Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
6 Airlines Seek Downsize Of ORD Expansion  
User currently onlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2901 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8227 times:

6 of the largest airlines operating at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport have written to the city council seeking to downsize the O'Hare Modernization Program because of the current economic climate.

The Plan is already millions of dollers over-budget mainly because of delays due to objections from Bensenville.

The news comes on the day the airport opens the new 9L/27R runway. American Airlines and United Airlines, the two largest carriers at ORD are among the airlines proposing the downsize.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6515833


Shannon-Chicago
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8129 times:

I find this really apauling! First UA/AA and friends are begging for new runways and facilities. Now they change their toon. Why? No expansion equals no competition. VX already said it cant start ORD due to lack of gate space.

Hopefully the city and the FAA will see through this sham and continue the modernisation program. The instant the ecomomy starts an upswing the encobant airlines will change their stnace.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8091 times:



Quoting ORDagent (Reply 1):
. VX already said it cant start ORD due to lack of gate space.

That's not accurate. What they said is they don't want to pay the price for available gate space. They'd like gate space at ORD to be cheaper. It'd be convenient for them if the problem were not enough space, but it isn't. Perhaps if there was a huge surplus of space, it might be cheap. Complaining about expensive gate space at ORD is stupid. It's ORD for God's sake. If they don't like it, look into MDW or don't fly to Chicago.

There's plenty of space in Terminal 5 for them. If they're unhappy their competitors won't sublet them gate space, then they're just whiners and perhaps are unhappy their airline model isn't working.

Quoting ORDagent (Reply 1):
Hopefully the city and the FAA will see through this sham and continue the modernisation program. The instant the ecomomy starts an upswing the encobant airlines will change their stnace.

If they over-expand they'll have spent an awful lot of money on something that may go unused. I think their proposal should be considered and fully looked at. If there is some reason to it, perhaps take some action, if not, there is nothing lost by looking in to it. The ORD expansion is certainly very ambitious and contentious. Scaling it back to some degree might be a good option. The aviation market has drastically changed since the expansion was proposed.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently onlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8083 times:

I'd like to see the plan continue as it is. Anyone know who the other 4 airlines are?


Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12468 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 8033 times:

The expansion program still has a good few years to run; the opening of the new runway is only the first stage. The final design aims for an ATL style runway set up - parallel runways, which will make operations much more efficient, which translates to less holding time on the ground and in the air; very much in airlines' interests.

By the time the project is finished, the recession will be long over and guess who'll be the first to yell when there is insufficient capacity to support growth this; yep, the leading carriers.

This is a disappointingly shortsighted action to take and I hope it's rejected out of hand.


User currently offlineRedTailDTW From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 754 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7969 times:



Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 3):
Anyone know who the other 4 airlines are?

Its probably all of the big six carriers:

American
United
Delta
Continental
Northwest (even though they are now part of Delta)
US Airways


Just my assumption, don't take my word for it...


Mason (RedTailDTW)



Northwest Airlines. Now you're flying smart! (RIP 1926-2009)
User currently offlineCMHSRQ From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 992 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7969 times:

quote:

But Thursday morning, representatives of O'Hare's larger carriers tell ABC7 that they are not opposed to modernization, but specifically they oppose the construction of a west terminal and usage of the passenger facilities charge money to fund future construction.

Unquote

so this seems to be their concern, not new runways



The voice of moderation
User currently offlineNAVEGA From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7864 times:

I also hope the plan continues. We need to see beyond the current climate and look
forward to the olympics and beyond.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7753 times:



Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 5):
Its probably all of the big six carriers:

AA
CO
DL
NH
NW
UA

EI also opposes it, though they did not file a letter.

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 6):
so this seems to be their concern, not new runways

 checkmark I think it's a valid concern. ORD could use a few more gates, but it probably does not need 60 more, at least not in the near term. Building Terminal 4, Terminal 6, and the K extension would be plenty.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 731 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7726 times:



Quoting ORDagent (Reply 1):
find this really apauling! First UA/AA and friends are begging for new runways and facilities. Now they change their toon. Why?

