wyliepoon
Senior Member
Link to article
Farther from the madding crowd
Overcrowding and high prices are driving smaller airlines and a growing number of passengers to alternative airports
DOUGLAS MCARTHUR
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
August 15, 2007 at 9:07 AM EDT
There's a video of London's Heathrow airport on YouTube that could make you swear off flying for life. To the pulsating beat of the Proclaimers hit 500 Miles, it pans along a seemingly endless queue of travellers patiently waiting in corridors and stairs to reach the security and customs counters. The clip's title, complete with a spelling error, is "The World's Unoffical Longest Line."
Whether the line actually sets a record or not, Heathrow can officially claim to be the world's busiest airport in terms of international passengers.
Toronto's Pearson airport has a different distinction: The International Air Transport Association labels it the world's most expensive airport for airlines to use. Pearson is also one of the few airports that charges passengers a fee not only for getting on an aircraft but also for the privilege of connecting from one plane to another.
So why do airlines still want to fly through Heathrow, Toronto and other congested airports around the world? And why do passengers still put up with the overcrowded and inconvenient terminals when there are quieter and friendlier alternatives available?
The short answers: Traditional airlines want to be where their competitors are for fear of losing market share, and passengers are forced to follow them to find the flights they need.
But there are indications alternative airports may finally be coming into their own and that passengers are eager to use them to avoid wear and tear on their nerves and pocketbooks.
Alternative airports can come in all sizes. London Luton Airport, despite its whopping 9.4 million passengers last year, can be considered a peaceful option when compared to Heathrow (67.4 million) and Gatwick (34.1 million). That's the main reason U.K.-based Silverjet chose Luton over Heathrow for its all-business-class service linking New York and London that kicked off in January.
Two other transatlantic airlines with all-premium seating - EOS Airlines and MAXJet Airways - use Stansted as their alternative airport for London. The U.S.-based carriers started service in 2005. While Stansted handled 23.7 million passengers last year, it is still a backwater when compared with Heathrow and Gatwick.
Toronto City Centre Airport, by contrast with Luton and Stansted, has only about a dozen flights each weekday. But its location, on an island off the downtown waterfront, makes it appealing to business travellers. So Porter Airlines picked it rather than Pearson when it went into competition with Air Canada and WestJet last year.
Meanwhile, two other second-tier airports, both a short drive from Pearson, have new services that are stealing passengers from their larger rival. Hamilton International, gained flights to 13 U.K. and Irish destinations in May when flyglobespan, a Scottish airline, moved its Ontario base out of Pearson. Meanwhile, also in May, WestJet started serving the Region of Waterloo International Airport for the first time with flights to Calgary.
Alternative airfields in the U.S. got a boost in the 1980s and 90s as Southwest Airlines began expanding beyond its Texas base. The discount carrier used a number of second-tier airfields as a key part of its low-fares strategy. In 1996 it began marketing the T.F. Green airport near Providence, R.I., as an alternative to Boston's busy Logan International. Passenger numbers at the airport quadrupled as a result. WestJet, which brought Southwest's game plan to Canada, has provided service to lightly used airports in Abbotsford, an hour's drive from Vancouver, since 1997, and in Hamilton since 2000.
In Europe, no-frills carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet slash their costs by serving large cities through secondary airports, some of them far off the beaten track. They serve Rome through Ciampino not Fiumicino, Frankfurt through Hahn not Frankfurt FRA and Denmark's capital Copenhagen through Malmo, which is located in another country, Sweden. Recently, Ryanair announced plans to launch flights across the Atlantic within the next four years. Fares will be as low as $15. Not surprisingly, its U.S. plans call for such secondary airports as Long Island for New York, Providence for Boston and Baltimore for Washington.
