Besides the obvious that it is a hub for AA. But so is ORD and it is 1/2 the size of DFW. ATL is as busy an airport yet pales in size. So what the heck do they do with all that space in Dallas?

In my experience, the answer is...

taxi...taxi...taxi...

It's the Texas syndrome. Plus a desire to become the major hub in the US, which didn't quite work. DL had a huge hub at DFW which it has now abandonned (at least 40 gates). The major failing of DFW was a lack of international flights, plus lots of delays for various reasons including weather. The airport was quite successful (thanks to its political clout) but never lived up to its ambitions.

The airport has some neat features, some of which didn't work out. For example the AA jetways were designed to be far away from the building to allow AA's MD-80s to use reverse thrust to back away from the gates (without using a tug). This turned out to be a bad idea and is no longer done (so AA uses a tug for all planes, but is stuck with those long jetways to keep the planes away from the terminal building).

DFW is newer than ORD/ATL. When they decided to build it, they chose the location where they could get as much land as possible, for future expansion use.

DEN is even larger in land area. Why? DEN is much newer. Get as much land as possible now because it would be impossible to expand in the future.

True. But it seems like DEN is a lot of empty space whereas DFW is full of buildings, vehicles and people (aside from pax) moving about.

I agree completely with posts #3 and #4. Biggest mistake at most airports over the past 50 years was the failure to secure lots and lots of extra land to accomodate the boom in air travel. When DC-3s ruled the skies, almost nobody envisioned the need for a single airport to have half a dozen runways, some nearly nearly 3 miles in length or the need for central terminal space sufficient for 100-150+ gates.

Correcting that lack of foresight will likely cost hundreds of billions over the next several decades. And will necessitate moving some airports out to the middle of nowhere - like Palmdale, CA (instead of LAX) or Peotone, IL (instead of ORD). When ORD was built, the leaders probably thought it was much too big. If we've learned anything, it ought to be that airports should be designed so that 95% of those asked think the new airport is too big, and then the surrounding land should be doubled or tripled (or more).

Because everything in Texas is big. For example, you should see the size of the belt buckles people wear down here

M8

I was waiting for someone to say that ^

DFW airport is so big and so modern that it would put little Chicago O'hare to shame. I am from Chicago and I often here Chicago O'hare has more traffic, but It doesnot come close to DFW in size, space, Quality, Design and nothing A+ for DFW airport.

Welcome to Flyer Talk. That said, it is really frowned on here to bump a 12 year-old thread.

Let me add my welcome as well!

As this thread is originally from 2006, much has changed since then, and info/data is likely outdated. Therefore, we shall close this thread. /Moderator