KonaB777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 796 times:
We all know United is one of the most delay prone airlines in the USA. We also know that O'Hare is United's home base, and the vast majority of its flights go through O'Hare somehow. Disregarding United's other problems, do you think O'Hare plays a very big role in United's delay problem? Yeah, I know American also has an immense presence in O'Hare, but American did isloate its flights out of O'Hare so ORD wouldn't f*** up its system, and United hasn't (and really can't).
Airlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 775 times:
Me. I have never been to O'hare, and unless it is life and death, I never will go there or through there..
Chris
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
Lsjef From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 766 times:
Yes, O'hare is enormously responsible for UAL's delay problems. But, underlying this is the fact that UAL management (unlike AAL's) has been ineffective at adjusting their schedules to minimize these delays.
More generally, this points out the serious deficiencies of over-developed hubs like ORD. Point-to-point is a far superior means of accomodating travel needs.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 761 times:
Yes, yes, and yes. As I've written in a couple of other threads the past couple of days, O'Hare's snowflake runway layout is an inefficient nightmare. The same piece of property, laid out like DFW, could support double or more the traffic.
Fortunately, Mayor Daley this summer proposed just that--to rip up most of O'Hare's runways in sequence and reconfigure them into a layout that is identical to DFW's, which is the most efficient and capacious in the world. It would only require adding one new net runway, which is much more politically feasible (and operationally sound) than adding two runways to the existing nightmare layout.
Whether Democrat Daley gets his plan past the Republican suburban-NIMBY-dominated state gov't is another question. I argued in the other threads that AA and UA should play hardball if the NIMBYs delay the project: either stand down, or we take thousands of jobs, millions of passengers, and billions of dollars out of Illinois.
AA has STL and DFW to absorb traffic, and UA has DEN and IAD. It would not be difficult for them to move, say 10 million domestic pax apiece from O'Hare to their other hubs. All of these airports except DEN, which doesn't need one, are in the process of building approved-and-stamped-by-the-FAA runways. It's time to rumble with the Suburban O'Hare Commission.
That's how important Daley's plan is to the future of O'Hare, Illinois' largest economic engine, which will continue to lose traffic unless its runway capacity is substantially expanded. I'm a Republican and don't like Daley's politics, but boy is he right in a big way about O'Hare. UA and AA should throw all their political weight behind O'Hare reconfiguration.
Lsjef From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 751 times:
ORD may not be layed out in the most efficient design, yet, for years, it was the world's busiest airport, right? And it's still right up there at the top with ATL and DFW...in fact, #1 for the start of this year, by 3%+.
As for leaving ORD...the capacity is there and will never be abandoned, especially given the importance of the Chicago economy. Yes, BigAir will divert more connections to other growing hubs, but the people of Chicago can be well served by ORD in it's present runway configuration, without ratcheting it up into mega-ORD.
Penguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 975 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 744 times:
Just pick a random month on the DOT on-time satistic website:
I picked Jan 2001
Origin flights from DEN
8500+ Flights Scheduled
2000+ Delayed
witht the exact numbers in there, it came out to 24% of UA's total flights were delayed in DEN
Origin flights from ORD
11900+ Flights Scheduled
2000+ Delayed
18% of total flights delayed at ORD.
ORD may not be able to grow, but DEN has bigger problems than capacity.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
