SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87889)

Chicago Shawn Jul 16, 2010 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore (Post 4914891)
It's a valid argument. If you look at a population-distribution map of the entire United States, you'll probably notice that ATL is near the center of population for the entire US population that's east of I-35. It's somewhat conveniently halfway between Chicago and Miami, and it's also roughly halfway between the Northeast and Texas/Gulf Coast. Throw in all the international traffic to Europe, Africa, and Latin America and you get the picture.

I have connected through Atlanta twice on International flights. I noticed tons of Europeans connecting to other flights at ATL to take them to Disney World and the the like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Urban Politician
Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

It really doesn't anymore. China will soon have the world's busiest airports, with the rapid urbanization and rising middle class in that country its only inevitable that air travel will continue to grow. Add in the diaspora that returns home for Chinese New Year (the largest annual migration in the world) and we have passenger numbers that will be hard to beat.

Just make ORD as convenient to the rest of the world as possible, that is what really matters.

nomarandlee Jul 16, 2010 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie (Post 4915053)
As a frequent traveller, I would like to see ORD get links to BA, Rio, Dubai, Moscow and maybe Cape-Town/Johanesburg. I think that is where service at ORD can improve.

Agreed, save maybe Dubai. Beyond that I would also like maybe Lagos, Colombia, and Morocco.

Kngkyle Jul 16, 2010 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4914941)
Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.

The problem isn't that ORD lost #1. It's that ORD lost #1 because of constant service cuts, not because other cities grew exponentially. (Beijing excluded) So while ATL is growing slowly, at least it is growing - ORD has been shrinking for years now.

Although according to Wikipedia ORD is seeing some growth this year and has passed LHR again for 2010 to date.

F1 Tommy Jul 17, 2010 2:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 4915181)
The problem isn't that ORD lost #1. It's that ORD lost #1 because of constant service cuts, not because other cities grew exponentially. (Beijing excluded) So while ATL is growing slowly, at least it is growing - ORD has been shrinking for years now.

Although according to Wikipedia ORD is seeing some growth this year and has passed LHR again for 2010 to date.

Exactly. Have you noticed the L concourse is half empty due to cuts in traffic, wich equals less money for the city. Revenue passengers generate alot of money for the city. Why should ATL get the revenue. Most of the population mass still live in the northeast and southwest, making ORD a more direct route than ATL. Also ORD is the final destination much more than ATL. ATL has also taken some direct international traffic from MCO due to Delta competition.
The final problem for ATL is they share the south with DFW. It still makes sense for ORD to still be the main US hub.

Kngkyle Jul 17, 2010 7:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy (Post 4915349)
The final problem for ATL is they share the south with DFW.

I don't see how that is a problem.

chiphile Jul 18, 2010 7:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 4914941)
Question:

Does Chicago really need to have "the busiest airport in the world" any more? Is that a necessary key to its economic future?

What's wrong with having a really busy, huge, international and national airport with many links around the world without necessarily being #1 or #2? To me this seems to be more about bragging rights than anything else.

I have yet to be given a valid reason why being the biggest and busiest is really that important.


A couple of reasons... One, in 99.9% of cases, it is always an indicator of good health and growth, both for the economy of the airport and the economy of the greater region (aka Atlanta/South and Beijing/China).

My issue is that the city and department of aviation have just thrown in the towel in PURSUING that title... By pursuing the title to be busiest AND best, you initiate a process of constant improvement and competition, with zero complacency - I just don't see that attitude coming from the city of Chicago.

Further, there has been much discussion regarding international flying and ORD's lack of service to South America, Africa and the middle east.

The only way to attract those lucrative international routes is 1) Be New York City and have a gigantic diverse population demanding flights to everywhere or 2) Be everyone else and have a gigantic domestic hub operation so that the international airlines have access to ALL of America with just one change of plane at your hub.

Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, and everywhere else are obviously in scenario number 2, and only Atlanta has built that up with Delta.

South African Airlines had non-stop flights from Atlanta to Johannesburg because it shared an alliance with Delta, and Delta could connect South Africans with ALL of America through Atlanta. South African Airlines wasn't flying to Atlanta because of the O&D.

Similarly, United and American, or United OR American Airlines, really need to build ORD into a non-stop destination to ALL of North America, to all metro areas larger than 500,000 or a million. Then and only then will you see South African Airlines, Emirates, Singapore, and Lan Chile Airlines show up at Terminal 5.

ORD is just not that hub anymore. The moronic department of aviation is building the western terminal for spirit airlines, jet blue, heck maybe even southwest, giving the middle finger to United and American, and at the same time, sending the message to the large international airlines that international travel is not a priority for Chicago.

I blame Daley, this has been his project and he's got a revolving door of cronies in and out of the dept. of aviation with no clue to marketing, economics and global aviation.

