List of airports and total gate numbers! - Page 3

Steely Dan · #41 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 5:08 PM**

Chicago Midway (MDW): 45 gates

j korzeniowski · #42 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 5:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Chicago Midway (MDW): 45 gates

ah, beat me to it.

so, here is chicago's 3rd airport (kinda), general mitchell in milwaukee: 48 gates.

at least that's what i counted.

Allnatural85 · #43 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 6:34 PM**

LAX has a low number of gates for the amount of passengers yearly. Do we use on average larger aircraft then im assuming

brickell · #44 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 6:59 PM**

FLL - 57
PBI - 28
MIA - 123

Metro total (because that's what we always do) - 208

dimondpark · #45 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allnatural85

LAX has a low number of gates for the amount of passengers yearly. Do we use on average larger aircraft then im assuming

I don't know but the American Terminal at LAX, which Ive been using a lot lately, is totally packed all the time....argh,

ChrisLA · #46 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 8:50 PM**

LAX is such a small airport 5 square miles in comparison to others who handle around the same the volume of air traffic and passengers, so most of the day it's usually a mad house. Each time I have to leave out of LAX or even pick someone up from there I start to feel stressed just thinking about it. The traffic in and around the airport is nasty, and when driving around inside of the airport I feel as if I'm driving on a Manhattan street with all of the aggressive drivers. Lines inside of the terminals are always long, and it doesn't not have to be during the holidays. The only other airport I seen that was almost as crazy was JFK in NYC, but LAX is certainly one of the most stressful airports I've experienced.

Another thing I have noticed at LAX gates is they are constantly busy with airplanes moving in immediately as one leaves another is pulling up. There has been times when arriving where we had to wait for a gate to become available. I used to work for SITA who owned the the data circuits/equipment at three of the terminals at LAX, it was always a mad rush to get a tech over to the gate for quick fixes. I believe it was the only airport we serviced where the techs had to keep stock of gate readers with that at all times for quick replacements in order to keep those planes moving in and out of the gates. I realize time is important at every large airport, but it emphasis to get equipment up and running even more so at this airport from my experience. At one time we handled LAX, SFO, and Vancouver on the west coast out of LA office.

L41A · #47 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 9:25 PM**

^^^ ATL airport is relatively small in land size as well .... 7 square miles.

Steely Dan · #48 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 10:21 PM**

if we're switching this up to airport size now, here are chicago's:

ORD - ~12 sq. miles

MDW - ~1 sq. mile (literally, it is 1 square mile plunked right down in the middle of the city street grid, running from 55th down to 63rd, and from cicero out to central. 8 blocks x 8 blocks = 1 sq. mile in chicago)

source: google maps

i believe denver will own this category. that place is MASSIVE.

texcolo · #49 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 10:48 PM**

^

I landed at Midway once. It was straight down right over row houses and then they slammed on the breaks to not overshoot the 1.5 mile long runway.

Nice little airport though. I took the Orange Line straight downtown. I like it better than LaGuardia. At LaGuardia you come in right over Riker's Island. Crashing sucks, but crashing into Riker's Island... no thanks.

Love Field is stealing D/FW's thunder. If they keep relaxing the Wright Amendment, D/FW will continue to fall in the rankings.

fflint · #50 Posted **Apr 16, 2013, 11:00 PM**

^Same experience here with Midway--came in right in over the houses, rigorous braking on the runway, and then straight to the Orange Line for the win. I'd fly into Midway over O'Hare anyday.

Cirrus · #51 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 12:37 AM**

Washington National is 1.34 square miles.

image from wikipedia

ChiSoxRox · #52 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 1:03 AM**

More gate numbers:

Lambert St. Louis (STL) - 59 operational
Kansas City (MCI) - 59
Des Moines (DSM) - 15

ChrisLA · #53 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by L41A

ATL airport is relatively small in land size as well .... 7 square miles.

I've flown into Atlanta twice, but for some reason I thought it was much larger than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by texcolo

^
Love Field is stealing D/FW's thunder. If they keep relaxing the Wright Amendment, D/FW will continue to fall in the rankings.

We flew into Love Field on my last trip to Dallas, it was the first time I used that airport. Much more convenient to use than DFW, but again depending on who I stay with in the metro both can be useful for me.

D/FW is quite large, it's my understanding the airport is 50 sq miles. The first time I heard this I was in awe, and thinking this is the size of a large city like San Francisco. All I know is when you land there it's seems like it takes forever to get to the gate, and forget about trying changing airplanes. You better have on your running shoes to make it on time to board at the next gate. (lol)

L41A · #54 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 2:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

if we're switching this up to airport size now, here are chicago's:

ORD - ~12 sq. miles

MDW - ~1 sq. mile (literally, it is 1 square mile plunked right down in the middle of the city street grid, running from 55th down to 63rd, and from cicero out to central. 8 blocks x 8 blocks = 1 sq. mile in chicago)

i believe denver will own this category. that place is MASSIVE.

