Lfutia From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3195 posts, RR: 31 Posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4548 times:
Source: news.airwise.com
US Considering Foreign Flight Changes At O'Hare
October 13, 2004
The US government may seek voluntary schedule changes from international airlines at Chicago O'Hare Airport next summer to ease congestion at the world's busiest airport, regulators said on Wednesday.
The Federal Aviation Administration brokered two rounds of agreements to reduce overscheduling this year by domestic carriers to ease delays until next spring. But regulators never sought changes for foreign-based airlines.
Those carriers account for a fraction of the nearly 3,000 daily arrivals and departures at O'Hare, which was on a record pace for delays in the first half of 2004.
But some of those international flights occur during the busiest hours of the day, times that are prized by the US-based airlines that dominate O'Hare.
American Airlines and United Airlines account for more than 80 percent of operations at O'Hare, which is a prime connecting point for domestic and international travel to Europe and Asia. Because O'Hare is so busy, delays there can ripple through the US aviation system.
Overseas carriers using O'Hare include British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, and Japan Airlines.
The FAA has requested that international airlines submit O'Hare schedules in advance for review. Although cuts are not under consideration, the FAA could request these companies move their flights to less busy periods.
Any schedule changes would more likely affect European travel than flights to Asia. Arriving flights from Europe generally land in Chicago during the mid-to-late afternoon, while many departures leave in the evening.
The International Air Transport Association, which represents many overseas airlines, said a minimum number of schedule changes may not be complex. But a broader set of adjustments could be difficult because of problems they might pose for connecting services and at airports overseas.
(Reuters)
Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7175 posts, RR: 45 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4480 times:
MX has an important operation in ORD, with several non-stop daily flights to MEX and flights to other Mexican cities like GDL, MTY, ZCL, CUN and MLM. Do you think MX could be affected in some manner?
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4404 times:
What a lousy idea. Foreign carriers account for a miniscule percentage of actual flights at O'Hare, but their operations are among the airport's most important. Not only are they often the only links to far-flung regions of the world, but they also provide valuable connecting traffic to the two hub airlines at ORD. I have a feeling these passengers will think twice about connecting through ORD if they're forced to get up at god-awful hours to make their flight.
Asking foreign airlines to retime these essential flights is simply the FAA's way of avoiding the real problem of excessive hub traffic at ORD. I'm sorry to say it, but that RJ to Green Bay doesn't deserve precendence over a 744 to FRA or LHR.
N670UW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4391 times:
Overseas carriers using O'Hare include British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa, Air France-KLM, and Japan Airlines.
JoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4308 times:
I dont think that this is a good idea. Most of the forreign carriers only have one or two daily frequencies to ORD. And most of the international flights are operated by American carriers like AA and UA.
On the first hand I can only see BA with 3 flights from LHR and LH with two flights from FRA as airlines with more than one daily flights per destination. BA doesn't have ATI with AA so I don't see anyone of them willing to reduce its frequency between LHR and ORD.
LH and UA have 2 flights each day to FRA and they have ATI. This Winter UA has two 777 and LH has 343 and 744. Maybe they could combine it two 3times 744, but thats just one flight less.
The FAA should really look to reduce domestic flights. Easing the congesting with attacing the foreign carriers seems not to be a viable option.
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4247 times:
Trvlr,
Well said.
Foreign carriers are the least of the problems at ORD. Sure 744s take up about two slots of RJs but which is more important?
I used to take ORD-ALB when I was in school. Ten years ago it was three AA F100 and three UA 732s a day. Now it has no AA mainline, two UA mainline and a ton of RJs. Sure its more convenient to have more flights but these RJs are getting out of hand.
ERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6626 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4238 times:
Agreed. I believe that they should limit the amount of RJ into ORD if they want to control congestion. Let the RJ use Midway, Rockport, or Gary.. ORD should be mostly mainline aircraft..
same with LAX, JFK, and MIA.. all of these airports have multiple other airports around that could be used to handle the RJ..
the only large airport without such a buffer is ATL..
ORDflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
Trvlr said it very well...
It is foolish to punish the foreign airlines. While their flights only account for a small % of overall flights, they account for a much larger portion of revenue. They need to focus on relieving the RJ problem first and foremost, and attracting new foreign service.
N670UW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4194 times:
I agree. It seems the problem here is not British Airways, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, etc. - the problem seems to be American Eagle and United Express. The RJ's have gotten out of control at ORD, and, IMO, that if the FAA wants to limit flights at O'Hare, they should start with the RJ's.