O'Hare has a huge opportunity to be the North American hub for the 2 biggest airline networks in the world, and it's letting it slip.

SEE: http://www.staralliance.com/en/

http://www.oneworld.com/

Kngkyle Jul 18, 2010 8:07 PM

Chiphile, I know it probably wouldn't do any good, but have you tried sharing your views with someone who can do something about it?

You can find contact information here:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doa.html

nergie Jul 18, 2010 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 4916615)
A couple of reasons... One, in 99.9% of cases, it is always an indicator of good health and growth, both for the economy of the airport and the economy of the greater region (aka Atlanta/South and Beijing/China).

My issue is that the city and department of aviation have just thrown in the towel in PURSUING that title... By pursuing the title to be busiest AND best, you initiate a process of constant improvement and competition, with zero complacency - I just don't see that attitude coming from the city of Chicago.

Further, there has been much discussion regarding international flying and ORD's lack of service to South America, Africa and the middle east.

The only way to attract those lucrative international routes is 1) Be New York City and have a gigantic diverse population demanding flights to everywhere or 2) Be everyone else and have a gigantic domestic hub operation so that the international airlines have access to ALL of America with just one change of plane at your hub.

Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, and everywhere else are obviously in scenario number 2, and only Atlanta has built that up with Delta.

South African Airlines had non-stop flights from Atlanta to Johannesburg because it shared an alliance with Delta, and Delta could connect South Africans with ALL of America through Atlanta. South African Airlines wasn't flying to Atlanta because of the O&D.

Similarly, United and American, or United OR American Airlines, really need to build ORD into a non-stop destination to ALL of North America, to all metro areas larger than 500,000 or a million. Then and only then will you see South African Airlines, Emirates, Singapore, and Lan Chile Airlines show up at Terminal 5.

ORD is just not that hub anymore. The moronic department of aviation is building the western terminal for spirit airlines, jet blue, heck maybe even southwest, giving the middle finger to United and American, and at the same time, sending the message to the large international airlines that international travel is not a priority for Chicago.

I blame Daley, this has been his project and he's got a revolving door of cronies in and out of the dept. of aviation with no clue to marketing, economics and global aviation.

O'Hare has a huge opportunity to be the North American hub for the 2 biggest airline networks in the world, and it's letting it slip.

SEE: http://www.staralliance.com/en/

http://www.oneworld.com/

The airlines are not 100% innocent in this situation, they have been cutting flights and the city needs a way to replace these loses... UA or AA could use the western terminal to their advantage, but they don't want to pay.

Would it not make sense to build a brand-new terminal complex and house all Star or oneworld airlines, that is how it is almost everywhere else I have travelled.

I agree the city needs to do a better job selling this scenario to the UA or AA. But the airlines, afraid of losing their duopoly, are fighting this.

chiphile Jul 19, 2010 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 4916630)
Chiphile, I know it probably wouldn't do any good, but have you tried sharing your views with someone who can do something about it?

You can find contact information here:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/doa.html


I most certainly have, to no avail, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nergie (Post 4916750)
The airlines are not 100% innocent in this situation, they have been cutting flights and the city needs a way to replace these loses... UA or AA could use the western terminal to their advantage, but they don't want to pay.

Would it not make sense to build a brand-new terminal complex and house all Star or oneworld airlines, that is how it is almost everywhere else I have travelled.

I agree the city needs to do a better job selling this scenario to the UA or AA. But the airlines, afraid of losing their duopoly, are fighting this.


This is where the city is asinine. Of course UA and AA don't want to pay for the western terminal, the city asked them to pay and then told them it would be for other airlines, not them. It makes no sense whatsoever for UA or AA to pay to build someone else brand new gates.

nergie Jul 20, 2010 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 4918032)
I most certainly have, to no avail, of course.




This is where the city is asinine. Of course UA and AA don't want to pay for the western terminal, the city asked them to pay and then told them it would be for other airlines, not them. It makes no sense whatsoever for UA or AA to pay to build someone else brand new gates.

I agree, the city needs to reneg on this and say UA/AA it is your yours if you want it and sweeten the pot by offerring to pay signficant portion.

Jenner Jul 22, 2010 4:02 AM

I'm not sure that AA or UA needs all the capacity of the western terminal would offer. Additionally, I think there are still some major question marks as to how you would transport passengers and luggage between the main complex and the western terminal.

I was doodling some more, this time in regards to terminal 2. If they re-align the circular taxiway (now that the runway will be gone), room will be left to extend concourse E and add 15+ gates.


http://users.millenicom.com/cjdugan/ord_t2.jpg

Rail Claimore Jul 22, 2010 4:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenner (Post 4920934)
I'm not sure that AA or UA needs all the capacity of the western terminal would offer. Additionally, I think there are still some major question marks as to how you would transport passengers and luggage between the main complex and the western terminal.