Today there is a new generation of no-frills carriers in the U.S. and, like Southwest, they also use alternative airports to reach larger cities. Allegiant Air serves Chicago through Rockford, Ill., and Philadelphia through Allentown, Pa. Both airports are about an hour from the destination city. Skybus Airlines, which took flight this spring, uses Portsmouth, N.H. as its Boston gateway. And while both carriers claim to fly into Vancouver, their flights actually use the sleepy airport in Bellingham, Wash., airport, just south of the Canadian border. In a similar display of cheek and chutzpah, the fledgling Plattsburgh International in New York State has begun promoting itself as "Montreal's U.S. airport."
The most common magnets drawing airlines to alternative airports are the low landing and service fees. Travellers can be attracted to smaller airports for a variety of reasons.
For some, the main appeal is proximity to their homes or businesses. Hamilton airport appeals to passengers living between Niagara Falls, London, Ont., and Mississauga because it means they can avoid the long drive to Pearson.
In many cases, alternative airports also offer lower fares than their larger competitors, especially if they are home to discount airlines. Why else but to save big bucks would Barcelona-bound passengers take Ryanair's flights to Girona, Spain, which is 110 kilometres from their real destination?
Low fares are the reason as well that U.S. border airports have long held appeal for some Canadian travellers. Fliers looking for a bargain opt for Buffalo over Toronto; Seattle or Bellingham over Vancouver; and Burlington, Vt. over Montreal. And with the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, the savings they offer will continue to increase.
Beyond pricing, small alternative airports offer other advantages. Often they are far from congested highways and have inexpensive, if not free, parking. Their check-in desks and gates can be steps apart and their security inspections rapid. As well, the low traffic volume means that minimal time is spent taxiing on the runway and that late flights are the exception not the rule.
On the downside, small alternative airports may not offer connecting flights if you need to continue your journey. And since departures may be far apart, a missed flight can bring a long wait. Food, beverage and shopping facilities may be limited and there may not be a lounge catering to frequent business fliers. As well, the remote location of some alternative airports - particularly those used by discount carriers in Europe - can mean a long and costly trip from airport to final destination.
Still many travellers deliberately choose alternative airports wherever they are available. Percy Odynak of Edmonton picks Ontario International Airport over Los Angeles LAX for his golf and vacation trips to Southern California. Highway traffic in and out of LAX is always heavy and checking in can be a "zoo," he says. And twice when he was there, the terminal was evacuated because of a security alert. Ontario, by contrast, is easy to navigate, and is only a one-hour drive from Palm Springs or Disneyland.
Ironically, while many Canadians choose U.S. border airports as alternatives to those near home, some Americans prefer to use Canadian border airports. Nate Hurley of Anne Arbour, Mich., paints an idyllic picture of flying out of Sarnia, Ont., compared with the more crowded Detroit International. Sarnia's airport is easy to drive to, has inexpensive parking and no lineup for check-in, he says. "We went outside and waited on a picnic table under a tree and watched the check-in agent carry our bags onto a pickup truck."
Amazingly, even Toronto's Pearson sometimes serves an alternative of choice. Writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in July, Martin Staniland, a university professor, promoted Pearson as a convenient and economic alternative to Philadelphia, Newark or New York's JFK for connections to Europe and Asia.
"Having used this connection several times," he wrote, "I now think of this as the quiet way to get at least to London or Paris and back."
The beauty of alternative airports, it seems, lies in the eye of the beholder.
*****
Alternatives
For London's Heathrow and Gatwick
London Luton Airport
Luton is a 25-minute express train ride from King's Cross station.
Stansted Airport
It is connected by express train to London's Liverpool Station.
London City Airport
Located in the Docklands, close to London's financial district.
For Toronto's Pearson
John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport
About 2.3 million people live closer to Hamilton's airport than to Toronto's.
Toronto City Centre
Passengers reach this small airport by ferry.
Region of WaterlooInternational Airport
This airport, 90 minutes west of Toronto, took off after runway and terminal renovations.
For Vancouver
Abbotsford International
Located an hour's drive from Vancouver, the airport markets itself to 1.5 million residents in B.C.'s Lower Mainland.
Bellingham International
Closer to Vancouver than Seattle, this drowsy Washington state airport is home to two new discount carriers.
