GFK ranked 17th busiest airport in U.S.
November 6, 2012 at 3:56 am in Grand Forks Herald
The Grand Forks International Airport recently was ranked the 17th
busiest airport in the country, up from 21st in 2011. Continue Reading
GFK ranked 17th busiest airport in U.S.
21 Comments
1. Does GFK still rely on Air Force air traffic control? In the past–and probably now–all in-flight air traffic control was done at the GFAFB, so that “civilians” didn’t have access to military aircraft take-off and landing positions if the Air Force wanted to do something “secret”.
If so, I bet we’re #1 in the country for air ports that do not have on-site air traffic control.
2. What percentage of take-off and landings is related to UND flight-school?
First Guess: Without the flight school, GFK wouldn’t place in the top 100. Maybe not in the top 250.
Like or Dislike:
7 
14
I believe the last time this stat came it was admitted that it included touch and goes.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Radar approach control is still done by the air base when they are open or Minneapolis center if they are closed. The air base covers roughly 40 radius from the base. S even crookston gets some radar services.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
I have no idea what that means. I’ve loaded in places in many cities that are in line with airports. In fact I’m in Chicago today where I often see planes either coming in or taking off one after another. They come in so colose behind each other that it amazes me that they can keep landing them like that all day long. I don’t fly, but I’ve been to GF airport, and it’s definately no Ohare. I don’t understand how it can be ranked as being so busy. I think Hector in Fargo must be busier because I see planes around that one quite a bit since they’re not far from our truck yard in Fargo
Like or Dislike:
6 
12
To answer your question about Fargo, they do not even rank in the top 200 for busiest airports.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
Go out to the airport on a clear day. Not no fly November.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
I wasn’t being a smart ass….I live just a few miles from the airport and I don’t see a lot of air traffic around here. On the other hand when driving truck I’m often in major metro areas where I see jumbo jets lined up to land one behind he other for as far as I can see. I never accounted for the UND and Fed-Ex planes. When I see terminal I think commercial jets, and by comparison GF has a mere drop in the bucket of those
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I’m a controller at the Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) on the base. Let me assure you, we are BUSY! And Minneapolis Center no longer takes our airspace, we are 24/7.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Let’s face it, if only commercial aircraft were counted, GFK would be right up there with Caspar, WY. So why does the Herald run the story? Simple: to justify an uneeded terminal, yet another product of Fargo-envy, built with government pork, and unilaterally named by Hal Gershman with absoluely no community feedback.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
22
you’re joking right?
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
Nope.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6
Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as rude. But we work more commercial traffic into GFK than FAR does as well. Most people don’t realize that GFK is the FedEx hub for the region. Add this onto the Delta/Allegiant/United arrivals/departures, and you’d see this place is absolutely no joke.
Statements like “if only commercial were counted” are a bit irritating. General aviation, particularly UND, is a daily beatdown for the men and women who control them. Having what we do lessened because the planes are smaller is insulting. Which would you prefer: controlling 400 experienced, professional airline pilots a day, or 400 Chinese student pilots who haven’t yet mastered the English, let alone know how to pilot a plane. Option B still includes plenty of commercial traffic for the student pilots to get in the way of.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
2
Fed Ex does not pull up to the passenger terminal, which is what I’m talking about. Neither do the student pilots. The times I was at the old GFK I failed to see people packed in like sardines. Now with two floors the open space is noticeable. Funny thing is, with all that space, they reduced the “restaurant” to a closet. My point stands: it was not buiold out of need, but want…like so much in GF. A want cuz Fargo had a two-floor terminal. If was paid for by pork, ND’s favored meat. And Gershman pushed through getting the name of his buddy, and the guy whose campaign he continually contributed to, without one word of feedback from the city. Sorta like how the Aurora became the Alerus.
Like or Dislike:
9 
16
THANK YOU Gene.
The new terminal was a terrible waste of twenty million dollars plus “nobody knows” how much additional cost of interest.
The hateful roundabout is like a slap in the face to GF Citizens by the Council and the Airport Authority.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
Please explain your aversion for communist roundabouts.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Simple. The primary purpose of a roundabout is to slow, delay, and annoy traffic. They’re essentially a red light that can’t be turned green. Ever. Not without tearing up concrete and re-paving the road straight again. Oh, sure, they PRETEND that roundabouts are an alternative to “dangerous” intersections, but the REAL reason is that they force traffic to nail the brakes EVERY time, from ANY direction. In actual practice, they’re just an enormously expensive “circular speed bump”.
They’re about the only traffic construction where “Right of Way” CANNOT EVER apply. A roundabout is thrown into total chaos unless the drivers obey a “left of way” procedure.
They were a predominantly Eurotrash traffic congestion device; they’re only becoming popular because Euro Traffic Na zis have been inflicting them on European motorists without retaliation; which says as much about European tolerance of corrupt government as under-posted speed limits say about Americans’ tolerance of corrupt government.
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
So Schurkey you would say that roundabout’s reduction of accidents by 60% is propaganda.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Very likely. The obvious question is “reduction of accidents by 60% COMPARED TO WHAT?”
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
The less-obvious questions are “HOW are they measuring the “reduction”"?
Fewer numbers?
Less dollar value?
Fewer injuries?
The statistic you cite is utterly incomplete without a whole bunch of background information including methodology.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Why would you make such shallow arguments when info. is do readily available on the net?
Data from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety back up the case for a wider adoption of roundabouts. A 2001 study reported that converting intersections from traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 80 percent and all crashes by 40 percent. A similar study found a 75 percent decrease in injury crashes and a 37 percent decrease in total crashes at 35 intersections that were converted from traffic signals to roundabouts.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Schurkey, why is this the real reason? “REAL reason is that they force traffic to nail the brakes EVERY time, from ANY direction. In actual practice, they’re just an enormously expensive ‘circular speed bump’.”
So you seem to be suggesting roundabouts are a plot by brake manufacturers/repairers to increase business. Looney
Like or Dislike:
3 
2