Major airport statistics - Page 2

bilbao58 · #21 Posted **Apr 10, 2024, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

There's an extravagant amount of land…

It’s a former Air Force base. I assume the amount of land was originally the choice of the US government.

bilbao58 · #22 Posted **Apr 10, 2024, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

San Francisco International Airport: 8.13 square miles
Los Angeles International Airport: 4.6 square miles

SFO is almost twice as big as LAX? there's not much room to expand in SFO. This doesn't make sense, LAX seems much bigger and better runway configuration.

All of the runways at LAX are parallel. SFO has crossing runways, which necessarily uses more land area.

ETA: Just kidding! ( I stand corrected.

)

edale · #23 Posted **Apr 10, 2024, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

San Francisco International Airport: 8.13 square miles
Los Angeles International Airport: 4.6 square miles

SFO is almost twice as big as LAX? there's not much room to expand in SFO. This doesn't make sense, LAX seems much bigger and better runway configuration.

I wonder if some of the 8+ miles owned by SFO is water. It certainly doesn't appear to take up twice as much land as LAX...

mhays · #24 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 12:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilbao58

All of the runways at LAX are parallel. SFO has crossing runways, which necessarily uses more land area.

Actually no. With two runways you can use some of the runway area twice. More practically, a cross-runway system doesn't have to worry about parallel traffic streams in low-visibility, so they don't have the factor that drives a lot of the wider spacing elsewhere.

Parallel runways can operate together on instruments if they're 2,500' apart as a baseline, thought that can vary based on other considerations. With visual landings the difference only needs to be 700', again with some added complexities. Any airport with hub ambitions will try for the larger standard.

It looks like the LAX pairs are about 700' and 800' apart btw. The two pairs are more like 4,600 apart, a common feature of "terminal in the middle" design.

As for SFO, on Google Earth I get about 2,100 acres or 3.3. square miles...less than half of the stat in the OP. But they do use the larger figure per Wikipedia. (Edit: per the map on Page 3 here, the majority of the property is water.)

Steely Dan · #25 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 2:10 AM**

MDW is the smallest airport (1.01 sq. miles) on the original list, with a very traditional old school crossing runway configuration, and even then a lot of the airport land space is "wasted" as expanses of lawn to create separation between runways and taxiways.

Source: https://stock.adobe.com/images/aeria...cago/446659909

Yuri · #26 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 12:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I've flown into Santos Dumont before and also done plane watching from Sugar Loaf. Sugar Loaf is awesome because it's one of the few places in the world where you can plane watch from high above the plane.

Another Santos Dumont distinctiveness is the fact of being located inside Downtown. The majority of Downtown Rio's landmarks are all located less than 1km away from it and it's even served by Downtown's tram. It's the closer airport to a Downtown in the world.

BTW, I did the math again and Congonhas and Santos Dumont actually have the same density, with SDU slightly ahead: 0.636 sq mile and 0.322 sq mile, 22.1 million and 11.4 million passengers. 34.7 million and 35.4 million respectively.

But as I said, as Rio Galeão collapsed (13.5 million in 2019 to 7.8 million in 2023) while Santos Dumont went from 8.9 million in 2019 to 11.4 million in 2023, there were several discussions during 2023 to put a cap on it to bail Galeão out. SDU is already on its limits anyway.

iheartthed · #27 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

I wonder if some of the 8+ miles owned by SFO is water. It certainly doesn't appear to take up twice as much land as LAX...

SFO does look visually larger than LAX to me, but maybe it's because the terminals at LAX sit between the runways, while at SFO the terminals are on the edge of the airfield.

iheartthed · #28 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri

Another Santos Dumont distinctiveness is the fact of being located inside Downtown. The majority of Downtown Rio's landmarks are all located less than 1km away from it and it's even served by Downtown's tram. It's the closer airport to a Downtown in the world.

BTW, I did the math again and Congonhas and Santos Dumont actually have the same density, with SDU slightly ahead: 0.636 sq mile and 0.322 sq mile, 22.1 million and 11.4 million passengers. 34.7 million and 35.4 million respectively.

But as I said, as Rio Galeão collapsed (13.5 million in 2019 to 7.8 million in 2023) while Santos Dumont went from 8.9 million in 2019 to 11.4 million in 2023, there were several discussions during 2023 to put a cap on it to bail Galeão out. SDU is already on its limits anyway.