I don't think it's an absolute necessity for UA to run 12 RJ's to MKE or AA to run 10 RJ's to CMH, etc. Mainline aircraft never killed anyone, and I'm sure running an MD-80 or two to CMH won't kill AA.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 79 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4149 times:
I actually think that RJs have hurt, not helped airlines. They pay big time fees to regionals to run them, and just don't make money on selling the flights. When they fly their own craft, they may not fill them all the time, but they are not paying for the high seat-mile on the RJ plus a profit for the regional
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
ORDflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4115 times:
Why can't UA shift more Int'l flights to DEN and AA more int'l flights to DFW?
I'm sure they have been thinking of that, but it isn't quite so simple. Being the 3rd largest metro area in the country, Chicago has a huge O&D that helps support these int'l flights, as well as established connections. They may be able to shift domestic flights to those hubs fairly easily, but int'l flights are quite complicated I would imagine, and I don't think it would make economic sense to shift these flights away or they already would have.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4061 times:
why don't the FAA work with the pilots in getting Land and Hold Short operations at ORD. That way they could use four runways simultaneosly for landing in VFR conditions.
Cutting back or moving flights isn't going to solve the problem. AA and UA both cut several flights this year and it didnt help congestion.
ITs going to take years to build those 6 parallel runways, if they are ever approved. Try to get UA and AA pilots unions to agree to LAHSO.
Tekelberry From United States of America, joined May 2003, 1459 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3952 times:
I don't think it's an absolute necessity for UA to run 12 RJ's to MKE
Air Wisconsin uses these flights to bring their planes up to MKE for maintenance.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3825 times:
I think they need to increase the size of the airport.......add some more runways and make the runways better/easier to use (i.e. such as LAX)..it's so archaic there!
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2771 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
LAHSO on 14L before 22R on RJ is unsafe.
LAHSO on 22R before 27R is OK for narrow-body aircraft but ultimate descision is in the pilot-in-command.
LAHSO on 14R before 27L is very practical since all aircraft can land in 9,000+ ft. of runway.
In short, LAHSO helps some but it isn't the answer. Reduction of RJs and building of new runways is.
US, in particular ORD, ATC is very good compared to other parts of the world but it isn't a miracle worker with the amount of RJs ORD sees.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3634 times:
***""I think they need to increase the size of the airport.......add some more runways and make the runways better/easier to use (i.e. such as LAX)..it's so archaic there!""***
Thats the ultimate plan to build SIX parallel runways all running east/west, but you aren't going to build a runway overnight as long as people from nearby Elk Grove (i think) and Bensonville are protesting along with other nearby communities. The plan calls for a new Runway 10R/28L that would run through the suburb of Bensonville to the south of the airport. In the process houses would have to be leveled. 10C/28C which would be the parallel next to what is currently 9R/27L (to be renumbered 10L/28R) would mean that several of those cargo buildings on the southwest side of the airport would probably have to be relocated, if not they would not have proper separation in IFR conditions.
Stage ONE of the plan calls for a new runway 9L/27R, it would be built on the extreme north end of the property, but in the meantime several hangars and other things would have to be cleared to make way. You can't build a runway in a year and obviously working on that runway would be interfering with operations on Runway 4L/22R and possibly Runway 16L/34R.
Stage two I think creates a new Runway 9C/27C (current 9L/27R actually becomes 9R/27L) and Runway 10C/28C.
This is going to go through debates for many years. ORD officials aren't expecting this project to be completed until 2018. What do we do for the next 14 years?
SoBe From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 256 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3553 times:
Here is the link to the official ORD Modernization site.
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3482 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3497 times:
Yeeeeah cut all those 747 and 777 to fit more RJs from American and United. What a stupid idea.
I think they should use market tools to reduce congestion. Rise landing fee per aircraft so it would motivate airlines to use larger equipment.
If that don't help put some restrictions on planes smaller than 60 pax.
Vatveng From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 892 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
Let the RJ use Midway, Rockport, or Gary.. ORD should be mostly mainline aircraft..
Ok in theory, but...
If your hub is ORD, you want to feed your international and mainline domsetic connections with the pax on those regionals, and there are cities on your network with only RJ service, they need to go to ORD to connect. Nobody wants to fly from the middle of nowhere to Midway, then get on a bus to O'Hare to catch their connecting flight. If that was the solution, you could almost drive faster.
Your "let them use Midway..." statement does present a possible solution to the 99 daily RJ's flying from JFK/LGA/EWR to ORD... They are likely filled (or half-empty) with business pax commuting from HQ in Manhattan to a meeting at their office in Chicago... shift some of them to Midway.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
The only solution is to make ORD a slot controlled airport.
You can not have two of the three largest U.S. airlines hubbing (along with their alliance partners) and run the ludicrous number of RJ's on a system of two parallel runways and not expect the delays that are occuring. Factor in Chicago weather, and you have a miracle that the airport can operate AT ALL.
