AlitaliaORD From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 242 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3615 times:
Everybody is familiar that O'Hare has quite a bit of delays. I was thinking of a way to reduce traffic at O'Hare. A total of 16 flights daily go to Milwaukee provided by AA(6) and UA(10). What if, Younited and American, codeshared with Amtrak whereas passengers on these flights could go on Milwaukee trains. Here's why I think this idea would work. A) Trains are rarely affected by delays including WX. B) Premium passengers could ride in the first class cabins. C) There is no traffic (well somewhat but very little) on trainlines. D) If they codeshared you could aquire or use FF miles on Amtrak to MKE. In the grand scheme 16 flights won't save O'Hare, but I bet it would help.
P.S. Amtrak operates from Union Station in Chicago, which is downtown.
Joy To The World, All The Boys and Girls, Joy to the Fishes in the Deep Blue Sea, Joy to You and Me
CcrlR From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3578 times:
UA codeshares with Amtrak. They had a program where you can ride one way and fly back. There are some places accessible by train and is very close to Chicago(some parts of south and western Michigan), but are more than two hours away by train than a hour or less by air. Take Chicago to Detroit for example, their train is full sometimes and they are taking families and other people. Lots of other people try SW, NW, UA, AA, and others, which also has large load factors for some people. This is something similar to the Northeast Corridor for Amtrak, Greyhound, American Eagle, US Airways, Delta, and several private busses that operate from New York and Boston. They are generating lots of money and lowering prices and adding options to travel for business by these companies.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
Highliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3486 times:
This is just a guess but I doubt that the passengers traveling ORD-MKE are O&D. They're most likely connecting passengers. Flying from MKE to ORD and than on somewhere else. That being the case, taking the train to Union Station and then taking another 45 minute ride on the CTA out to the airport, only to go through ORD security, which is much worse that MKE makes little sense. Might as well fly in from MKE and already be airside, take the short walking to your connecting flight. Besides, it's only 16 flights, that's a drop in the bucket. They just add more flights somewhere else, UA and AA will fly as much as possible out of ORD. Still, while it may not be as applicable in this case, I think intermodal transport could be lucrative in the right markets and it appears CO is trying on Amtraks NE Corridor.
Iowaman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
A great idea would be to great rid of some of those CRJ's! Is 14 CRJ's daily to CID necessary? I don't think so. It would make more sense to put 2 Super 80's on the route and keep a couple CRJ's goin there to fill in the gaps. AA And UA have basically screwed themselves at ORD.
Atcboy73 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3399 times:
Train service to ORD is a great idea. It could take lots of money and time to build the tracks but I would think that train service to both the MKE area and the MSN area would work. Lets say this train service reduced the ORD aircraft load by 35 departures a day. Those 35 departures a day would be deployed somewhere else.
If ORD was layed out more efficiently and could handle the load, it would be twice as busy as ATL. Its a case of how many runways do you want to build. No matter how many you build, (with in reason) they would still be used constantly.
The only answer in the long run is slots. Anyone disagree?
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3811 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3318 times:
SPREE34 writes: The market place wants multiple convenient flights to CID. AA and UA will give the market what it wants. The only way traffic at ORD will lessen, is for AA or UA to cease existing.
Apparently, then, the market place also wants the delays caused by the madness of operating 6-12 RJ frequencies in place of 3-6 mainline flights in more markets to/from ORD than I care to count. Gordon Bethune has stated (correctly IMO) that what pax want most is predictability; few (if any) things airline-related are more unpredictable than what the actual departure/arrival times of flights at ORD will be -- or whether a flight will even operate at all -- thanks to the senseless RJ morass AA and UA have created at ORD. Is this really the price pax are willing to pay for multiple "convenient" (???) flights to CID and dozens of other cities than can easily support mainline service?
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23888 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3308 times:
What ever happened to that plan to reconfigure the runways at ORD?
It's tied up by politics. Once Fitzgerald leaves in January, things may start to move faster. The FAA could approve it as early as next year, and construction on the new 9L-27R (north runway) could start as early as 2006.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Highliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3298 times:
Apparently yes, as both AA and UA know that if one drops capacity and the other doesn't, the airline that makes the cuts will lose market share. It's all about frequency to the business traveler and that's who the airlines care about making happy, the guy who buys the full-fare seat. Doesn't make sense to some, but that's how it is. Bethune does state correctly that passengers want predicatbility however in this case there is no alternative. The alternative to flying MKE-ORD and than onward is drive or take the train. The drive isn't too bad, the train is. Besides, anyone who's taken Amtrak out of or into Chicago knows it's just about as delay prone as ORD is, and unlike ORD which tends to function reasonably well when the WX is okay, AMTK seems to have problems (usually beyond their control) even on sunny days.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3240 times:
The way things are going Milwaukee will be Chicago's largest suburb by 2010.
I like to think of that the opposite way.... Chicago will be Milwaukee's suburb.
BTW, there are tolls going in at the borders of Door & Green Lake Counties here in WI, and the speed limit in those Counties will be raised to 85 MPH, because we want you Chicagoans to feel right at home.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
It's probably the most detailed proposal to date on creating a multimodal facility as part of ORD that would truly have an impact on reducing airside traffic (i.e. eliminating certain RJ ops that would theoretically allow for others to exist).
InnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3117 times:
"One of the reason ORD has so much troubles is because the runways go in all different directions. If they had the four parallel system like MCO, DTW, ATL, LAX etc, maybe things would run more smooth"
That's actually not entirely correct. The 4-parallel fields can only do "2 in/2 out" operations. ORD can do that with any wind configuration and no conflicts between the activities. For example, a popular arrangement for them is their west flow:
ARR: 22R 27R
DEP: 22L 27L
And they still have room to use 32L for departures from the "Tango 10" intersection.
A case can be made for taxiing efficiency, but that is not necessarily a delay statistic.
Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
Ordinduaflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3064 times:
I have to agree that using Amtrak via Union Station isn't the most practical option. Admittedly they don't usually have wx-related delays except in the coldest of wx when the switches outside the station will freeze (Metra commuter here, I've been stuck in it). But the additional 45 minute ride to ORD after finally arriving at Union Station followed by the ORD security lines (also mentioned above) would lend me (if I were a MKE traveler) to just drive to ORD instead.
FWIW, there was an interesting article in today's Chicago Tribune. Mentioned how UA & AA have reduced their flight schedules during "rush hour" by 7.5%, but the effect has basically been negated by other airlines adding flights such as Ind.Air's 12 (or was it 16?) dailys between Chicago & Washington.
Tan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3028 times:
This subject has come up before and there is no simple, quick fix.
As some have mentioned, oce (someday ) the runway configuration is done that will help.
Perhaps someday high speed rail from such cities as Detroit,Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, St. Louis and perhaps a few others will take some of the O & D traffic , or some of the expected growth.
The short term solution remains the same, only so many planes can fit there at any given time. While I am not suggesting a return to Government controlled routes, etc (regulation) , I am suggesting there has to be a way to get UA & AA and the FAA/DOT/DOJ to work out some plan that lessens the amount of aircraft while each carrier is protected in its' competitive battle.
As I have mentioned here several times over the years, I would schedule more larger aircraft slightly less often on heavily travelled routes, ie: to LAX/SFO/MCO, you get the idea. working to reduce frequency with increased capacity using more 757/767/777 rather than so many MD80/737/320's etc would help.
Also, perhaps as AA gets stronger, they will start re-building STL, by routing selected hi-volume connecting flights with a couple of banks per day to take the pressure off. In theory you could set up 2 west bound banks and 2 east bound banks over a 4-6 hour period and staff accordingly. Just an idea for consideration.
Highliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2991 times:
You'd have to ask one of the resident STL specialists to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that AA does not 'own' those gates at STL anymore. They only have something like 8 gates now, or something like that.
As for high-speed rail, nice idea, but I would'nt count on it anytime soon. The biggest problem would be funding. Amtrak is continuing to bleed cash even after the downturn following 9/11 which saw record numbers take the train, they still lost money! And who would then fund the infrastructure needed? You'd have to lay new track, mixing high-speed trains with slow freights is not a good idea. Probably talking about stringing catenary above those tracks as well. Buying equipment on top of that. And there's no way Amtrak can do it. I can only speak of Illinois, but we as a state are broke. Although we did get a budget today finally, but there will certainly never be funding for a project like that. And finally demand, American's LOVE to fly and that's just that. It would be interesting to see high-speed rail but I don't see it anytime in the next few decades at least.
And finally, reducing frequency is a BAD idea if you want to attract business travelers, especially on high-business-traffic routes. Ala, LAX, NY...it's no coincidence those routes have flights on the hour. It's one of the cornerstones of the industry model that frequency attracts high-yield passengers. And as was stated above, if either UA or AA cuts frequency, someone else will step in and snatch up the slots. Peotone is not the answer however opening up Meigs would help with congestion, but at Midway not O'Hare so much. The answer is a reconfiguration of ORD which is still years away...
I'm all in favor of a free market approach to solving problems, rather than running to the government to "make it better" much like a little child crying to mommy after skinning a knee. The problem with relying on a free market approach is, people like Richard Bascom in the story still fly into or connect through ORD in spite of knowing the problems.
Should the government get involved, or simply step aside and let the problem get so large that travelers and the airlines take matters into their own hands? Is it possible that one or more of the airlines flying in and out of ORD could start marketing flights that depart between pushes which might having better on-time ratings? Is it possible that travelers would start thinking about avoiding ORD, pay a bit more for direct flights (assuming they are available) if the problems there were allowed to run its course? Or have us Yanks gotten so conditioned to rely on the government to "fix things" that we will simply rant and rave until the FAA or other agencies make up some new policies or impose restrictions?
Moekha786 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2845 times:
The anarchist free market idea is why America has suburbs and why its cities are struggling and/or dying. Keep a free market, but don't let it turn into dog eat dog, which is what this has become. The government needs to setup the proper environment for the free market to be able to produce the best service, not just let the market go out of control.
Till the soil, plant the seeds, give them water on a regular basis and plenty of sunshine, and see what comes out of the ground. You just want to throw seeds everywhere, wait for the rain, and could care less how many weeds there are. And dont call me a commie, we've already seen what this wonderful free market can do for us.
777ualsfo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2797 times:
The problem is that when UA and AA cut capacity at ORD, the other airlines just fill in the freed up slots and then compete head to head with them on the same routes. Worsens the financial situation of UA and AA and doesn't solve the airport capacity problem. The FAA should have fixed these runways long ago - this isn't a new problem. Same thing in SFO, as soon as the traffic picks up it will be similar to ORD due to similar runway isuses.
: The solution is easy. Equalize all landing fees for all aircraft. It will force airlines to remove the smaller RJ's and consolidate flights.
: This sort of issue has been addressed in Europe already on some routes -- for example, an enormous number of pax travel from Brussels to Paris and rtn