CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[F1 Tommy]

Whats also really nice about this site is that it gets some of the worst weather in the Chicago area. If a tornado or very high winds are in the area they almost always go far south or far north of the metro missing O'hare and most of Chicago.

O'hare is slipping again. ATC is back to its old tricks even with the new north runway. If we don't want to get killed by a city half the size of Chicago, the city of Atlanta and ATL, they better fix the problem soon, and stop making excuses. The new south runway is only part of the problem. Atlanta and Dallass both have severe thunderstorms in the summer all the time. They had a ATC program in on last Sunday afternoon well after the storms were long gone past eastern Michigan. The airlines took out alot of flights to get them back on track, but it did not work. Here is a photo from Sunday afternoon. No major weather or winds, but major ATC delays at ORD!!

[chiphile]

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by chiphile

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

I wonder how much of the capacity cuts in the past two years has to do with competition from Delta's hubs at DTW and MSP. Delta has been able to shift a lot of capacity from CVG to DTW to soften the blow from declining passenger counts since 2007. More service means more options for travelers from smaller Midwestern markets.

[Busy Bee]

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Yeah that's a disgrace. I'd never even been there. It doesn't even have its' own direct domain name! "OhareHomepage!" Ha, I don't think I've seen the word 'homepage' in a URL address since the 90's! You do have to question the airport authorities' judgment if they think that it's even remotely appropriate to have such an obviously inadequate and outmoded website and not be embarrassed by it. Clearly that seems like a severe lack of understanding of image and brand on the administrations' part.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by chiphile

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

You're not the only one that thinks that. I agree wholeheartedly. The Western Terminal should be built to match the quality of Delta's McNamara terminal in Detroit, except for United.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by chiphile

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

Airlines don't want to bring more flights into O'hare until they work out the ATC problems. Seat % Capacity at ORD is higher than ATL and DFW, so they need more seat capacity ASAP. ORD is still second in the USA for passenger boardings and second in the world for take off's and landings after ATL. ATL is also maxed out with no expansion plans. That may help ORD in the long run if they get the ATC problem solved. This is more of a FAA caused problem than a city caused problem, although the DOA is clueless.

DFW was bragging they have the second biggest airline hub in the USA with AA. Problem for them is ORD has 2 airline hubs, AA and UA, so who cares. ORD is still alot bigger. Time to fix the problems and go after ATL. Talk to your lawmakers and BITCH. We should be number 1 again!

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Airlines don't want to bring more flights into O'hare until they work out the ATC problems. Seat % Capacity at ORD is higher than ATL and DFW, so they need more seat capacity ASAP. ORD is still second in the USA for passenger boardings and second in the world for take off's and landings after ATL. ATL is also maxed out with no expansion plans. That may help ORD in the long run if they get the ATC problem solved. This is more of a FAA caused problem than a city caused problem, although the DOA is clueless.

DFW was bragging they have the second biggest airline hub in the USA with AA. Problem for them is ORD has 2 airline hubs, AA and UA, so who cares. ORD is still alot bigger. Time to fix the problems and go after ATL. Talk to your lawmakers and BITCH. We should be number 1 again!

DFW is overbuilt as it is, and being #1 isn't going to matter in a few years. PEK is destined for that spot: They'll pass ATL within the next 5 years.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Airlines don't want to bring more flights into O'hare until they work out the ATC problems. Seat % Capacity at ORD is higher than ATL and DFW, so they need more seat capacity ASAP. ORD is still second in the USA for passenger boardings and second in the world for take off's and landings after ATL. ATL is also maxed out with no expansion plans. That may help ORD in the long run if they get the ATC problem solved. This is more of a FAA caused problem than a city caused problem, although the DOA is clueless.

DFW was bragging they have the second biggest airline hub in the USA with AA. Problem for them is ORD has 2 airline hubs, AA and UA, so who cares. ORD is still alot bigger. Time to fix the problems and go after ATL. Talk to your lawmakers and BITCH. We should be number 1 again!

Where's Alderman Levar in all this? Every election he brags about his work with O'Hare.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

#1 isn't going to matter in a few years. PEK is destined for that spot: They'll pass ATL within the next 5 years.

Don't count on it. I think the China growth story will slow down alot by then, no matter if they like it or not.

ORD should be the largest US airline hub. If they get their cards in order they will be again. It will require alot of effort starting with the new north and south runways and enough air traffic controllers. I think we will already move up 1 in the world ranking this year due to flights that were added in April 2010.

[Hot Rod]

Thing is, PEK is still expanding and a significant of the new Terminal 3 isn't even used (3C). PEK is really a sight and is incredibly underutilized even in today's configuration. I can guarantee that PEK will be #1 for a long time, with 120M pax per annum in 5 years.

Don't get me wrong, I am rooting for ORD and want it back on top; but I think we may have to settle for #2 worldwide because PEK isn't landlocked like ORD and has the planning and resources that no other major can match.

Consider that PEK is larger than both of Shanghai's (PVG and SHA) airports (Shanghai is significantly larger than Beijing. ...) and there's plenty more room to grow. PEK is really a monster.

