Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
O'Hare Remains World's Busiest Airport  
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5024 times:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ohare13.html

O'Hare Airport is poised to handle nearly a million flights this year, hitting a new national milestone and retaining its "world's busiest" title, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

But bragging rights won't mean much to travelers, as O'Hare also is set to end 2004 as the nation's most delay-plagued airport, tardy on nearly 30 percent of its flights.

...

In January, O'Hare's dominant airlines, American and United, agreed to reduce peak-hour flights by 5 percent during the summer travel season. When those cuts didn't work, the airlines agreed to reduce flights by another 2.5 percent. And in November, the airlines voluntarily capped commercial domestic flights at 88 an hour between noon and 9 p.m.

"O'Hare's growth raises the question, 'How effective are those caps?'" said Aaron Gellman, director of Northwestern University's transportation center. The federal government "put the cap on, not knowing what the root cause of the delay problems. So the growth really isn't surprising."

...

"This is why O'Hare modernization is so important. We have to have the capacity so we can handle demand," city Aviation Commissioner John Roberson said. "We certainly have not done well with delay and congestion this year. Good weather, the flight restriction policy and some procedural changes have contributed to better performance in the last three months. But those are just short-term things to help."

Daley's multibillion-dollar plan calls for building six parallel east-west strips and two northeast-southwest ones, and adding western access to the airport.

Without expansion, 2004 will be the last year of economic growth at O'Hare, city officials said.

"This is it. Growth will be capped, and we will not be able to outperform this year at all. There will be no future growth," said Rosemarie Andolino, who oversees the expansion project.

If the FAA were to shoot down the expansion plan, Andolino predicts O'Hare would be forced to operate under strict flight caps and no longer be able to keep up with airport demand.

"This airport will become anti-competitive and anti-consumer," she said. "We will have delays and restricted markets. There will not be new entrant [airlines], and we won't have competition among carriers."


Basically, it sounds like ORD is at it's limits. The only option left is expansion, or face falling behind other airports in terms of modernization. Hopefully this will put pressure on the FAA to speed up the process of approving the plan, but knowing the FAA, it will probably cause them to slow down.



45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

I guess that's good news for O'Hare and that gives them bragging rights.
I still think expanding GYY is the best option.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4901 times:

I guess that's good news for O'Hare and that gives them bragging rights.

...so long as ATL continues to process more pax (which with DL's latest planned upgauge, will indeed perpetuate)-- any bragging rights will be split.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4862 times:

Daley's multibillion-dollar plan calls for building six parallel east-west strips and two northeast-southwest ones, and adding western access to the airport.

Uh, am I reading this right? Is he asking for eight new runways?

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is absolute insanity?

There are good arguments at the end of this article (conveniently not quoted by Friendly Skies) against this expansion plan. It seems to me to be a collossal waste of public money. At some point, you cap growth and move on. I mean this is true everywhere - no airport has unlimited expansion. You cap growth either artificially through slots or you do it naturally by alleviating pressure through access to other airports - either existing ones or new ones that you build elsewhere.

Spending billions of dollars on eight new runways at ORD, plus all this other stuff they want... I mean jeeze, I'm glad I'm not a Chicago taxpayer, though I'm sure federal funds would be involved in this too.

I'm not anti-growth, just in favor of realistic growth and an efficient use of public money (which is our money after all - I don't like to see it wasted).



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

@Spacecadet:

They surely don't want to build 8 additional runways. 8 is the number at the end of the transformation process. Most current runways will somehow be extended, scrapped or removed.
Have a look at there pdf files about ORD expansion. There you can easily see in which priority they will change the runway layout.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4838 times:

Spacecadet:

No, there will be eight total, up from six. However, some of the existing ones will be decomissioned, so new ones will have to be reconstructed. It's too bad, I was fond of those diagonal runways.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineORDflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

JoFMO was right...the end plan isn't for 8 new runways, just 8 total runways in a more efficient parallel configuration. This is only one more runway than ORD currently has.
Overall I don't think this plan is insane at all. While growth at ORD can't continue forever, this new runway configuration would greatly increase efficiency for the near future. Any future third airport won't be seen for many years at best...there's just too much politics involved. Likewise, I agree with Superfly's comments about expanding GYY. That airport has the the benefit of being much closer to downtown Chicago than a location in Peotone would be, not to mention it would take less time to develop since the airport is already in place. Again though I'm afraid politics won't let GYY expand as much as it could be...I'm sure Daley will do everything possible to keep airport revenues in Illinois.


User currently offlineAirbusfanYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2002, 1434 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

I used to fly out of ORD at least twice a week on UA. Those multiple intersecting runways are a bane to efficient operations due to runway incursions. I remember many times being delayed or having to do a go-around because of this.
Having the runways in a parallel configuration makes sense, some prime examples ATL, LHR, LAX, CDG.

