Cloudship

Right, but technically a new airline can "connect" to anywhere. Now, from a position LHR does have a lot going for it - right on most paths going from North America to Europe, a doable, reasonable length flight from NYC, it is located in another major world gateway city, and a short flight to most European cities. It does have a bit of a land/space issue, and isn't on a major waterway so getting fuel to the airport is a bit of an issue. And England is an expensive place out operate out of.

ft101

Much more than that - over 33% within a 4 hour flight and over 66% within 8 hours according to Emirates in 2013. They also claim to be able to reach 90% of the world's population on a non stop flight so if these are the criteria for strategically placed the Middle East is going to be hard to beat.

https://gulfnews.com/business/aviati...lark-1.1246419

MSPeconomist

I don't understand this in that if one takes a weighted average of a bunch of locations on the surface of the earth, you should get someplace near the center of the earth, or at least well below the surface, not a location on the surface.

Cloudship

In this day and age not everyone believes the Earth is round.

The middle east is positioned pretty strategically. Except that you are flying through or into some rather volatile areas. And the minor little fact that they do have some pretty bad laws against certain groups of people.

From a position standpoint, though, they are great for Europe to Asia. But not North or South America to Asia, nor North or South America to Europe.

TechnoTourist

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_population

It's distance on the surface of the planet, not the 3 dimensional position on a sphere.

chrisl137

Shouldn't that be 9 and 4?

It's not just that the metro only goes near, but that the metro layout makes it a 2 hour metro trip from some areas because of the number of train changes you have to make, so it takes longer than driving. The street layout around LAX, including the freeway ramps, also contributes to the mess that it can be to get there by bus, car, or other street traveling vehicle.

Toshbaf

YVR is well placed. Not far from Vancouver. It's an island so there are fewer nearby homes, all of them off the island, I believe. However, there is a lack of a YVR to Vancouver downtown expressway.

BWI is somewhat strategically located between Baltimore and Washington, though closer to Baltimore. It was there before the BWI name having the Friendship Airport name.

CDG is somewhat strategically located only in that it is north of the city with east west runways. This makes it quieter for the central city and the runways are also lined up with the prevailing east west winds.

FRA is somewhat strategically located in the middle of Germany and not too far from the middle of Europe.
ORD (Chicago) is somewhat strategically located in the middle of the US and US population center.

vkis

FRA is also just a short 10-15 minute train or cab ride from most of Frankfurt and a lot of the Rhine-Ruhr area can be reached in 0:50 (Cologne) - 1:20 (Düsseldorf) by high speed rail.

I'll throw DUS in the hat as well, 7 minute train ride (to the airport long distance station, 12 if you take the S-Bahn directly to the terminal) from the Central Station.

pinniped

Isn't this really a question of which airports are well-designed for their purpose?

DEN is a long way from Denver, but it was purpose-built to be a large hub airport that could operate well in a wide range of weather conditions. So to that end, it accomplishes its strategy I guess. (And now it finally has transit to the city, so O&D is more convenient than it once was.)

Cloudship

Actually it was a question about what airports were located strategically on the globe, not in relationship to the city, but I mis-phrased my original question and that the thread went off the rails.

LondonElite

Not to flog the horse, but what does this mean in plain speak?

saxman66

I often think of this exact topic. I like airports that have easy access to the city center on transit less than 30 minutes away. I also like not having to lift my bag up a single step, so that rules out most buses, even if it's an express bus. Although, I'd say the Silver Line Bus in Boston is pretty damn convenient to South Station. Denver is finally much better with its A-Line with 15 minute headways, though I'm not always going to downtown Denver so it being so far away makes it lose points. DCA, SFO, SEA, MDW, LHR are all nice and close with easy access. HKG is good too, but ICN is just so far away. IAH is much too far away as well. SLC is easy to get to as is MSP. DFW is soso, but now it's connected by rail to both of its respective cities, though the speed of service could use some improvement.

Cloudship

Essentially, what airport would make a fantastic location for an international hub, IF you exclude already existing airlines having hubs, but factoring in demand and market saturation.

MSPeconomist

Are you sure that ORD is in the middle of the USA and near the population center? It seems too far north. I would have guessed that STL is closer to the center unless you give an awful lot of weight to Alaska (land area?) which would then move the center farther west.

Toshbaf

You are correct that STL is closer to the geographic center. That is in Kansas if Alaska is excluded. The population center is in southern Indiana, in between Louisville and St. Louis. ORD is a big business center and population center somewhat nearby, bigger than STL.