KarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2929 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1628 times:
B757Capt
I actually believe that both RFD and GYY are both going to be needed to relieve the pressure on the two existing Chicago airports. Even if ORD is expanded everybody knows that it will fill up again and then the situation will be right back to where it is now. What do you think of that idea?
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
What about MSN? I think thats a good alternative to RFD when it fills up!
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1608 times:
Peotone should be protested to every extent of the law. Why should billions of public funds be used when RFD and GYY are ready today right now to alleviate the problems at ORD.
By the way, any airlines left that still utilize ORD and MDW...?
Tekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
The whole idea of setting up a new airport to relieve traffic at ORD is ridiculous. It would cost billions of dollars. Also, no airline is going to want to move to a new facility when they already have them at ORD.
The way to relieve traffic at ORD is to get rid of the web of intersecting runways and to construct 4 parallel runways (and 4 intersecting those to account for wind), such as in ATL or DFW. ATL receives around the same amount of traffic as ORD and you never hear about constant delays there. Granted, ATL may receive better weather. But a parallel runway setup is more efficient than the web that ORD currently has.
Finally, what's the point of setting up a new CHI airport? Are Illinois officials too arrogant to realize that there is a perfectly good airport just a few miles north - MKE? MKE is already branded as being "Chicago's Third Airport". Also, the new Amtrak service will take passengers straight from downtown Chicago to MKE.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
The way to relieve traffic at ORD is to get rid of the web of intersecting runways and to construct 4 parallel runways (and 4 intersecting those to account for wind), such as in ATL or DFW. ATL receives around the same amount of traffic as ORD and you never hear about constant delays there. Granted, ATL may receive better weather. But a parallel runway setup is more efficient than the web that ORD currently has.
I don't think the way ORD was built up, that there is room for 4 N/S runways and 4 E/W runways. Even if you did have that setup, you are going to have a slight crosswind effect, as the wind never come directly from the east or west, or north or south. ORD was built as the wind dictated it to be, and that is a messed up web of runways. If they can get them untangled and do something different with them, that would be one thing, but to build 6 new runways and destroy 4 is a joke. And by the way, do you know how much it would cost to rebuild ORD? Your better off building a new airport out in god-forsaken Peotone!
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21244 posts, RR: 19 Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
ORD will have 6 parallel runways in a 9-27 orientation and will retain the existing pair of 4-22 runways when the Ohare modernization program is done. The 14-32s will be gone. A total of 433 acres will be/has been acquired on both the north side of the airport and the soth side. The land on the north is primarily industrial now, and the land on the south end includes single family homes, a cemetary, and (I think) some light industry. Hopefully the first new runway will be open by 2007.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Mkeflyer717 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 431 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1466 times:
MKE is an ORD reliever! We receive a lot of ORD diversions and draw people from Chicago’s northern suburbs. There was even a campaign started called Avoid the Chicago ORDeal! Fly MKE! Also it states “For a decade, we've promoted ourselves as Chicago's Third Airport.” Why go to Rockford when MKE is pretty much the same distance from ORD, and it’s already a well developed commercial airport. I say expand at MKE because it seems to make the most sense.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4245 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
I really do not see a simple solution of moving traffic around to various airports.
The congestion at ORD is due to UA and AA, who of course have the hubs. How could hubbed airlines with so many connecting passengers move flights around to different airports? They just cannot. Now if other airlines with typical operations at ORD wanted to move, this may put them at an advantage for Chicagolanders who want to avoid ORD, but it would be a disadvantage for visitors who would want the closer airport to the city. It is a very complex issue, and I feel will ultimately be resolved with:
-ORD terminal/runway renovations
-AA or UA building up SIGNIFICANT supplement facilities at another airport
-AA or UA going under
As for a short term solution....
