Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some men like fat girls. Whatever makes you happy. I'd rather live next to the world's largest airport.
Some men like the same 'ol bland women. Whatever makes you happy. I prefer some variety out of my airport. The international prestige of the Bay Area blows Atlanta out of the water and it isn't close. The Bay Area is the reason for many Intl. flights in SFO from multiple foreign flags. Delta's hub is the reason for many Intl. flights out of Atlanta. Without Delta's hub you would be lucky to have more than three European cities and a Seoul/Tokyo flight with a hand full of Carribean destinations because the Atlanta intl. O&D is weak. So you can keep your endless Delta flights while I'm flying on Singapore, ANA, etc. that has FAR superior service..
As for domestic service, we serve the medium to large cities direct but aren't as extensive to small to moderate sized cities, but that's what Oakland and San Jose are for.
Some men like the same 'ol bland women. Whatever makes you happy. I prefer some variety out of my airport. The international prestige of the Bay Area blows Atlanta out of the water and it isn't close. The Bay Area is the reason for many Intl. flights in SFO from multiple foreign flags. Delta's hub is the reason for many Intl. flights out of Atlanta. Without Delta's hub you would be lucky to have more than three European cities and a Seoul/Tokyo flight with a hand full of Carribean destinations because the Atlanta intl. O&D is weak. So you can keep your endless Delta flights while I'm flying on Singapore, ANA, etc. that has FAR superior service..
As for domestic service, we serve the medium to large cities direct but aren't as extensive to small to moderate sized cities, but that's what Oakland and San Jose are for.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
So why did you pose the question?
I was wondering if someone could think of one. The fact that you and no one else seem to be able to does not invalidate the question. It simply gives me an answer in the negative, which is as I suspected.
Some men like the same 'ol bland women. Whatever makes you happy. I prefer some variety out of my airport. The international prestige of the Bay Area blows Atlanta out of the water and it isn't close. The Bay Area is the reason for many Intl. flights in SFO from multiple foreign flags. Delta's hub is the reason for many Intl. flights out of Atlanta. Without Delta's hub you would be lucky to have more than three European cities and a Seoul/Tokyo flight with a hand full of Carribean destinations because the Atlanta intl. O&D is weak. So you can keep your endless Delta flights while I'm flying on Singapore, ANA, etc. that has FAR superior service..
As for domestic service, we serve the medium to large cities direct but aren't as extensive to small to moderate sized cities, but that's what Oakland and San Jose are for.
Who honestly cares about airports? Why are you guys arguing about this?? NOLA isn't that big of an airport, but it's a fine city so yeah...
Unless you do a lot of international travel, it really doesn't matter whether or not you have multiple foreign carriers or not. If Delta is cheap enough and takes me to my destination, then that's fine. Why does it have to be a foreign a carrier? Are you that shallow?
Who honestly cares about airports? Why are you guys arguing about this?? NOLA isn't that big of an airport, but it's a fine city so yeah...
Unless you do a lot of international travel, it really doesn't matter whether or not you have multiple foreign carriers or not. If Delta is cheap enough and takes me to my destination, then that's fine. Why does it have to be a foreign a carrier? Are you that shallow?
It's been well documented from many media review outlets over the years that US carriers are not as good as some of their Asian competition for in flight amenities/service. Add the fact that many secondary foreign cities are not served by US carriers.
We were talking about congestion and the business of putting planes in the air. Trains, lounges and shopping are compensatory measures for large-footprint airport designs. Who wants to spend all day in an airport?
The knock against Love Field is the governmental (mostly "govern" and not much "mental") attempt to restrict flight distances out of Love Field, in order to prop up business at DFW. Why would such a measure be needed? If Dallas travelers could catch an easy, direct flight to LA or NY out of Love by simply walking up to the gate, boarding the plane and taking off, don't you think they'd choose that over DFW's nonsense?
In the Bay Area, we have three international airports to choose. My most convenient is SFO, which is a large enough airport to have all the "amenities" you mention (much better ones than DFW, I might add), but is built on a small enough footprint to be convenient and manageable. Still, I often choose Oakland, which is farther away, because of direct flights on Southwest and the step-on, step-off nature of going through that airport. Both are accessible by public transportation. The best of both worlds might be SJC, which has a small, linear terminal layout, but has all those "amenities" you love so much. You can park right at the terminal and walk onto your plane at SJC. It's convenient in everything but its location to me.