Farther from the madding crowd
Overcrowding and high prices are driving smaller airlines and a growing number of passengers to alternative airports
DOUGLAS MCARTHUR
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
August 15, 2007 at 9:07 AM EDT
There's a video of London's Heathrow airport on YouTube that could make you swear off flying for life. To the pulsating beat of the Proclaimers hit 500 Miles, it pans along a seemingly endless queue of travellers patiently waiting in corridors and stairs to reach the security and customs counters. The clip's title, complete with a spelling error, is "The World's Unoffical Longest Line."
Whether the line actually sets a record or not, Heathrow can officially claim to be the world's busiest airport in terms of international passengers.
Toronto's Pearson airport has a different distinction: The International Air Transport Association labels it the world's most expensive airport for airlines to use. Pearson is also one of the few airports that charges passengers a fee not only for getting on an aircraft but also for the privilege of connecting from one plane to another.
So why do airlines still want to fly through Heathrow, Toronto and other congested airports around the world? And why do passengers still put up with the overcrowded and inconvenient terminals when there are quieter and friendlier alternatives available?
The short answers: Traditional airlines want to be where their competitors are for fear of losing market share, and passengers are forced to follow them to find the flights they need.
But there are indications alternative airports may finally be coming into their own and that passengers are eager to use them to avoid wear and tear on their nerves and pocketbooks.
Alternative airports can come in all sizes. London Luton Airport, despite its whopping 9.4 million passengers last year, can be considered a peaceful option when compared to Heathrow (67.4 million) and Gatwick (34.1 million). That's the main reason U.K.-based Silverjet chose Luton over Heathrow for its all-business-class service linking New York and London that kicked off in January.
Two other transatlantic airlines with all-premium seating - EOS Airlines and MAXJet Airways - use Stansted as their alternative airport for London. The U.S.-based carriers started service in 2005. While Stansted handled 23.7 million passengers last year, it is still a backwater when compared with Heathrow and Gatwick.
Toronto City Centre Airport, by contrast with Luton and Stansted, has only about a dozen flights each weekday. But its location, on an island off the downtown waterfront, makes it appealing to business travellers. So Porter Airlines picked it rather than Pearson when it went into competition with Air Canada and WestJet last year.
Meanwhile, two other second-tier airports, both a short drive from Pearson, have new services that are stealing passengers from their larger rival. Hamilton International, gained flights to 13 U.K. and Irish destinations in May when flyglobespan, a Scottish airline, moved its Ontario base out of Pearson. Meanwhile, also in May, WestJet started serving the Region of Waterloo International Airport for the first time with flights to Calgary.
Alternative airfields in the U.S. got a boost in the 1980s and 90s as Southwest Airlines began expanding beyond its Texas base. The discount carrier used a number of second-tier airfields as a key part of its low-fares strategy. In 1996 it began marketing the T.F. Green airport near Providence, R.I., as an alternative to Boston's busy Logan International. Passenger numbers at the airport quadrupled as a result. WestJet, which brought Southwest's game plan to Canada, has provided service to lightly used airports in Abbotsford, an hour's drive from Vancouver, since 1997, and in Hamilton since 2000.
In Europe, no-frills carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet slash their costs by serving large cities through secondary airports, some of them far off the beaten track. They serve Rome through Ciampino not Fiumicino, Frankfurt through Hahn not Frankfurt FRA and Denmark's capital Copenhagen through Malmo, which is located in another country, Sweden. Recently, Ryanair announced plans to launch flights across the Atlantic within the next four years. Fares will be as low as $15. Not surprisingly, its U.S. plans call for such secondary airports as Long Island for New York, Providence for Boston and Baltimore for Washington.