I feel that the main traffic problem comes from the influx of all the RJ's and huge operations of American Eagle and United Express. I feel that these feeder flights should be cut back and supplemented with larger mainline aircraft for the peak bank hours. For instance, UA could put some 737/A320 on the MKE route that sees 11 daily CRJ/146. I realize this would take much effort to rework aircraft in the system, but with the government now stepping in, something really has got to be done soon.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21244 posts, RR: 19 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1378 times:
It seems to me that AA has no (or very little) terminal space to expand mainline ops (as a replacement for MQ) at ORD. When they rebuilt Concourse G in the late 90s, they kind of locked in the size of the MQ operation. Similarly, I could never see UA mainline operating out of Terminal 2. UA, though, could replace some of the express gates in T-1 with mainline gates.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Highliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 692 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1267 times:
UAL already operates some mainline flights out of Terminal 2.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 23 Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
I think I remember viewing an AA timetable a few years ago that listed RFD as a destination -- if I'm not mistaken, they codeshared with a bus company that provided service to ORD. Is this true? I know airlines are currently doing this with train service in Europe.
LEO777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 107 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
Gary should get the additional flights, conveniently located close to Chicago, as for the Rockford, MKE, and Madison, forget about it not gonna happen. There is NO way I would drive to either one of those locations to catch a flight, and I bet I am not alone on this topic. I personally will continue to use ORD or MDW, never had a problem with either one. I honestly think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion, this has to be a conspiracy to take the title of busiest airport from ORD.
You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.
Tekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1232 times:
JpetekYXMD80,
Part of the reason why there are so many United Express ORD-MKE flights is due to the Air Wisconsin maintenance center at MKE. That's the only way Air Wisconsin can get their planes up to MKE for maintenance without loosing revenue.
UnitedTristar From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1242 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
Cubsrule and Highliner2:
United took over the Express gates in T1 years ago in the B concourse and it is now gates B19,B20,B21 and B22. UA Use to operate mainline out of terminal 2 as well. Even a 747 out of F14 as UA121. Actual if you watch road rules Chicago (the MTV reality show) they have a scene at the airport that shows the whale over there. United Express now operates all UA flights out of terminal 2. All UAX operations by all United Express partners in at word including the Customer Service Center in terminal 2 are now handled by ZW. The only mainline jets that operate United flights out of terminal two now are code share with AC and US. The United Express gates in T2 have been SO full that they have been using some mainline gates over in T1. They were using the cargo ramp on the other side of B22 for some OO flights.
-m
Welcome aboard United Airlines L1011 Friendship Service to Osaka!
ORDflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
Ssides,
Not sure about the bus codeshare, but I do know that American Eagle used to have flights between RFD and ORD. I believe they were operated by ATR props, and the flights were cut before 9/11.
Mikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1380 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1055 times:
Leo, you're forgetting about one of the key halves to the phrase "O&D". While originating traffic like yourself might not drive to a reliever airport like MKE, GYY, or RFD, a lot of traffic coming into the area might choose to utilize any and all of them. The key being how connected they are with Chicagoland as a destination, for which AFAIK MKE is well-positioned with their new train station under construction. Mitchell-to-the-Loop in 70 minutes minus the O'Hare-type delays is the pitch, and it's a strong one.
If RFD can continue attracting some service with its O&D while improving its connectedness with the Chicagoland region at large, then I think they're on to something. But for the while, no O'Hare reliever airport yet mentioned is truly throughly reliable...they're all just getting a little closer.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21244 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1002 times:
UATristar- Thanks for the info. Are the low C gates (C1-C7 about) technically express or mainline gates? I know that ZW uses them for 146s and the occasional CRJ quite a bit.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Ntspelich From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 764 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 950 times:
I know that UA in fact did have a code-share bus agreement set up. Not sure if it's still in existence since I haven't lived around ORD for awhile, but I do recall it 3-4 years ago.
NS
United 717 heavy, you're facing the wrong way. Any chance you can powerback to get off of my deice pad?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2929 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