If I'm flying to international destinations, I guess killing a day in an airport is part of the deal. And some people like malls (which is what large airports are becoming) more than others, I suppose. Given the choice between giant airports and more convenient, smaller fields, in terms of ease of getting on and off the plane and on my way, though, I pick the smaller ones.
The problem is that your views don't jibe with reality.
Midway is much more convenient and easier than O'Hare, yet the later is much busier.
Hobby is much more convenient and easier than Bush, yet the later is much busier.
Love Field is much more convenient and easier than DFW, yet the later is much busier.
Oakland is much more convenient and easier than SFO, yet the later is much busier.
I also have to clarify when I say much busier, I mean with travelers originating in the cities in question as well. I work closely with the markets in Dallas and Houston and I'll be the first to tell you that, for most of them Southwest is an after thought. That makes Hobby and Love Field almost useless to them. They want the big international airports, the global alliances, nonstop domestic and international networks, the premium perks, and a first class cabin. The Dallas market overwhelmingly favors American, the Atlanta market does the same with Delta, Houston with United, the Bay with United, etc.
So despite the fact that you can't understand why Dallas travelers wouldn't choose Love Field, they don't. Even when the Wright Amendment passes, it won't change.
The problem is that your views don't jibe with reality.
Midway is much more convenient and easier than O'Hare, yet the later is much busier.
Hobby is much more convenient and easier than Bush, yet the later is much busier.
Love Field is much more convenient and easier than DFW, yet the later is much busier.
Oakland is much more convenient and easier than SFO, yet the later is much busier.
I also have to clarify when I say much busier, I mean with travelers originating in the cities in question as well. I work closely with the markets in Dallas and Houston and I'll be the first to tell you that, for most of them Southwest is an after thought. That makes Hobby and Love Field almost useless to them. They want the big international airports, the global alliances, nonstop domestic and international networks, the premium perks, and a first class cabin. The Dallas market overwhelmingly favors American, the Atlanta market does the same with Delta, Houston with United, the Bay with United, etc.
So despite the fact that you can't understand why Dallas travelers wouldn't choose Love Field, they don't. Even when the Wright Amendment passes, it won't change.
It won't change because Southwest is a "Point To Point" operation and it's network model is inferior to the traditional "Hub and Spoke" system. Sure it's cheaper to fly than the legacy carriers but I don't want to fly from DFW to SFO with a stop in Phoenix when I can pay a bit more on American and be home hours before taking Southwest.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,133,609 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
The problem is that your views don't jibe with reality.
Midway is much more convenient and easier than O'Hare, yet the later is much busier.
Hobby is much more convenient and easier than Bush, yet the later is much busier.
Love Field is much more convenient and easier than DFW, yet the later is much busier.
Oakland is much more convenient and easier than SFO, yet the later is much busier.
I also have to clarify when I say much busier, I mean with travelers originating in the cities in question as well. I work closely with the markets in Dallas and Houston and I'll be the first to tell you that, for most of them Southwest is an after thought. That makes Hobby and Love Field almost useless to them. They want the big international airports, the global alliances, nonstop domestic and international networks, the premium perks, and a first class cabin. The Dallas market overwhelmingly favors American, the Atlanta market does the same with Delta, Houston with United, the Bay with United, etc.
So despite the fact that you can't understand why Dallas travelers wouldn't choose Love Field, they don't. Even when the Wright Amendment passes, it won't change.
Again, nothing about this has to do with the airport's footprint, which was the question I asked. I understand about Southwest and am certainly not a fan of that airline. I am, however, a fan of Hobby Airport, and that's where SWA flies.
See if you can follow this: SFO is a very small airport compared to DFW and is much better served by foreign carriers, has all the amenities you speak of, and is only slightly less busy. I'd rather make a connection there or use it as my home base instead of DFW, because it's easy to navigate. When my plane lands, it taxis right to the gate. All the terminals are centralized and close together. BART runs directly into the airport. I can exit the terminal area and be on the freeway in about 10 minutes. It's one of the most convenient big airports I've ever used--smartly laid out, compact and easy to access.
PS- I have no problem with your liking DFW. I just personally think it's an inconvenient mess. I also hate American Airlines, though, so maybe that has something to do with it. I once flew American from DFW to London and it was like a truck stop in the sky. Dealing with the hassles of DFW was just the icing on that horrible cake.
Last edited by dalparadise; 11-28-2013 at 10:37 PM..
I was wondering if someone could think of one. The fact that you and no one else seem to be able to does not invalidate the question. It simply gives me an answer in the negative, which is as I suspected.
It was an invalid question because the premise was false. And you apparently already knew that when you asked it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