Today there is a new generation of no-frills carriers in the U.S. and, like Southwest, they also use alternative airports to reach larger cities. Allegiant Air serves Chicago through Rockford, Ill., and Philadelphia through Allentown, Pa. Both airports are about an hour from the destination city. Skybus Airlines, which took flight this spring, uses Portsmouth, N.H. as its Boston gateway. And while both carriers claim to fly into Vancouver, their flights actually use the sleepy airport in Bellingham, Wash., airport, just south of the Canadian border. In a similar display of cheek and chutzpah, the fledgling Plattsburgh International in New York State has begun promoting itself as "Montreal's U.S. airport."
The most common magnets drawing airlines to alternative airports are the low landing and service fees. Travellers can be attracted to smaller airports for a variety of reasons.
For some, the main appeal is proximity to their homes or businesses. Hamilton airport appeals to passengers living between Niagara Falls, London, Ont., and Mississauga because it means they can avoid the long drive to Pearson.
In many cases, alternative airports also offer lower fares than their larger competitors, especially if they are home to discount airlines. Why else but to save big bucks would Barcelona-bound passengers take Ryanair's flights to Girona, Spain, which is 110 kilometres from their real destination?
Low fares are the reason as well that U.S. border airports have long held appeal for some Canadian travellers. Fliers looking for a bargain opt for Buffalo over Toronto; Seattle or Bellingham over Vancouver; and Burlington, Vt. over Montreal. And with the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, the savings they offer will continue to increase.
Beyond pricing, small alternative airports offer other advantages. Often they are far from congested highways and have inexpensive, if not free, parking. Their check-in desks and gates can be steps apart and their security inspections rapid. As well, the low traffic volume means that minimal time is spent taxiing on the runway and that late flights are the exception not the rule.
On the downside, small alternative airports may not offer connecting flights if you need to continue your journey. And since departures may be far apart, a missed flight can bring a long wait. Food, beverage and shopping facilities may be limited and there may not be a lounge catering to frequent business fliers. As well, the remote location of some alternative airports - particularly those used by discount carriers in Europe - can mean a long and costly trip from airport to final destination.
Still many travellers deliberately choose alternative airports wherever they are available. Percy Odynak of Edmonton picks Ontario International Airport over Los Angeles LAX for his golf and vacation trips to Southern California. Highway traffic in and out of LAX is always heavy and checking in can be a "zoo," he says. And twice when he was there, the terminal was evacuated because of a security alert. Ontario, by contrast, is easy to navigate, and is only a one-hour drive from Palm Springs or Disneyland.
Ironically, while many Canadians choose U.S. border airports as alternatives to those near home, some Americans prefer to use Canadian border airports. Nate Hurley of Anne Arbour, Mich., paints an idyllic picture of flying out of Sarnia, Ont., compared with the more crowded Detroit International. Sarnia's airport is easy to drive to, has inexpensive parking and no lineup for check-in, he says. "We went outside and waited on a picnic table under a tree and watched the check-in agent carry our bags onto a pickup truck."
Amazingly, even Toronto's Pearson sometimes serves an alternative of choice. Writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in July, Martin Staniland, a university professor, promoted Pearson as a convenient and economic alternative to Philadelphia, Newark or New York's JFK for connections to Europe and Asia.
"Having used this connection several times," he wrote, "I now think of this as the quiet way to get at least to London or Paris and back."
The beauty of alternative airports, it seems, lies in the eye of the beholder.
*****
Alternatives
For London's Heathrow and Gatwick
London Luton Airport
Luton is a 25-minute express train ride from King's Cross station.
Stansted Airport
It is connected by express train to London's Liverpool Station.
London City Airport
Located in the Docklands, close to London's financial district.
For Toronto's Pearson
John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport
About 2.3 million people live closer to Hamilton's airport than to Toronto's.
Toronto City Centre
Passengers reach this small airport by ferry.
Region of WaterlooInternational Airport
This airport, 90 minutes west of Toronto, took off after runway and terminal renovations.
For Vancouver
Abbotsford International
Located an hour's drive from Vancouver, the airport markets itself to 1.5 million residents in B.C.'s Lower Mainland.
Bellingham International
Closer to Vancouver than Seattle, this drowsy Washington state airport is home to two new discount carriers.
