3 ms·

I disagree. Airports are already a bottleneck that will only get worse over time. There has only been one major airport built in the US in the last 30 years. It

by bedhead 12y ago

I disagree. Airports are already a bottleneck that will only get worse over time. There has only been one major airport built in the US in the last 30 years. It's nearly impossible to expand many airports (both gates and runways) for various reasons. There are only so many slots available. I honestly don't think the US could handle a doubling of flyers, we will have outgrown our current infrastructure yet it's almost impossible to expand it. Like it or not, the price of airline tickets is probably going in one direction for the foreseeable future.

steven777400 12y ago
This doesn't have to be true. Many large airports have smaller regional airports nearby that have the capacity to handle passenger traffic. For example, I live in Olympia about 60 - 90 minutes south of Seattle (and about 30 minutes from Tacoma). The airport here is large enough to accommodate 737s, and even did have passenger service for a few years with smaller turboprops, but now doesn't. Efficiency desires are leading to larger, centralized airports which then run into capacity problems while regional airports languish.
- koenigdavidmj 12y ago
  And on the other hand, Paine Field in Everett just got approval for commercial service: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/03/02/snohomish-council-narrowly-approves-commercial-air.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/03/02/snohomish... Though I'll grant that this is probably an exception, not a rule, and that it just barely got approved.
- bedhead 11y ago
  It doesn't have to be, but it probably will be. I'm in Chicago and even our second airport, Midway, is showing signs of pressure. I can think of a handful of other second tier airports in major cities in similar positions. I think this is going to become a very heated topic over the next 25 years. The general public has been groomed to believe that cheap airfare on a several-hundred-million-dollar vehicle with incomprehensibly good safety standards is a birthright, so when the cost of air travel starts going a lot higher, people are going to freak out. We can make all sorts of tweaks to alleviate the problem (load efficiency, bigger planes, more seats/plane, longer hours of operation, etc) but at some point the inherent limits of a fixed number of runways, gates, and slots is going to catch up to us, and that's when the price of a ticket for many particular routes is going to go vertical.
knz 12y ago
The airlines are already responding to this by using more efficient scheduling/ticketing (when was the last time you saw empty seats on a plane?) and "upgauging" (using larger aircraft to replace regional jets).
iamcurious 12y ago
I honestly don't think the US could handle a doubling of flyers, we will have outgrown our current infrastructure yet it's almost impossible to expand it. Like it or not, the price of airline tickets is probably going in one direction for the foreseeable future. Most of the people coming out of poverty would not be in the US.

by bedhead 12y ago

steven777400 12y ago

This doesn't have to be true. Many large airports have smaller regional airports nearby that have the capacity to handle passenger traffic. For example, I live in Olympia about 60 - 90 minutes south of Seattle (and about 30 minutes from Tacoma). The airport here is large enough to accommodate 737s, and even did have passenger service for a few years with smaller turboprops, but now doesn't. Efficiency desires are leading to larger, centralized airports which then run into capacity problems while regional airports languish.

koenigdavidmj 12y ago
And on the other hand, Paine Field in Everett just got approval for commercial service: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/03/02/snohomish-council-narrowly-approves-commercial-air.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/03/02/snohomish... Though I'll grant that this is probably an exception, not a rule, and that it just barely got approved.
bedhead 11y ago
It doesn't have to be, but it probably will be. I'm in Chicago and even our second airport, Midway, is showing signs of pressure. I can think of a handful of other second tier airports in major cities in similar positions. I think this is going to become a very heated topic over the next 25 years. The general public has been groomed to believe that cheap airfare on a several-hundred-million-dollar vehicle with incomprehensibly good safety standards is a birthright, so when the cost of air travel starts going a lot higher, people are going to freak out. We can make all sorts of tweaks to alleviate the problem (load efficiency, bigger planes, more seats/plane, longer hours of operation, etc) but at some point the inherent limits of a fixed number of runways, gates, and slots is going to catch up to us, and that's when the price of a ticket for many particular routes is going to go vertical.

knz 12y ago

The airlines are already responding to this by using more efficient scheduling/ticketing (when was the last time you saw empty seats on a plane?) and "upgauging" (using larger aircraft to replace regional jets).

iamcurious 12y ago

I honestly don't think the US could handle a doubling of flyers, we will have outgrown our current infrastructure yet it's almost impossible to expand it. Like it or not, the price of airline tickets is probably going in one direction for the foreseeable future. Most of the people coming out of poverty would not be in the US.