[denizen467]

Dumb question, but can it be argued that ATL just has a geographic advantage over ORD? The population of the South is booming, especially Florida, and there is a lot of vacation traffic there. ATL also is positioned as a hub to Europe/Africa. Then ATL is 1 of only 3 major hubs in the country to Latin America. Presumably ditto for the Caribbean, which also has lots of vacation traffic being funneled from around the country and the world. Presumably zillions of scattered tiny islands produce many more flights than the same number of destinations would if on a single landmass, because you can't fly your family to a single airport and then rent a car.

If you break out non-O&D traffic, and break out traffic in puddle jumpers or other small aircraft, I wonder how ATL and ORD (or ORD+MDW because presumably that's apples-apples) compare.

[nergie]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Dumb question, but can it be argued that ATL just has a geographic advantage over ORD? The population of the South is booming, especially Florida, and there is a lot of vacation traffic there. ATL also is positioned as a hub to Europe/Africa. Then ATL is 1 of only 3 major hubs in the country to Latin America. Presumably ditto for the Caribbean, which also has lots of vacation traffic being funneled from around the country and the world. Presumably zillions of scattered tiny islands produce many more flights than the same number of destinations would if on a single landmass, because you can't fly your family to a single airport and then rent a car.

If you break out non-O&D traffic, and break out traffic in puddle jumpers or other small aircraft, I wonder how ATL and ORD (or ORD+MDW because presumably that's apples-apples) compare.

Geography, this is a tough question to answer, but with newer aircraft and ORD's location almost all parts of the planet are accessible by non-stop flights, especially F. East Asia. However, economics and passenger loads will dictate flights.

As for Latin America and the Caribbean, ORD will have a difficult time getting more flights because both major airlines have TX hubs that play that role, furthermore UA is building up IAD. Why does IAD have flights to Africa, ME and S.America where as ORD dosen't? I have friends that work at UA and they still have yet to give me a good answer.

UA and AA need to return in a big way to ORD.

[202_Cyclist]

nergie--

Why does IAD have flights to Africa, ME and S.America where as ORD dosen't? I have friends that work at UA and they still have yet to give me a good answer.

This is probably because the DC region is a huge origin/destination market to these areas because of embassy, diplomatic/State Dept staff, and World Bank/IMF employees. The DC region also has one of the largest --if not the largest-- populations of East African immigrants. The DC metro region is also the most affluent in the US, so although Chicago's population is larger, income and jobs drive much air travel demand.

[VivaLFuego]

Yeah --- O & D traffic in the Washington area is actually higher than the Chicago area despite being much smaller.

Geography will play a role. As with other sectors of Chicago's economy, there is a tremendous scaling effect based on the economic well-being of the hinterland. Stagnation in the economy and population of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. make it that much more challenging to support future growth.

[202_Cyclist]

VivaLFuego-- I asked my friend about this and he said that absolutely, geography is an issue why IAD has more United flights to Africa and the Middle East. IAD is an hour further east than ORD so passengers would have to backtrack to ORD for these flights. Adding an additional hour flight time would make this less competitive compared with hubs on other carriers at JFK, Heathrow, Paris, etc.

[nergie]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

VivaLFuego-- I asked my friend about this and he said that absolutely, geography is an issue why IAD has more United flights to Africa and the Middle East. IAD is an hour further east than ORD so passengers would have to backtrack to ORD for these flights. Adding an additional hour flight time would make this less competitive compared with hubs on other carriers at JFK, Heathrow, Paris, etc.

Thanks to everyone for their answers. From the data I have seen the top O&D markets are NYC, CHI, LA and ATL. I would like to see the numbers that show DC with higher O&D, might it be % of passengers rather than absolute number.

I agree that IAD flights make sense, but still a ORD would make sense with to feed midwest and west coast routes.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Dumb question, but can it be argued that ATL just has a geographic advantage over ORD? The population of the South is booming, especially Florida, and there is a lot of vacation traffic there. ATL also is positioned as a hub to Europe/Africa. Then ATL is 1 of only 3 major hubs in the country to Latin America. Presumably ditto for the Caribbean, which also has lots of vacation traffic being funneled from around the country and the world. Presumably zillions of scattered tiny islands produce many more flights than the same number of destinations would if on a single landmass, because you can't fly your family to a single airport and then rent a car.

If you break out non-O&D traffic, and break out traffic in puddle jumpers or other small aircraft, I wonder how ATL and ORD (or ORD+MDW because presumably that's apples-apples) compare.

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.

[the urban politician]

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.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

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.

I'm asking that question myself. I happen to prefer O'Hare to a lot of other hubs because of the number of locations to Asia it offers, including four flights on four different airlines to NRT. In addition to that, it's the only hub that's served by two different airlines from my home airport. Choice matters to me, like it does to most people. I also don't mind the fact that O'Hare has been losing passengers and traffic in recent years. The airport seems a lot less crowded, a lot less delay-prone, and a lot more convenient now.

[nergie]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

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.

I agree the # is more about bragging rights, but I am more interested in that ORD gets more international links. The airport is very weak to S. America and in many ways to the Middle East.

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.