I wonder if the new T2 will have a set up similar to LA's TBIT with both a big One World and Star Alliance business lounge. However, LA's One World First class lounge is operated by Qantas. At O'hare, I could see BA operating the F lounge. For *Alliance, I could imagine Swiss taking over. Thoughts?

I am calling some BS on this...They took out half of Bensenville(not a bad thing), but they didn't vote in Chicago so no problem. They do need to extend one of the MDW runways. The real big hold up is legacy carriers at ORD would push back against it. There are plenty of dumpy areas around MDW that should be bulldozed!!

And while we are at it, let's start a regional Airport authority. Most other city airports are run that way but not in machine politics Chicago.

Why? So Southwest can fly bigger planes into MDW? They don't fly bigger planes. Any dime spent extending runways at MDW is a dime that should go to ORD expansion.

You can be as indignant as you want, but no one alive today is going to live to see MDW's runways extended.

It just ain't happening. The phrase "political impossibility" comes to mind.

Midway’s runways are 6522 and 6445 feet long.
737-800 jets fully loaded require 5800 feet long runways.

List I found on the internet, i don’t know it’s accuracy.....
Aircraft / Runway Length Requirement / Midway’s acceptability

Airbus:
A318 / 3,400ft - 4,300ft / okay
A319 / 3,000ft - 5,000ft / okay
A320 / 3,500ft - 6,500ft / okay
A321 / 3,600ft - 6,300ft /okay
A330-200F / 3,000ft - 7,000ft / not fully loaded
A330-300 / 3,000ft - 7,000ft / not fully loaded
A340-600 / 5,800ft - 8,700ft / not fully loaded
A380-800 / 5,300ft - 7,000ft / not fully loaded

Boeing:
BC-17 Globemaster III / 3,500ft / okay
B717-200 / 3,600ft - 5,000ft / okay
B737-700 / 3,500ft - 5,000ft / okay
B737-800 / 3,800ft - 5,800ft / okay
B737-900 / 4,100ft - 5,900ft / okay
B757-200 / 3,900ft - 5,100ft / okay
B767-300 / 3,700ft - 5,300ft / okay
B777-200 / 3,700ft - 5,300ft / okay
B777-200LR / 5,300ft - 5,300ft / okay
B777-300ER / 4,700ft - 6,200ft / okay
B787-8 / 4,400ft - 5,000ft / okay
B787-9 / 4,400ft - 6,200ft / okay
B787-10 / 5,500ft - 7,000ft / not fully loaded
B747-SOFIA / 3,500ft - 5,400ft / okay
B747-VC-25 / 4,300ft - 7,300ft / not fully loaded
B747-200 / 4,500ft - 7,300ft / not fully loaded
B747-400 / 5,500ft - 7,300ft / not fully loaded
B747-800 / 5,000ft - 7,400ft / not fully loaded
B747-SCA / 6,000ft - 8,000ft / not fully loaded

Bombardier:
Dash 8-Q400 / 4,230ft / okay
CRJ-200 / 4,850ft / okay

Embraer:
ERJ-170 / 3,300ft - 4,300ft / okay
ERJ-175 / 3,300ft - 4,300ft / okay
ERJ-190 / 3,300ft - 4,300ft / okay
ERJ-195 / 3,800ft - 5,000ft / okay

Most of the 4 jet engine planes require longer runways, and only the very largest 2 jet engine planes when fully loaded require longer runways.
Why expand Midway when all of Southwest jet planes have no problems using Midway?

Midway - What about the possibility of building almost a symmetrical terminal like the one that is there now only on the south/west/or north side of the airfield.

Granted it may make delays unbearable and traffic a living nightmare more than it even is now but it would seem that there could be enough terminal space to expand to +40mill per year if built.

Whatever money would be needed to buy those adjoining neighborhoods and do civil engineering work might be twice as efficient if used to expand O'Hare. Also, have you actually driven through those dumpy areas; are they really dumpy compared to other parts of the South Side.

Consider a thought experiment about the economics of Midway. If MDW were closed and all traffic transferred to ORD -- and the entire square mile sold to developers (or Amazon Air or UPS for a drone base) -- would the proceeds be worth more than the cost of the incremental ORD expansion needed to absorb the transfer.

Probably not and it would consume a rather large chunk of ORD's airfield capacity improvements.

The 737-800 numbers aren't accurate by any means.

well, whatever the actual minimum runway length is for a 737-700/800, i think it's safe to say that MDW's 6,500' runways are sufficient to handle them considering that southwest's entire fleet is 737-700/800's and MDW is the airline's busiest "non-hub" hub. i mean, southwest has been safeley operating 737-700/800's at MDW for a couple decades now with only one issue that was absolutely weather related, so it doesn't appear that runway length is an issue.

the minimum take-off distance for a max-loaded 737-700/800 might be longer than 6,500', but the longest flight southwest operates from MDW is down to san juan ~2,000 miles away (and most other southwest flights from MDW are FAR shorter than that), and the maximum range for the aircraft is ~3,000 miles, so they likely are not going out with full fuel loads.