Cheers,
Kaz



t.dot photography
User currently offlineATLhomeCMH From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4604 times:

I guess that's good news for O'Hare and that gives them bragging rights.

Uhh, slow down, cowboy. Not exactly.

...so long as ATL continues to process more pax (which with DL's latest planned upgauge, will indeed perpetuate)-- any bragging rights will be split.

As ConcordeBoy said, ORD's sole bragging rights are very questionable, considering that ATL actually handles more travelers.

So, the question is: What really makes it the busiest? More takeoffs/landings, or more passengers? My vote is the latter.

Reply #16: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1861731/

[Edited 2004-12-14 17:33:40]


"The most terrifying words in the Engligh language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"-Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4558 times:

Atlanta has the most passengers and Chicago more movements.

User currently offlineGustyOrange From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

And LHR has more international passengers  Big grin

Gusty


User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4362 times:


So, the question is: What really makes it the busiest? More takeoffs/landings, or more passengers? My vote is the latter.


I would disagree. It would seem that this title has always referred to plane traffic.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineZID From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 294 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

ATLhomeCMH's question - What really makes it the busiest? More takeoffs/landings, or more passengers? - is easily answered.

It depends on whether you prefer to hang out in the terminal watching people, or whether you hang out at the end of the runway watching planes. Other than that it doesn't make a bit of difference, except to some of us in a profession dependent upon one or the other.

For me "busiest" means number of planes, since a Cessna 172 blip is the same size as a Boeing 747 blip, and a Comair Canadair Regional Jet takes up just as much space (five miles in front and five miles behind) inbound to Cincinnati as does a Delta 767.



I'm not joking! This is my job!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

It would seem that this title has always referred to plane traffic.

Not really.

ORD didn't do much promoting of the "world's busiest" title when first they regained the #1 spot in movements.... partially because ATL handled more pax; but also because though ATL had fewer movements, more of its movements were commerical (scheduled pax/cargo) than ORD's was that year.


User currently offlineTarantine From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4215 times:

How come ATL carries more people but with less aircraft? Are the planes bigger or just filled with more pax?

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

ORD and ATL's commercial pax ops are more similar than the aggregate numbers reveal.... that, and DL's significant domestic widebody fleet helps give it an edge.

User currently offlineTexdravid From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

DFW's website continues the fallacy that it is the world's 3rd busiest airport.
Not only can't DFW officials attract foreign airlines, can't seem to stop kissing AA's axx, but can't seem to add/subtract either.

I go through DFW all the time, and its terminals, lobbies, parking garages, and departure/arrival areas all scream underutilized!!



Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2956 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4141 times:

So is it better to see, one RJ marching by after another with an odd MD-80 or Airbus. Or see 747s & 777s coming in. Take a pick.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39887 posts, RR: 74
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4141 times:

ConcordeBoy & ATLhomeCMH:
Do airplanes sitting up on bricks count?  Laugh out loud  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Just kidding.  Smile







Expand GYY now!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Hey Chicago, just wait until 10L/28R opens up next year along with the new southern terminal around 2010, which will have around 30 gates. And we can't forget about the additional gates on E that will be build along with the new Int'l Terminal on the eastside of ATL either. ORD will be in second place on both lists by 2010. With the new terminal more than likely to be used by FL, ASA/Comair will probably put nearly all of their ops on C, freeing up additional gates on D in which to attract more airlines to serve ATL, and with the additional gates ATL will be able to attract more foreign airlines since there will be enough gate space available during the main afternoon/evening rush of international flights.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4105 times:

DFW's website continues the fallacy that it is the world's 3rd busiest airport.

It indeed was the world's 3rd busiest, in movements, last year.... basically, along the same line of thinking as O'Hare's claim to the title.




Not only can't DFW officials attract foreign airlines

I'd say their relatively lack-luster international yield and international O&D, when compared to their southeastern competitor, are somewhat more to blame.....



can't seem to stop kissing AA's axx

...sorta like every other capital hub does to its primary tenant (with the glaring exception of ORD, for reasons DFW cannot match)


User currently onlineAAtakeMeAway From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4012 times:

.....DFW's website continues the fallacy that it is the world's 3rd busiest airport.
Not only can't DFW officials attract foreign airlines, can't seem to stop kissing AA's axx, but can't seem to add/subtract either.......

According to this, DFW's also #3 in domestic enplanements...: http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2004/bts034_04/html/bts034_04.html#table_04


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4106 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3997 times:

Hey Chicago, just wait until 10L/28R opens up next year along with the new southern terminal around 2010, which will have around 30 gates. And we can't forget about the additional gates on E that will be build along with the new Int'l Terminal on the eastside of ATL either. ORD will be in second place on both lists by 2010. With the new terminal more than likely to be used by FL, ASA/Comair will probably put nearly all of their ops on C, freeing up additional gates on D in which to attract more airlines to serve ATL, and with the additional gates ATL will be able to attract more foreign airlines since there will be enough gate space available during the main afternoon/evening rush of international flights.