Don't blame you. Fact is, there's plenty of wasted public fund investment/debt in airport facilities around the country that were built with the blessing of but subsequently abandoned/downsized in operation by their faithful carriers.

Oh yeah, the environment changed, too bad for you. We have to rely on airport A more than B now, so leave the subsidizers stuck in every way from debt to job loss and the ripple efects. It's practically a crime.


User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7666 times:

I concur with the other responders and say stay the course. When the economic downturn ends and air travel picks up, those airlines will end up crying about delays, lack of gates, etc. The process THEY wanted has started and is well underway. Have the modernization completed and in place for when its needed.

User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2036 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7541 times:



Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 6):
But Thursday morning, representatives of O'Hare's larger carriers tell ABC7 that they are not opposed to modernization, but specifically they oppose the construction of a west terminal and usage of the passenger facilities charge money to fund future construction.

This is the important piece of the story. The carriers are definitely behind the airfield reconfiguration - that, more than anything, is what's needed to fix ORD's problems. They are opposing the West Terminal.

The second phase of the airfield reconfig - the middle-southern parallel runway (10C-28C) is already underway. Paving will start in the spring. I believe the middle-northern parallel runway comes next, followed by the most contentious piece of the project... the southernmost parallel runway.


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7321 times:



Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 3):
I'd like to see the plan continue as it is. Anyone know who the other 4 airlines are?



Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 5):
Its probably all of the big six carriers:

They're listed in this Chicago Tribune article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-ohare-20-nov20,0,581604.story

AA, UA, EI, NH, DL, and CO.

IMO, the extra runways are definitely needed. The remote terminal, not so much. With the industry looking at long-term contraction, chances are they won't be needed for the forseeable future.

Could someone refresh my memory as to who was originally interested in the remote terminal?


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2036 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7274 times:



Quoting 777fan (Reply 12):
IMO, the extra runways are definitely needed. The remote terminal, not so much. With the industry looking at long-term contraction, chances are they won't be needed for the forseeable future.

Absolutely true. Both UA and AA seem to have no trouble running their ops out of the current terminal setup. The only area that could use major expansion is Terminal 2... it would be nice if United Express could do a reconstruction similar to what American Eagle did at Concourse G during 2000-2001. Apart from that (and despite what Virgin America might think) there's really not much need for additional gates.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 12):

Could someone refresh my memory as to who was originally interested in the remote terminal?

I don't know that anyone has directly shown interest in occupying the West Terminal. I think the majority of ORD's airlines would rather stay in the central area where they have a direct expressway and rail link to downtown Chicago. Access to the proposed West Terminal link is pretty poor - it's a long drive on Route 83 to the nearest expressway, and the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway (which would lead to the West Terminal under the current plan) doesn't look like it's expanding anytime soon.


User currently offlineORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7215 times:



Quoting 777fan (Reply 12):
Could someone refresh my memory as to who was originally interested in the remote terminal?

IIRC it was for expansion of international ops and new entrants. I'm assuming the new runway configurations will include A380 compatible ramp / taxiway.

One other thing that the press has pointed out is that the modernization program at ORD is part of the city's 2016 Olympic bid. I'm really hoping that we get the games. A lot of infrastructure programs are being justified by the bid. The major rebuild of the CTA Brown Line and slow zone elimination programs got kick started by IOC's concerns they gave to the Chicago bid committee.


User currently onlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7155 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 8):
AA
CO
DL
NH
NW
UA

EI also opposes it, though they did not file a letter.

I can't believe Aer Lingus are opposing.  Wow! Why would they - all we have is one lousy flight a day what has this got to do with EI? An increase in charges maybe?

Surprised also about ANA, not a major carrier out of ORD...



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7154 times:

As was stated above the ORD runway expansion is not the issues. The West Terminal as it is shown in the ORD Master Plan is a major problem for AA, CO, DL, NW, UA and the other incumbent ORD carriers. They believe that a new West Terminal could open the door to massive competition from B6, VX and other carriers. ORD does not flight caps anymore so if gates become freely available B6 and or VX could do 10 or more frequencies per day to ATL, DTW, LAX, SFO or any prime business market that is not slot controlled. That would cut VERY deeply into the incumbent carrier’s bottom line.