Well, what do you think the 737-800 numbers are?
I don’t mind being corrected, as I wrote I couldn’t verify the earlier data. But I do mind when the corrected numbers are not included in the reply!
Here’s where I found my earlier data:
https://community.infinite-flight.co...rements/107832

the areas around midway are not "dumpy". they are solidly working class. the homes are modest but they are well maintained, cared for, and affordable.

its true that cicero ave is a strip mall auto sewer, but im afraid that ship long ago sailed

yes.

cicero ave. might be an ugly auto-sewer shithole, but the residential side streets surrounding the airport are quintessential post-war bungalow belt, and in pretty tidy shape for the most part

random google man drops north, east, south, and west of MDW:

north - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7936...7i13312!8i6656

east - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7813...7i13312!8i6656

south - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7769...7i13312!8i6656

west - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7852...7i13312!8i6656

I actually fly the 737-800. I'm on a trip now but I'll post a better reply when I can get in front of a computer.

its funny, just the other day on curbed there was this whole thing on "stylish" MCM neighborhoods. truthfully, a lot of the pictures dont look all that different that post war chicago bungalow belt

https://www.curbed.com/2017/10/5/164...d-architecture

they may lack some of the sexiness of the more glass-intensive design you see elsewhere, but the basic influences are there, and you can find some pretty neat variations. ive always found their diminutive and human scaled size rather refreshing given the McMansionization of so much of our city.

Just from a quick glance, the data posted in the link appears to be landing distances, not takeoff distances. Generally, distance required for takeoff is greater than distance required for landing.

Also, I apologize for my original reply coming across as harsh as it did. That wasn't my intent.

Short answer:

Steely Dan's response above is accurate. The 737-800s operating in/out of MDW are not operating with full loads.

Long answer:

The data from the link is landing data, not takeoff data. Also, the data provided does not appear to use the 15% margin required for use in airline landing performance calculations. For the 737-800 landing at max landing weight, (144,000 lbs) the runway distance required ranges from about 4200 under dry conditions to 5600 feet when wet to 9600 feet when the braking action is poor. When landing at 130,000 lbs, the landing distance required ranges from 3900ft to 8900ft. Given that the longest landing distance available at MDW is on runway 13C (6059 ft) these numbers show that under dry conditions the runway length is sufficient, but rapidly become marginal to unusable as conditions deteriorate.

For takeoff, I used the data from the http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei.../acaps/737.pdf

Takeoff performance is generally calculated by determining the maximum weight an airliner can weigh on a given runway rather than the takeoff roll distance. Data from the charts indicates that departing on MDW's longest runway, 13C, (6522 ft) the maximum the 737-800 can weigh at takeoff is 155,000lbs under standard atmospheric conditions to around 140,000 lbs during the summer months. Again, the required runway distances increase as surface conditions deteriorate. The 737-800 maximum takeoff weight is 174,200 lbs, so this represents a significant reduction in payload.

Meh, in London the airports are all private companies (but with some government support I'm sure) that compete against each other. Heathrow is the best but of course it has the best location and routes.

You could probably extend that one runway to the SE, no? There doesn't seem to be any residential along that line for a bit.

and because every southwest flight that i've ever flown out of MDW was 100% booked, that payload reduction must be accounted for by lower fuel loads. as i pointed earlier, southwest doesn't fly anywhere from MDW that would require anything close to a full fuel load for a 737-800. chicago's central location once again pays dividends.



no, the southeast corner of the airport directly abuts a residential neighborhood:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7782.../data=!3m1!1e3

perhaps you were talking about the northeast corner? pretending that the major intersection of cicero and 55th isn't sitting directly in the path of that runway, there looks to be enough room to maybe extend it out to a total of ~8,000 before you run into a bunch of railroad ROW stuff.

but cicero and 55th IS in the way, and isn't going anywhere (it's the MAIN approach intersection to get to the airport in the first place). MDW's runways are what they are and aren't going to lengthened anytime soon (my bet is never).

yes, at 6,500', they are the shortest main runways at any of america's 30 large hub airports, but they aren't radically shorter than laguardia's two 7,000' runways, or reagan's lone 7,169' runway (reagan's 2 other runways are even shorter at 5,200' and 4,900'). and because all three of these airports serve as primarily domestic (+north america) secondary airports within their markets, they don't need longer runways to be able to handle the big wide bodies for long haul overseas flights. they all get on just fine with 737/A320 size aircraft.