Would much rather see Gary attract the LCCs. They've already got the South Shore adjacent to the airport, and it is already surrounded by Chicagoland unlike Rockford which is a signficant distance outside the bleeding edge of sprawl. The recent runway expansion means that all but the biggest jets can land... the biggest problem there is simply the dysfunctional government of Gary which controls the airport with 4 out of 7 seats on the board.

Ideally the State of Indiana could step in and offer to help fund a speculative terminal (on the south side of the airfield, with a skybridge over the toll road to South Shore platforms) in exchange for one or two board seats being stripped away from Gary... they just cut a similar deal with South Shore, an honest-to-god commercial airport along the South Shore could seriously boost ridership and justify the state's investment in the railroad.

(RFD) Rockford is serving a purpose as a large cargo hub. Amazon-UPS and others are finding it a perfect location to access the Chicagoland market. And its PAX market is the typical Florida/Carribean/Sunbelt market that can thrive with multiple flights a week to several popular destinations.

I cant believe that it is the fault of the Gary (GYY) governance that this airport has not matured. The GM at GYY is the former GM at RFD so he knows the market. Why have vacation airlines of Allegiant and Apple rejected GYY? SWA could set up shop their, Frontier, Spirit even Delta could operate out of GYY. I think it is simply the marketplace at work. The market around GYY is non-existent, the closer to GYY the fewer flying passenger. As the crow fly further from GYY the closer the resident is to other more attractive airports, including South Bend on the eastern side of GYY.

The fact is that SWA and Frontier and Delta are finding that Milwaukee Mitchell is more to their liking to access a much larger base of passengers. And they do not see the need to add another port in the Chicago region. Delta is at ORD, MDW and MKE. AA & UA & Frontier are at MKE and ORD. SWA is at MDW & MKE. Even Volaris operates at MKE and MDW. Nothing is preventing any operator from setting up shop in GYY - nothing is attracting them either.

All these things are interesting, but the fact that GYY is not in the state of Illinois is probably it's biggest burden. . . there's no incentive to promote an out of state airport when it's home state of Indiana doesn't even seem to care about it. . .

. . .

Even with all the issues outlined in the above postings, I also think the very fact that it's in Gary is a turn-off for many pax and potential airlines. It just has a huge bad rep. Even though you'd hop right on the toll road or the South Shore (also not exactly an award-winning option) no one wants to fly to Gary. So many airlines have tried and failed, that I'd be skittish about starting flights there.

Now, if Indiana could get their act together and the prices were cheap enough traffic would emerge. While Gary withers away, there is a huge population in the surrounding areas, and the option of quick transit into Chicago after a cheap-o flight could work.

Certainly, I'd rather see Gary develop than to bring Peotone back to life - I thought is was dead, but now some are talking about it again.

Peotone is also in the path of the worst weather around the Chicagoland area. To bad the foolish lawmakers in Indiana cannot come to an agreement for northern Indiana and the Gary airport. That airport could become a cashcow, but instead they live and love central and southern Indiana and neglect the north. Maybe that's for the best as do we really want Indiana getting part of the Illinois tax base??

peotone is such a monumentally bone-headed idea.

why won't it just die. forever.

It is dead. . . for some it's just not politically convenient to acknowledge that fact. . .

. . .

True this - every time a storm rolls through it heads right for that area (except those that head north). A veritable storm magnet, it seems.

Sure we do. If passenger, it won't be a huge airport, so not a lot of spillover growth.. just check out all the "growth" around the Rockford or South Bend airports. If freight-only, it might be a net gain for the region, but it also might end up being a magnet for firms who are currently based in older, first-ring suburbs. That's just shifting the tax base around, and damaging existing communities and civic finances in the process.

The region as a whole will win if a third airport, be it for passenger or freight, is well-connected to the existing transit system and brings any growth to benefit existing communities instead of being isolated in a cornfield. The challenge for leaders is to find a way around the corruption and the image problems that drove investment away from Gary in the first place.

Our governor is the one "refusing to acknowledge" the death of the Peotone plan, and he is the one with the power to bring it back from the dead. Maybe it's just a trick to get votes from south suburban reps, but those reps clearly think Peotone's time has come, and apparently they can't think of any other ideas for economic development beyond this idiotic plan that will only hasten the decline of existing, struggling suburbs. It's weird that somehow a leftward lurch in politics is pushing us toward more destructive urban sprawl, but welcome to Illinois I guess... :shrug:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/metro-s...ight-191-crash

O’Hare western access tollway planned for field where Flight 191 crashed 40 years ago

40-acre parcel where American Airlines jet went down is critical in plan for long-promised entry to airport

By David Roeder@RoederDavid May 24, 2019, 11:01am CDT

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/I7Ds...3_100005.0.jpg

Avianca may suspend Chicago flights sooner than planned due to all the financial issues they are having. Latest Avianca news.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/avia...n-authorities/

ORD contract with Gang officially signs, via Crains

That's why it's just not politically convenient to acknowledge the fact that it's dead. . .

. . .

I don't get the split architect thing if they need to follow the satellite terminals set by Gang. Just have Gang do it all. I have no problems with Gang's. They look nice in the renders.

I pretty much agree. From the small glimpses of what I saw of the other concourse renders I'd say I think Gangs looked the most impressive anyway. Fosters looked pretty good as well.

O'hare will end up always being a mish-mash of designs anyway, I find nothing wrong with this aesthetic honesty and having completely different concourses designs from the rest of the airport if those are deemed the best on their own merits.

There's various reasons to do it this way. The project team may not be capable of doing the entire enchilada without hiring a ton of temporary workers - easier said than done in the architecture industry.

Also, putting the AOR job on the satellite concourses out to bid should, in theory, get the city a better price due to competition.

It does look like Gang's design will be used as a template for the satellite concourses, likely as a way to control costs by using the same supplier network and some of the same subcontractors.

I haven't been there yet. I couldn't remember what happened of AA FLT#191. Since I was baby. It's been over four decades now.

Flight 191 was a DC10 wich when new had a lot of problems including a main deck failure and this incident which was caused by an engine pylon failing. The aircraft was so poorly designed that when the engine came off it tore out the hydraulic lines wich allowed the flaps hydraulics on that side to loose pressure and start retracting. Mcdonald Douglas made good airplanes but the DC10 when new was not one of them. It took years after production started to sort the "pig" out. The aircraft took off from now closed 32R. The UA DC10 crash in Iowa years later was also a case of poor design that allowed unprotected controls to be torn out by engine failure.

There was a auto junkyard and a small old closed private airport runway at that site at the time of the crash.

The DC-10. Flowed but beauty looking plane, however.

The engine pylon failure wasn't McDonnell Douglas's fault. Several airlines, AA included, were using a shortcut procedure for engine mounting, rather than the procedure prescribed by the manufacturer.