User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7020 times:



Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 15):
Surprised also about ANA, not a major carrier out of ORD...

Yes, but a key *A partner with UA...and CO!

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 16):
They believe that a new West Terminal could open the door to massive competition from B6, VX and other carriers.

B6 is already at ORD and isn't really in a position to expand anywhere, let alone ORD and VX is whining about the cost...poor them. There's plenty of room at GYY!

777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6953 times:



Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 16):
ORD does not flight caps anymore so if gates become freely available B6 and or VX could do 10 or more frequencies per day to ATL, DTW, LAX, SFO or any prime business market that is not slot controlled. That would cut VERY deeply into the incumbent carrier’s bottom line.

Let's be realistic, though. Those 60 gates won't be necessary because a LCC operation of that size would run AA or UA out of town.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineYXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6858 times:

I think the airlines are thinking short term with their pocket books (which is 100% completely fair given the current economic climate)

The city council should continue to finish this project off and help expand ORD. Especially important if Chicago wants 2016, if the IOC looks and sees that major infrastructure projects are already being built or have been built it will help their bid a lot.

As nervous as I am about my own job and the way the world is currently turning I believe its still best to push on, the economy will rebound and world class cities like Chicago will continue to be popular places to visit and do business.

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 16):
As was stated above the ORD runway expansion is not the issues. The West Terminal as it is shown in the ORD Master Plan is a major problem for AA, CO, DL, NW, UA and the other incumbent ORD carriers. They believe that a new West Terminal could open the door to massive competition from B6, VX and other carriers. ORD does not flight caps anymore so if gates become freely available B6 and or VX could do 10 or more frequencies per day to ATL, DTW, LAX, SFO or any prime business market that is not slot controlled. That would cut VERY deeply into the incumbent carrier’s bottom line.

Interesting points here but how well served is ORD currently to ATL, DTW, LAX, SFO? Is it generally expensive to fly out of ORD to these destinations?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6784 times:



Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 19):
Is it generally expensive to fly out of ORD to these destinations?

It's not too bad at all. I can go to Detroit or Atlanta tomorrow for less than $400 r/t and to the west coast for less than $800 r/t.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2501 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6695 times:



Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 19):
The city council should continue to finish this project off and help expand ORD.

Yeah, so it'll look like PIT.  sarcastic 

Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 19):
Interesting points here but how well served is ORD currently to ATL, DTW, LAX, SFO? Is it generally expensive to fly out of ORD to these destinations?

LAX and SFO are extraordinarily served, ATL and DTW, not as much. DTW gets a decent amount of traffic from WN down at MDW.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2172 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6630 times:

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton says the ongoing expansion at O'Hare International Airport has his company's "full support."

His comments Thursday at a Chicago celebration for a new $450 million O'Hare runway contradicted documents obtained by the Chicago Tribune.



Left hand...meet right hand.


User currently offlineYXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

I'm curious as to what VX B6 are going to do to those runs then? Obviously they will be able to run them cheaper, but by how much? They wouldn't pick up that much business traffic of those runs I would imagine.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 21):
Yeah, so it'll look like PIT. sarcastic

Hehe, I've never been to PIT but I'll do some research tonight!

Still important though for an Olympic bid to have an accessible airport; a big part of Vancouver's bid was how well YVR is put together and it's ability to mange large amounts of traffic. The other portion of the Olympic bid that worked out well was the fact that Vancouver was already committed to building a couple of major projects regardless of the Olympics or not; such as the RAV line which connects YVR/Richmond with downtown Vancouver.


User currently offlineTN757Flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6374 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 4):
By the time the project is finished, the recession will be long over and guess who'll be the first to yell when there is insufficient capacity to support growth this; yep, the leading carriers.

You beat me to it. These are the same airlines so vehemently opposed to a third Chicago airport too. I don't know how long it will take for the current down cycle to trend back up - probably longer than usual, but it will bounce back. When it does, those same carriers will want to grow again (or whatever combination of airlines is left from them). If the money is already earmarked, I don't see why the expansion isn't completed. Else in ten +/- years, when they want to start talking expansion again, it going to be a helluva lot more expensive than it is today.