A slot controlled airport will force airlines to re-evaluate their situation and perhaps move some flights to other airports (DEN, STL, IAD, DFW, etc...). By having an outside agency tell ALL the airlines that "this is the maximum number of take-offs/landings available" levels the playing field. Nobody has the advantage or disadvantage, but all are forced to re-evaluate their service.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Tjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2297 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
Better watch out, or Mayor Daley will bring in the bulldozers......
Seriously though, this is a very poor idea. Euro flights leaving ORD late in the evening would arrive too late in the day in Europe for most passengers to make use of that day- not good for business travelers. Euro flights leaving ORD too early in the day would arrive Europe in the middle of the night.
How about this?:
Only allow flights with aircraft that have 125 seats or more in and out of ORD during peak hours. Frequency is great, but running flights nearly every hour, on the hour to certain destinations is ridiculous. Operate a 737, A319/320 or a 757 instead of a handful of RJ's during rush periods.
Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2959 times:
but that RJ to Green Bay doesn't deserve precendence over a 744 to FRA or LHR
I believe that they should limit the amount of RJ into ORD
They need to focus on relieving the RJ problem
Let the RJ use Midway, Rockport, or Gary.. ORD should be mostly mainline aircraft
put some restrictions on planes smaller than 60 pax.
Hmmm.... you kiddies seem to have completely forgotten about two of the most EXTREMELY powerful forces in the aviation world:
Both start with an "L".... I want you to say 'em with me now:
LOBBYISTS and LITIGATION.
You don't think the noble idea of shifting RJs to less-crowded ports has been proposed before? Seriously now...
Do you not also remember the myriad of cases where the Mayor/Senator/Governor from BoondockVille, USA raised holy hell about losing his community's vital regional connection to O'Hare, as well as the frequency thereof... ergo tying up the airport/airlines/FAA/Feds with multiyear litigation?
....it's really not that easy/simple of a task to solve ORD's physical, logistical, and legal problems concurrently folks--- lest we wouldn't be having this conversation
Timaay419 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
A slot controlled airport will force airlines to re-evaluate their situation and perhaps move some flights to other airports (DEN, STL, IAD, DFW, etc...).
I agree...AA cut mainline flights in STL a year ago leaving a fair amount of gates abandoned. Send half of those RJ flights into ORD down here, and increase mainlines to popular destinations by one or two a day, and that will ease the traffic at O'Hare. Theres no point in having two hubs if they aren't going to make proper use of them. Lambert handled alot more traffic a year ago then it does now, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.
25 Bucky707: "I think they should use market tools to reduce congestion. Rise landing fee per aircraft so it would motivate airlines to use larger equipment. " Act
26 FriendlySkies: All these ideas are all well and good, but the fact is, ORD expansion is the ONLY long term relief for O'Hare. Cutting international traffic is the mo
27 Bistro1200: >>The only solution is to make ORD a slot controlled airport.
28 Mexicana757: This is a dumb idea. Its obvious that FAA folks are huffing on something. I think the RJ traffic should be reduced at peak times and be sent to those
29 ORDflyer: RFD, GYY, and DPA don't have scheduled service Actually, both RFD and GYY do currently have scheduled services, albeit the number of flights they hand
30 FriendlySkies: >>The only solution is to make ORD a slot controlled airport.
31 Cospn: Start Cutting flites of Airlines that dont Serve MDW Like NW and CO Pretty Easy..
32 EuroLeb: Why not expand and develop "Midway" and shift flights to it from "O'hare"?
33 Airportplan: "Why not expand and develop "Midway" and shift flights to it from "O'hare"? Based on its size. MDW is more "developed" than almost any airport on eart
34 FriendlySkies: Why not expand and develop "Midway" and shift flights to it from "O'hare"? This would be next to impossible based on MDW's location and current develo
35 BNE: The US government may seek voluntary schedule changes from international airlines at Chicago O'Hare Airport next summer to ease congestion at the wor
36 MikeyUSC: >>The only solution is to make ORD a slot controlled airport.
37 Flybyguy: Doesn't the US gov't have some say in what airlines do now due to stipulations in the 9-11 funding to airlines. If so, I think the US government shoou
38 FriendlySkies: I sincerely hope that people will not have to die for AA, UA and the FAA to learn the errors of their ways. Haha, that's funny. It's not UA's and AA's
39 N62NA: Your "let them use Midway..." statement does present a possible solution to the 99 daily RJ's flying from JFK/LGA/EWR to ORD... They are likely fille
40 Lfutia: only DL serves JFK w/ a CRJ from ORD. MDW is in a residential area and so if u wanna expand it, be prep'd. for a battle[Edited 2004-10-17 19:28:39]
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3195 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7175 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2771 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 716 posts, 
From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3482 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
