Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA To Keep ORD Restrictions  
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

(Fair use excerpt)

Quote:
In an about-face, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday that a 3-year-old cap on flights into O'Hare International Airport won't be lifted in November 2008, when the first new runway is scheduled to open.

The rest is at http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...443834.story?coll=chi_breaking_500 (sorry, registration required).

The FAA had said that it would permit 10 more flights hourly when the new runway opened. Apparently they've changed their mind.


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

Probably a good decision on the FAA's part, although it does seem a bit unfair to the airport authority.

Maybe the FAA will reconsider after they see the considerable reduction in delays.



"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
User currently offlineSkyexramper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2433 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
The FAA had said that it would permit 10 more flights hourly when the new runway opened. Apparently they've changed their mind.

That is probably the best thing the FAA has done in a while. It would be silly not to allow this added runway to absorb some of the delay issues before adding more flights.


User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Agreed, fix the problem and then revaluate.


Go Cubs!
User currently offlineAirportplan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2368 times:

Most likely the City of Chicago Department of Aviaiton, the airlines and the FAA will negociate a higher arrival and departure rate cap as an intim measure until additonal new runways come online. The current rate is 89 so I'm guessing that the rate that is settled on will be around 100 ops per hour.

User currently offlineHPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2346 times:

Quoting Airportplan (Reply 4):
Most likely the City of Chicago Department of Aviaiton, the airlines and the FAA will negociate a higher arrival and departure rate cap as an intim measure until additonal new runways come online. The current rate is 89 so I'm guessing that the rate that is settled on will be around 100 ops per hour.

I hope not, flying Via ORD is miserable enough... let's prove that it can operate ontime the majority of the time before we raise the caps... this is the right call imho



Why do I fly???
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
In an about-face, the Federal Aviation Administration said Friday that a 3-year-old cap on flights into O'Hare International Airport won't be lifted in November 2008, when the first new runway is scheduled to open.

Someone please bring me up to date. I thought the new runway construction was being held up with legal proceedings by the NIMBY crowd.

Have I missed something?



Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting Contrails (Reply 6):
Someone please bring me up to date. I thought the new runway construction was being held up with legal proceedings by the NIMBY crowd.

Have I missed something?

In a nutshell yes. Construction has already started on the new 9L-27R, and the runway should be operational by the end of 2008. Also work is underway to lengthen runway 10-28 (The former 9R-27L) to about 13000 feet, which would allow
that runway to be used for Japan departures and possibly allow 32L to be shortened to 8800 feet, which is what it is now from the T10 intersection.

The 9L-27R construction can be seen on the right side of the airplane on takeoff from 32L or on a 22R landing. It can be seen from the Left side on a 14R landing or a 4L takeoff.


User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

The FAA has already soften it stance. The FAA had to. The new runways are paid for with PFC revenue that is generated from additional traffic. The FAA approved this payment plan. Now the FAA has a choice. They can raise the cap at least slightly or they can write a check for a billion or so to the City of Chicago to pay the difference. They will raise the cap, most likely in phases as new runways come online.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...681238.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

[Edited 2007-11-11 06:21:16]

User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2109 times:

The 32's eventually will be taken out of commission. The new 9L opens in Nov. 2008.


A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 1):
Maybe the FAA will reconsider after they see the considerable reduction in delays.

So long as the cap on flight movements remains in effect, delays should indeed be reduced, but only because of the additional runway capacity plus the cap. Given past, present and foreseeable future behavior of the legacy airlines, if/when the cap is lifted, there is little doubt they will almost immediately clog the "new improved" ORD by expanding on their practice of replacing 1 mainline movement with 2-3 RJ movements, putting ORD right back to its "delays 'r us" status along with the RJ-beseiged NYC area airports.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1987 times:

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 8):
The FAA has already soften it stance. The FAA had to.

I think you're right, and it's interesting what a little bit of behind the scenes lobbying can do. We can hate on Mayor Daley all we want for what he did to CGX (and most of it is justified), but his leadership on ORD and MDW has been visionary. MDW has been transformed from a dump into one of the nicest passenger experiences in the country, and ORD is slowly improving as well.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 10):
Given past, present and foreseeable future behavior of the legacy airlines, if/when the cap is lifted, there is little doubt they will almost immediately clog the "new improved" ORD by expanding on their practice of replacing 1 mainline movement with 2-3 RJ movements, putting ORD right back to its "delays 'r us"

I'm actually not so sure. UA is flying some BIG narrowbodies on some short routes, to places like CLE, OMA, and DSM. They're not going to replace a 75 with 3 RJs just because they can, and AA's pilot issues are such that there's not going to be a whole lot of MQ expansion at ORD (or anywhere else) in the foreseeable future.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
I'm actually not so sure. UA is flying some BIG narrowbodies on some short routes, to places like CLE, OMA, and DSM. They're not going to replace a 75 with 3 RJs just because they can, and AA's pilot issues are such that there's not going to be a whole lot of MQ expansion at ORD (or anywhere else) in the foreseeable future.

I agree with you. Because of fuel prices you will soon begin to see upgauging and a reduction in frequency to high frequency markets and even some small markets. At ORD during the past couple of years UA Express has already converted many of its CRJ flights to E70s or CRJ-700. AA Express would convert more but because of the piliot issue that you mentioned they don't have the aircraft. They also don't have enough gates with the right depth at G concourse (AA RJ Concourse).


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 12):
They also don't have enough gates with the right depth at G concourse (AA RJ Concourse).

I suspect in the not so distant future we'll see further MQ 'encroachment' into H and K; the utilization on G is significantly higher than mainline gates, some of which will sit open (or with a 'resting' airplane) for hours at a time.

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 12):
At ORD during the past couple of years UA Express has already converted many of its CRJ flights to E70s or CRJ-700

Perhaps more than any other carrier, UA is over the 50 seat jet because it has realized that it can significantly improve revenue with the Ex-Plus product. A change from a regular CRJ to an Ex-Plus CR7 or 170 is only a gain of 16-20 seats, but the revenue potential is much higher.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineContrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 7):
Construction has already started on the new 9L-27R, and the runway should be operational by the end of 2008

Thanks, Apodino. I haven't been through ORD in a while and I must have missed the posts here about it.



Flying Colors Forever!
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...
FAA To Hold Three Public Hearings On ORD Expansion posted Tue Feb 22 2005 20:06:25 by KarlB737
FAA To Penalize All For UA,AA ORD Actions posted Thu Aug 19 2004 05:04:22 by Alphascan
ORD, FAA To Tell Airlines To Cut More Flights Soon posted Wed Jul 28 2004 22:23:40 by Atcboy73
El Al To Keep MIA, ORD, YYZ, LAX... posted Fri May 4 2001 06:07:58 by Mah4546
Alaska Airlines Fights To Keep It's Monopoly posted Sat Oct 13 2007 13:03:49 by L-188
FAA To Airlines: Reduce Flights Or Else! posted Wed Sep 12 2007 14:21:56 by FlyPNS1
Looks Like AA Is Going To Get ORD-PEK posted Fri Aug 3 2007 05:30:35 by CactusOne
PK To Go ORD To LHE And ISB Non Stop posted Sat Jun 2 2007 21:19:55 by Fiaz
AA Eagle To Fly ORD-VPS & DFW-FNT posted Fri May 25 2007 15:20:31 by AJMIA
FAA To Start "Airspace Flow Program" posted Wed May 23 2007 21:30:07 by PC12Fan