Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting irishpower (Thread starter): most were former hubs |
Quoting irishpower (Reply 3): |
Quoting irishpower (Reply 3): I guess my follow up question is will any of these airports grow into the capacity that they've already built? |
Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 1): It could be argued that US would have stayed in PIT if they hadn't built the new terminal. Didn't the costs to US skyrocket? But now with the merger with AA, PIT's days would probably be numbered with ORD being so close. |
Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 7): Lots of infrastructure will decay into uselessness before capacity grows to fill it. Check CVG Concourse C demo plans, Terminal 1, and Terminal 2; STL concourse closures pre-tornado, etc. |
Quoting MaxxFlyer (Reply 12): Why then are they going forward with the new south terminal plans? |
Quoting irishpower (Thread starter): Thoughts on any others? |
Quoting bwest (Reply 22): In Europe there's MAD that still has a lot of unused capacity. The aiport is capable of handling 70 million pax, but currently "only" sees around 48 million. |
Quoting Beatyair (Reply 11): Memphis - they are now fixing it |
Quoting irishpower (Reply 3): I guess my follow up question is will any of these airports grow into the capacity that they've already built? |
Quoting Alasizon (Reply 4): Eventually they will grow into it, it is just a matter of time. STL and MCI will easily reach that amount with the consistent growth of the US travel market. CVG and PIT may eventually make it, but odds are the terminals will be redesigned and some torn down (such as C in CVG) before the levels ever reach what they were. |
Quoting MaxxFlyer (Reply 12): Why then are they going forward with the new south terminal plans? |
Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 18): ANC has like a 10 gate international terminal that is basically never used. |
Quoting dc10lover (Reply 5): What about Boise, Idaho? |
Quoting Beatyair (Reply 17): Kansas City has three badly designed terminals, doesn't it |
Quoting Beatyair (Reply 17): Kansas City has three badly designed terminals, doesn't it. |
Quoting jmchevallier (Reply 31): Another example of this family of airport terminals is Berlin Tegel, built like Kansas City by beginning of the 70s. |
Quoting dc10lover (Reply 5): What about Boise, Idaho? |
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 29): The last couple of times I've gone through Boise, it's seemed like the lower (airstairs) level with QX was way, way busier then the upper (jetbridge) level with AA, DL, G4, and UA. I'm pretty sure at one time USAir and Continental had their own gates at BOI. |
Quoting foxecho (Reply 33): jmchevallier answered this perfectly, they were designed in the early 70s before security concerns....now they have the highest cost of most airports securitywise...its also one of the private security (non TSA) airports... |
Quoting irishpower (Reply 3): I guess my follow up question is will any of these airports grow into the capacity that they've already built? |
Quoting ROCDLFAN (Reply 9): HOWEVER- 22 gates for only 70 daily departures? It's always been much. Believe it or not, 21 gates are leased by one airline or another, however mostly because MCAA virtually lease them away for nothing. |
Quoting jmchevallier (Reply 31): Kansas City terminals were certainly not badly designed, they were on the contrary perfectly adjusted to a typology of traffic that is no more dominant. The criterion of excellence at the time was the shortest distance between your car and your plane ...Another example of this family of airport terminals is Berlin Tegel, built like Kansas City by beginning of the 70s. |
Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 40): Guess you could say any number of airports that have been closed hubs: CLE, DAY, etc |