25 Flyingcat : I think this is more of a case of the current carriers not wanting to pay for a terminal they will not utilize. For example, If ATL told DL they were
26 Okie : Nothing like having to support your competition. If the cost of doing business is too high at ORD, then you will see operators move to other airports
27 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : Chicago has not landed the olympics yet. There is almost a year for the decision and there are lots of people pushing for a South American olympics.
28 Ckfred : Several years ago, there was a story on one of the local TV stations about how ORD planned to shuttle people between the proposed western terminal and
29 DCA-ROCguy : One option comes to mind; I don't see it mentioned above, please forgive me if my post is duplicate. The City of Chicago could tell the legacy carrier
30 COPTER808 : I'm not sure having two sererate International terminals is a good idea though. Makes it extremely difficult for international travellers connecting
31 Cubsrule : Until Homeland Security decides that they are going to (again) permit sterile international transfer, it's a moot point.
32 AirNZ : Yep, that's what it's all about.....to stifle any competition, and they want thinly-disguised 'protection'.
33 AmricanShamrok : The 2016 bid is kinda irrelevant, the Plan had been put forward and started well before the bid was announced to keep in line with Chicago's projecte
34 FlyDreamliner : The legacies have 30 year leases because they plowed tens to hundreds of millions of dollars into building first-rate (for their time) terminals. Wit
35 AirportPlan : Most US hub terminal are built with public bonds but these bonds are backed by the primary user airline and the airline's assets. That's why the hub
36 777fan : Good luck - if you've been to Terminal One recently, you'd know that despite the industry downturn, there aren't many open gates. ORD won't have a de
37 AmricanShamrok : I agree. We were discussing in the Irish Threads that an airside foodcourt is needed amoung others. I still like T5 though - big and airy.
38 Intermodal64 : When gates become more expensive, then AA becomes less able to hoard them by scheduling one RJ movement on a gate every 2.5hours. Meanwhile, other ai
39 Jacobin777 : Peotone Airport would have been an unmitigated disaster.....
40 Ckfred : Well, T2 is connected to T3 inside security right now. If you walk between UA mainline in T1 and United Express in T2, you stay inside the secure zon
41 ADent : I moved from CHI years ago and missed out on how UAX ended up with the old Eastern (F) gates on T2. I spent many an hour all up and down the E concou
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...
Pics Of ORD In The Rain, Sat Sept 13 posted Thu Sep 18 2008 09:07:15 by Bistro1200
AA Seeks To Delay Launch Of ORD-PEK posted Fri Aug 29 2008 14:22:46 by Miaami
Article: Airline Woes Threaten ORD Expansion posted Sat Aug 9 2008 17:02:14 by Apodino
American Airlines To Lay Of 1,300 Mechanics posted Fri Jul 18 2008 08:49:30 by Luv2fly
NYT: Airlines Seek New Ways To Save On Fuel posted Tue Jun 10 2008 21:00:38 by ThreeIfByAir
Are GMG Airlines On Verge Of Collapse? posted Sun Jun 1 2008 01:00:24 by LEEDS19
An AA ER3 Operating Out Of ORD posted Sat Mar 29 2008 15:06:54 by Leo8448
What If Airlines Run Out Of Numbers? posted Mon Mar 17 2008 14:05:43 by Revo
Insanity Outside Of ORD posted Wed Oct 24 2007 18:01:07 by Csturdiv
Did Eastern Fly L-1011's Out Of ORD After 1983? posted Sun Sep 23 2007 02:38:04 by TWA1985
Are GMG Airlines On Verge Of Collapse? posted Sun Jun 1 2008 01:00:24 by LEEDS19
An AA ER3 Operating Out Of ORD posted Sat Mar 29 2008 15:06:54 by Leo8448
What If Airlines Run Out Of Numbers? posted Mon Mar 17 2008 14:05:43 by Revo
Insanity Outside Of ORD posted Wed Oct 24 2007 18:01:07 by Csturdiv
Did Eastern Fly L-1011's Out Of ORD After 1983? posted Sun Sep 23 2007 02:38:04 by TWA1985