congestion, and a bunch of other factors. That's why airports like SFO, JFK, and EWR can't do anything when there is a cloud in the sky.

Finally airports themselves would love to expand and have a ton of terminals/runways but are limited due to lack of funds (since most are city or county operated), NIMBY's, and environmentalists.

So I'm not sure what you are getting at as one or multiple of these factors are a problem at almost every US major airport. This is also mitigated at airports like DAL, MDW, FLL etc.

cbn42

People love to hate them, but yet keep using them. Clearly they offer a better overall value proposition than the wonderful small airports that everyone praises.

LAX has 4 other commercial airports within an hour-ish drive, all with substantial service. And yet, its passenger count keeps increasing. People complain, but at the end of the day, most of them will choose a large airport with lots of flights to various destinations and lower fares over a small airport that is quick and easy to navigate.

This is exactly the reason I am skeptical that Moxy will be successful. Point-to-point routes from secondary airports look great on paper, and sound great to anyone who recently had to wait an hour at LAX TSA. But when it comes to buying a ticket, price and schedule are going to win out over the ease of getting from the curb to the gate.

The size of the country really shouldn't matter. Since the US is larger, the amount of funding is proportionally larger as well. The amount of money and resources per airport should be about the same. There is no national governing airport authority in the US, and most US airports are operated by local agencies that are responsible for 3 or 4 airports at the most.

Kevin AA

I used to live in Colorado Springs, and I knew many people who would drive the 1.5 hours (plus more as a reserve for traffic and weather on I-25) to DEN just because it's cheaper and/or non-stop. I can't say that no one from Denver drove to COS but I doubt many would given that it's more expensive and the only nonstop flights are to hubs. If you're going to OMA, DEN is cheaper and nonstop.

chrisl137

Except for getting to the airport and parking (now somewhat alleviated by Lot E, which avoids the tunnel), I don't mind LAX. I don't spend a lot of time there - I get there (drive, lyft, or flyaway bus), go through security, and fly away. The terminals are all pretty small, so once you're at the curb it's pretty quick to your gate, and fast to the curb on the return trip. Mostly departing early in the morning and arriving late evenings, and having precheck (and before that just the premier lines at UA) I haven't really had to wait long in line at security in years, and whatever congestion issues are either not started yet in the morning or dissipated late in the evening (and are maybe less bad with AS gate management than UA gate management) - I can't remember the last time I had an airport related delay there. Sometimes the taxis are long and it seems like we're driving all the way back to Pasadena, but that's pretty minor. Restaurants? Doesn't really matter - I don't spend enough time there to eat, and the terminals I use all have a second coffee source 2/3 of the way in with a much shorter line than the Starbucks out front. If I can get a non-stop from BUR, I'll take that over LAX, but the extra time of a connection (and risk of a misconnect) is still worse than the difference in time getting to/from LAX vs. BUR.

tmiw

Speaking of LAX, it's apparently the worst airport in the world (and BUR the best). As someone who's flown through/from the former on multiple occasions, I don't think it's that bad given the right time of day, but eh.

chrisl137

I dislike EWR much more than LAX. Last time I flew through EWR on an international flight I was the first person to and through customs (about 2 minutes) and it took an hour to get to the domestic gate for my connection, even with precheck, carry on only, and being a fast walker. In 20+ years of flying out of LAX it's never taken me an hour to get from landside to airside. I live 35 miles from LAX and have to go through DTLA, and until recently (the rise of uber and death of lot C) I could reliably leave home about 2 hours before my flight and get to the gate with time to spare before boarding