2 ms·
I think you misunderstand my comment. Airlines should not be building a "bespoke airport close to a major metro" that only benefits that airline. They should b
by duped 3y ago
I think you misunderstand my comment.
Airlines should not be building a "bespoke airport close to a major metro" that only benefits that airline. They should be building their hubs in the middle of nowhere and serve only connecting flights out of them, because it's the fact that the hubs are in the metros that cause problems.
When half of the traffic through the airport isn't destined for the metro, then half the traffic doesn't need to be going through it.
> Also, usually the airport is there before homes were built so every owner in the flight path made the decision to live there.
I don't want to respond to this because I think it misses that opposition to airport expansion isn't just "planes loud." There is not a place in west suburban Chicagoland unaffected by the expansion of O'hare. It is not just about the flight paths.
The airlines don't even want it anymore.
- mst 3y agoI quite like the idea of dedicated hubs a decent distance away from anything else, but you'd still need to staff and supply it so "the middle of nowhere" probably isn't feasible.
- bombcar 3y agoAirlines make an airport a hub because half the people are going there, not because of the half that aren't. If they could sell their gate slots and use another hub at a reasonable profit, they would. Of course, we're past when everyone wanted 747s and giant Airbuses so perhaps the hub and spoke system will slowly melt away into smaller more direct flights.