I don't think we are switching to airport size per se. But I was reading this thread like a book. It started with number of gates. Then gate utilization based on the number of passengers was interjected followed by one airport's land size for further comparisons.

I was just adding that ATL airport is not very big in land size (7 sq mi) - especially when you consider the number of gates and the number of passengers. I find all of what has been posted so far in this thread interesting and informative.

brickell · #55 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 3:07 AM**

I'm measuring MIA at 4.3 sq miles
FLL is right at around 2
PBI somewhere around 2.2

MCO on the other hand is north of 9+ sq miles
I take it no one has counted the gates there either... looks like 96

texcolo · #56 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 3:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

I've flown into Atlanta twice, but for some reason I thought it was much larger than this.

We flew into Love Field on my last trip to Dallas, it was the first time I used that airport. Much more convenient to use than DFW, but again depending on who I stay with in the metro both can be useful for me.

D/FW is quite large, it's my understanding the airport is 50 sq miles. The first time I heard this I was in awe, and thinking this is the size of a large city like San Francisco. All I know is when you land there it's seems like it takes forever to get to the gate, and forget about trying changing airplanes. You better have on your running shoes to make it on time to board at the next gate. (lol)

D/FW is a great airport if you want to drive your car, park it, and be within a thousand feet of your gate. In that way it's unparalleled. For transfers it's awful. It was also designed and built in the early 70's before the hub system.

ATL Atlanta essentially a denser, busier version of DEN Denver. It has the 7 terminals strung along an underground walkway / railway spine, as opposed to Denver's 3. It's the busiest airport and the world, and it feels like it. Gobs and gobs of people and the terminals have low slung roofs which makes it feel even more crowded. I do like the fact that, if you wanted, you could walk from terminal T to F. It's great to stretch the legs after a long flight.

L41A · #57 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

I've flown into Atlanta twice, but for some reason I thought it was much larger than this.

We flew into Love Field on my last trip to Dallas, it was the first time I used that airport. Much more convenient to use than DFW, but again depending on who I stay with in the metro both can be useful for me.

D/FW is quite large, it's my understanding the airport is 50 sq miles. The first time I heard this I was in awe, and thinking this is the size of a large city like San Francisco. All I know is when you land there it's seems like it takes forever to get to the gate, and forget about trying changing airplanes. You better have on your running shoes to make it on time to board at the next gate. (lol)

I always heard the land size of ATL airport was not that large when compared to some other airports. But like I do often before I post on this site, I checked two sources for information - one was ATL airport website that stated that the land size of ATL was 4700 acres (7.3 sq mi). Another source of FAA registered airports stated the same thing. This same source also stated that LAX land size is 3500 acres (5.5 sq. mi.) as you stated.

This same source also stated the land size of DEN (Denver) is 33,457 acres (52.3 sq. mi). From what I could find DFW airport land size is 28.2 sq. mi.

ChrisLA · #58 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by L41A

I always heard the land size of ATL airport was not that large when compared to some other airports. But like I do often before I post on this site, I checked two sources for information - one was ATL airport website that stated that the land size of ATL was 4700 acres (7.3 sq mi). Another source of FAA registered airports stated the same thing. This same source also stated that LAX land size is 3500 acres (5.5 sq. mi.) as you stated.

This same source also stated the land size of DEN (Denver) is 33,457 acres (52.3 sq. mi). From what I could find DFW airport land size is 28.2 sq. mi.

Thanks, perhaps it was DEN I was thinking of.

KevinFromTexas · #59 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 5:48 AM**

I couldn't find the gate number for Amarillo's airport. I don't know if it has more than 10 or not. It is an international airport, even if it has no actual international flights. One interesting note about it is the airport has one of the longest runways in the country. It is 13,502 feet. Amarillo's airport has twice been the landing site of NASA's piggybacked shuttles. It's one of the only commercial airports where a shuttle has landed. Amarillo's terminal was also renamed the Rick Husband Terminal after the Columbia Shuttle astronaut who died in the 2003 Columbia disaster over Texas. Rick Husband was an Amarillo native.

I don't there there are any other airports in Texas with more than 10 gates. Even Corpus Christi's only has 6 gates, and their terminal is only a decade old.

tayser · #60 Posted **Apr 17, 2013, 6:22 AM**

What are you all referring to when you say "gates"?

Gates with or without airbridges?

i,e:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlidellWx

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport - MSY

Concourse A: 6 gates
Concourse B: 11 gates
Concourse C: 15 gates
Concourse D: 12 gates

Airport Total: 44 gates

Served 8,600,860 passengers in 2012.

Ranked as 40th busiest airport in US, 45th busiest airport in North America (Canada & US), and 154th busiest in the world.

http://www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports

Melbourne 47 airbridge gates & 29 million passengers a year.
Nawlens 44 gates (with or without airbridges?) and only 8.6 million passengers a year...