Well, if the ORD plan goes through, ATL will fall quite a bit behind ORD in both categories. The master plan calls for 2 completely new terminals (6 and 7), an extention of T3 (to be called T4), as well as the possiblity of reconstructing T2 to better handle the UAX ops. Not to turn this into anything, I like that its split...nothin' wrong with a little healthy competition!  Big grin


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3983 times:

Expansion projects aside... are there any solidified plans thusfar to add INS facilities to any existing terminals?

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3907 times:

FYI. There is no longer any INS. It was merged with Customs and is now U.S. Customs and Immigration Service.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 Legacyins : Actually, it is called. Customs and Border Protection
26 Post contains links N328KF : Then I must be imagining http://uscis.gov/graphics/index.htm.
27 Post contains images Jacobin777 : yah..its bad sometimes, but its not bad all the time... for example, I just arrived a couple of hours ago from an ORD-SFO flight (AA), the movement wa
28 Wdleiser : If you ask me, more flights a year makes it busier. Just like a highway, if it carries more cars with 1 person in each car than any other highway it w
29 Superfly : Jacobin777: Gary has a bad reputation as a "dirty" and "crime riddled" city That dosn't hurt flights to Oakland, CA and Newark, New Jersy and they are
30 BIGBlack : So which is it for good cause I am confused. Atlanta or O Hare?
31 ConcordeBoy : So which is it for good cause I am confused. Atlanta or O Hare? It's not that difficult really... ATL is #1 for passenger throughput ORD is #1 for air
32 BIGBlack : Well with 2 posts within 5 of each other full of dispute, that makes it tough. Thanks though. MEM I completely understand.
33 Post contains links ConcordeBoy : Well with 2 posts within 5 of each other full of dispute, that makes it tough. ...well, let's unmake it tough: http://www.airports.org/cda/aci/display
34 N1120a : >I'd say their relatively lack-luster international yield and international O&D, when compared to their southeastern competitor, are somewhat more to
35 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Um, cher... LAX is #5 in pax, #6 in cargo, and #4 in movements. ...but oh well, with all due respect to MeatLoaf: 1 outta three ain't bad, either
36 Post contains images Backfire : Of course, when the USA gets around to having REAL international airports, it might just end up topping the all-round leader - London Heathrow.
37 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : when the USA gets around to having REAL international airports, ...as opposed to ethereal ones? it might just end up topping the all-round leader - Lo
38 Post contains images Maersk737 : You could argue that the routes out Heathrow to airports in the EU, isn't real international flights? Who has the biggest then Cheers Peter
39 Post contains images GustyOrange : They are real international flights Maersk737. A passport is still required to enter our country. When LHR T5 opens and we go to mixed mode then I gue
40 ConcordeBoy : When LHR T5 opens and we go to mixed mode then I guess LHR will be challenging ATL for the busiest airport title. ATL is in no danger whatsoever of be
41 GustyOrange : Won't T5 have a capacity of 35M ? Add this to 62M ? currently using LHR and we are nearly at 100M. I'm well aware that T2 might close for refurbishmen
42 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Add this to 62M ? currently using LHR and we are nearly at 100M. ...and you think ATL is just going to sit still and stagnate while that happens--? Ar
43 Post contains images GustyOrange : T5 is a LOT of capacity all at once, about 50% of where ATL is right now I guess ? Are ATL adding this sort of capacity ? If they are I hope we get a
44 GKirk : Comparing LHR to ATL is unfair. ATL is the only major airport serving ATL (happens top be DL's hub) whereas LHR competes with LGW,STN,LCY and LTN. If
45 Ilsapproach : One thing for sure when things are really moving at ORD it's quite a sight to be seen! Pretty cool on the scanner too! My hat is off to the controller
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Atlanta Retains World's Busiest Airport posted Tue Dec 14 2004 07:20:47 by ConcordeBoy
World's Busiest Airport With No 747 Service posted Fri Sep 10 2004 05:36:36 by B741
LHR Is NOT The World's Busiest Airport! posted Wed Feb 20 2002 12:05:07 by Airbus Lover
Tokyo HND - World's Busiest Airport! posted Sun Dec 23 2001 17:36:46 by Kaitak
Discovery Special On World's Busiest Airport posted Sun Apr 15 2001 17:15:08 by CAETravlr
World Busiest Airport Comfirmed posted Tue Mar 28 2000 10:54:10 by Mrjworth
Dubai To Become Busiest Airport In The World posted Wed Nov 23 2005 08:07:01 by Glareskin
World Busiest International Airport posted Fri Aug 26 2005 08:05:03 by Aircanada333
Why Isn't CDG The Busiest Airport In The World? posted Wed Jul 27 2005 16:57:41 by Juventus
Why Is ATL Busiest Airport In World? posted Sat Dec 22 2001 22:40:53 by Nygfan84