I was doodling some more, this time in regards to terminal 2. If they re-align the circular taxiway (now that the runway will be gone), room will be left to extend concourse E and add 15+ gates.


http://users.millenicom.com/cjdugan/ord_t2.jpg

Interesting idea. Western Terminal or not, I see no reason for the existing taxiways between the inner-most runways to be diagonal to them once the runway reconfiguration is done.

denizen467 Jul 22, 2010 10:01 AM

Is there a date for completion of 10C/28C ? Looks like a massive job, since it can't be completed without rerouting Union Pacific, Irving Park, and relocating air freight facilities, among other things. Also, will Lake O'Hare disappear or be relocated?

nergie Jul 22, 2010 2:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenner (Post 4920934)
I'm not sure that AA or UA needs all the capacity of the western terminal would offer. Additionally, I think there are still some major question marks as to how you would transport passengers and luggage between the main complex and the western terminal.

I was doodling some more, this time in regards to terminal 2. If they re-align the circular taxiway (now that the runway will be gone), room will be left to extend concourse E and add 15+ gates.


http://users.millenicom.com/cjdugan/ord_t2.jpg

The ATS and Western entrance to ORD could be used to access the complex. As for the necessity, maybe the new terminal can be used for international flights and it will have double gates for unloading like most other top-notch airports as well as A380 gates.

F1 Tommy Jul 22, 2010 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 4921164)
Is there a date for completion of 10C/28C ? Looks like a massive job, since it can't be completed without rerouting Union Pacific, Irving Park, and relocating air freight facilities, among other things. Also, will Lake O'Hare disappear or be relocated?

I have seen blueprints of what it will look like. Ask the city for a copy as they are public. It is a big job. Lake O'hare is already gone. They are building the replacement freight terminals right now. I also noticed alot of the buildings in downtown Bensenville west of York Road and south of old Irving seem to be closed. Not sure if they will tear down or not. They are outside the airport property. On the taxiway reroute, I think they should leave the shortened 32L as a backup runway just in case they have strong Northwest winds. Its already there so leave it alone. There are days in the winter when you need a northwest runway. The city and all their aviation wisdom don't seem to think so. Both 32 runways should be left intact in my opinion.

Nowhereman1280 Jul 22, 2010 6:28 PM

^^^ I think the reason they think they can get away with only two directions now is that all the runways will be level III runways or whatever its called when the project is done. This means they have a full set of cross wind measurement systems and signals that make crosswinds much much easier and safer.

denizen467 Jul 23, 2010 4:59 AM

It never occurred to me before seeing Jenner's post and then looking at the OMP website, but wouldn't it be easier to build the next domestic terminal just a little west of T2 -- rather than at the western edge of the airfield? Seems it would be less complicated to bring the Western Access highways/vehicles eastwards to that position, than to have an incredibly long separation between domestic terminals. The latter would require a long sterile connection (like a really long tram) across the entire airfield, coupled with an incredibly long non-sterile connection, as well as baggage carts continuously scurrying a mile each way, etc.

Of course this assumes decommissioning of 14R/32L prior to commencing construction of the new terminal. Maybe that runway is not supposed to be closed down until much later.

VivaLFuego Jul 23, 2010 2:59 PM

I remember early OMP plans showing a mirror-image of Terminal 5 (with concourses spurring to the west and north) immediately to the east of the existing Terminal 5, which would also have provided for relatively*** easy modification of the ATS. Was this officially taken off the table as a Terminal expansion option?

I assume a big part of the push for the Western Terminal is that western access and western gates were one of the main components pitched to the Panhandle suburbs to get them on board with their political support, irrespective of their usefulness for the actual airport operation. When you can't figure out a technical or financial logic for the action of a political organization, there's a good bet that there is nonetheless some carefully considered political logic behind the action. Several suburban politicos would be pretty upset if the Western Terminal were officially dropped from the OMP plans.


*** would still require modification/relocation of some of the ATS yard facilities and probably track realignment of some sort, but this still seems cheaper than tunneling all the way west to York Road under one of the busiest active airfields on the planet.

denizen467 Jul 23, 2010 11:28 PM

Don't they want primarily western access, regardless of where on the airfield the terminal is located? Above I was referring to western access via roadways reaching eastward to a midfield terminal located just west of T2. They'd still get their skycap check-in, it'd just all be located closer to the other terminal complex.

LaSalle.St.Station Aug 3, 2010 8:00 AM

Illinois needs to lose the fuel tax imposed during Blagos admin. It just gives incentive to refuel your fleet in hubs that don't have the tax.


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.