Yeah, I saw the info about GIG while I was looking up the stats for SDU. It's such a conveniently located airport, so I get it. When I last flew into Santos Dumont I walked from the airport to centro with my luggage. It's the only time I've ever walked from an airport to the city center.

Buckeye Native 001 · #29 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

I wonder if some of the 8+ miles owned by SFO is water. It certainly doesn't appear to take up twice as much land as LAX...

Might explain why it always looks like you're going to land in the bay right before touching down at SFO

Yuri · #30 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, I saw the info about GIG while I was looking up the stats for SDU. It's such a conveniently located airport, so I get it. When I last flew into Santos Dumont I walked from the airport to centro with my luggage. It's the only time I've ever walked from an airport to the city center.

GIG and SDU are opposites: GIG is by far the largest in Brazil in area. I checked it out and it’s 7.26 sq miles. An US kind of airport basically. You can fit 23 SDUs inside it!

It was up to the late 1980’s Brazilian gateway and now it’s clearly oversized. Not near dramatic, but it’s the a Mirabel kind of story.

Anyway, I was checked Jan-Feb stats and it seems the reorganization has been implemented: SDU is heading for only 5 million passengers this year and GIG will be at 14 million.

craigs · #31 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 6:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Might explain why it always looks like you're going to land in the bay right before touching down at SFO

Boston Logan is the same in that regard.

edale · #32 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs

Boston Logan is the same in that regard.

So is Oakland and LaGuardia

ATXboom · #33 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilbao58

It’s a former Air Force base. I assume the amount of land was originally the choice of the US government.

That's correct. Land area was determined by the government a long time ago and transitioned to become ABIA in the late 90's.

A second terminal is in design phases now and will start construction asap. Layout follows Atlanta's with multiple midfield terminals connected by underground train. I'd expect Delta to fill their southern US gap with a hub here in the next 10-15 yrs. It's going to be a very crowded terminal for another several years until the new terminal comes online. Here's the near term plan: https://assets.austintexas.gov/finan..._ATT_18_v1.pdf

JManc · #34 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 7:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXboom

That's correct. Land area was determined by the government a long time ago and transitioned to become ABIA in the late 90's.

A second terminal is in design phases now and will start construction asap. Layout follows Atlanta's with multiple midfield terminals connected by underground train. I'd expect Delta to fill their southern US gap with a hub here in the next 10-15 yrs. It's going to be a very crowded terminal for another several years until the new terminal comes online.

Whoa. Thats big news for Austin and WAAAY overdue.

ATXboom · #35 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

Whoa. Thats big news for Austin and WAAAY overdue.

Here's the near term plan FWIW: https://assets.austintexas.gov/finan..._ATT_18_v1.pdf

mrnyc · #36 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

So is Oakland and LaGuardia

and burke

JManc · #37 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Here's the near term plan FWIW: https://assets.austintexas.gov/finan..._ATT_18_v1.pdf

That will be great for you guys and don't have to schlep through IAH or DFW to get anywhere.

mrnyc · #38 Posted **Apr 11, 2024, 10:56 PM**

wow from 9M passengers in 2012 to 22M last year. yeesh thats another crazy austin boom stat --
for comparison cle hopkins had 10M last year and even with akron-cantion at 600k added in its no where close to that.

badrunner · #39 Posted **Apr 12, 2024, 1:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

SFO does look visually larger than LAX to me, but maybe it's because the terminals at LAX sit between the runways, while at SFO the terminals are on the edge of the airfield.

LAX actually looks a little bigger in land area: https://acme.com/same_scale/#37.6231...8.40974,14,S,S and its runway arrangement handles more traffic than SFO. They must be counting the water out to the runway lights as well as Seaplane Harbor.

iheartthed · #40 Posted **Apr 12, 2024, 3:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner

LAX actually looks a little bigger in land area: https://acme.com/same_scale/#37.6231...8.40974,14,S,S and its runway arrangement handles more traffic than SFO. They must be counting the water out to the runway lights as well as Seaplane Harbor.

I agree that LAX looks the same size, or a little larger, from the satellite view. But on the ground in both airports I think SFO gives the appearance of having a larger area because of the arrangement of the terminals and airfield.