Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA: No Need For ORD Expansion  
User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10004 times:

The article is a few days old, but I couldn't find it posted here.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/120...r-ohare-expansion-new-airport.html

Looks like Smisek is telling Chicago that at least for UA there is no need for a new runway at ORD or a new airport. It seems the mayor thinks differently.

Quote:
Financially strapped airlines would benefit more from modernizing air traffic control systems than “pouring concrete,” Smisek said.

Pressed on what type of expansion is needed to meet passenger demand at O’Hare, he replied, “None.” He argued that expansion work already completed at O’Hare was “more than sufficient” to meet “any reasonably foreseeable demand.”


[Edited 2012-04-24 14:56:07]


SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2242 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9936 times:

Probably one of the most logical things I've heard said in a long time within this industry.

It amazes me how air transport is as safe as it is these days yet ATC systems themselves are outdated by nearly 25 years. Improvements are held back by serious lack of funding and political obstructionism. The US is being crippled by this as we speak; it is the only major country that has not created an independent ATC company.

Kudos to Smisek.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently online777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9852 times:

It should come as no surprise that the City of Chicago will continue to push for the extra runway for several reasons:
- It's about prestige: The Establishment (proper noun intended) has staked political capital on the expansion and in doing so, ruffled some feathers and burned some bridges.
- It's about jobs: Influential construction lobbies, er unions, could use them. Money = power and it all cycles back to The Establishment (see above).
- It's about control: ORD expansion means more land under its control and that ultimately will serve as an additional source of revenue (fingers crossed) down the road.
- It's about money: If you doubt the first three ooints, at least believe the last one because Chicago needs it to tie everything else together.

FWIW, I side with Smisek.

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 offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9800 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):
It amazes me how air transport is as safe as it is these days yet ATC systems themselves are outdated by nearly 25 years.

I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe. In other words, there have not been any accidents directly attributed to the outdated ATC systems to prompt any sense of urgency for overhauling the system. It has become double edged sword.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9826 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9569 times:

United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9463 times:

I find it baffling that United and American thinks that the airport needs no expansion. When there are greater than 15% (being very generous here) of flights not operating on time, that indicates a problem. I can see how they can disregard the need for runway (9C-27C) as the other 7 runways should be more than sufficient to cover the airport's needs for the foreseeable future. But the airport is in desperate need of a new terminal or updated terminals to expand beyond it's current gate capacity. The economy won't stay in the crapper for long and when it does emerge, the airport should be ready to handle the masses. I wish we could fast forward 5-10 years from now when both AA and UA are whining about the delays they could have prevented.


The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
User currently online777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2525 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9357 times:

Quoting kordcj (Reply 5):
But the airport is in desperate need of a new terminal or updated terminals to expand beyond it's current gate capacity.

Strawman alert...

ORD management and City of Chicago bureaucrats naturally want to lock carriers into ORD because to do so means money for the city. In a doomsday scenario, ORD doesn't add (runway) capacity within the next, say, 15 years, all the while the State of Illinois, DoT, FAA and others throw their weight behind an equally large airport near Peotone which could potentially grab traffic from MDW and the larger southern and southwestern Chicago suburbs, not to mention NW Indiana. Most importantly from Chicago's standpoint, Peotone would effectively be out of its tax grab.

Smisek (and previously, but not more than six months ago Arpey) are wise to push back and hold onto their cash, all the while seeing who might best serve their needs in the years to come.

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 offlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9285 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe. In other words, there have not been any accidents directly attributed to the outdated ATC systems to prompt any sense of urgency for overhauling the system. It has become double edged sword.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. While unfortunate, definitely true.


User currently offlinejoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 786 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9159 times:

Happy to see a city trying to screw the airline rather than the reverse for a change

Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU


User currently offlinelat41 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9092 times:

Conti-nited has the flexibility to not depend on ORD quite as much with more hubs to shift traffic to than before the merger. Whether its circumventing bad weather or more long range planning. UA may have more breathing room and time.

User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 8928 times:

Quoting lat41 (Reply 9):
Conti-nited has the flexibility to not depend on ORD quite as much with more hubs to shift traffic to than before the merger.

I believe United had that option long before they merged with CO. DEN and IAD saw some expansion because United specifically cited it's inability to expand at ORD.



The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8661 times:

Just to be clear... ORD already has 3 parallel runways, one of them new and one lengthened.

A fourth parallel runway (10C/28C) is already well under construction (over 50% when looking at Google maps). Does anyone know the status of that project?

The airlines have already agreed not to fight the fifth parallel runway (10R/28L), the very south one. I believe land acquisition is already complete there, or mostly complete. Is the runway fully funded and/or under construction yet?

The one in question in this article is the sixth and final parallel runway (9C/27C) which doesn't require any land acquisition. I agree with Rahmbo here, it will be needed, most likely before UA and AA realize it, and it should be built but by that time we will already have 5 parallels so I am not so worried.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United787 (Reply 11):

I think what UAL and AMR are having heartburn with is the new LCC terminal that Daley wanted that UAL and AMR say they aren't going to use and see NO NEED to Pay for it. Via increased landing fees. . That's more likely the problem.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8354 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 3):
I think the reason why the ATC systems are outdated is because the system is so safe.

Lol right.

NS


User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7662 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
United does not want a new runway at ORD because United does not want to have to pay for it with higher landing fees. They are much happier with the current duopoly with AA and are more willing to work with voluntary slot restrictions than pay to fix the problem.

Bingo! UA just doesn't want to fork out anymore money. This isn't about what's best for ORD in the long run but rather what is best for UA right now. I'm not saying either is right or wrong but let's call it what it is-

The city of Chicago wants jobs, federal funds and the prestige of ORD staying on top and........
UA and AA don't want to have to pay for any of it.


User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7571 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):

I agree. I think the last thing UA (or for that matter, AA) wants to do is pay higher landing fees to finance a new runway, because they would have to pass those costs on to passengers in the form of higher fares. With several fare increases already occurring this year, I'm sure another one would not be welcome. I've always marveled at the fact that UA and AA have competed so well in ORD, with neither one giving in to the other, even when WN also competes with them to a certain extent (although being at MDW makes it easier).


User currently offlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 317 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7286 times:

In the long run, won't this just make ORD even less prevalent than it already is? Sure, being one of the biggest airports in the world is great! But when airlines don't want to start new routes into that airport because their afraid of higher landing taxes, then what's the point? The economy that the airport creates is slowly destroyed by airlines that grew beyond their means and were too busy worrying about who's the biggest and who's got the most planes.

Yes, I understand UA is the biggest airline at ORD, and they certainly have a say in what happens, but how about for once, UA actually tries to draft a plan for modernization at ORD, and they stop just talking about it. The domestic terminals look like their something out of the 1970s and the technology in them is even worse. T5 still uses old CRT's for the FIDs... It's clear that O'Hare needs a major overhaul and not only expansion.



A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently offlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7545 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7009 times:

The last thing ORD needs is expansion. Especially in the Summer,I avoid ORD becuase of thunderstorms.


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1091 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6965 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):
Kudos to Smisek
Quoting 777fan (Reply 2):
FWIW, I side with Smisek

I've been on this site a long time and never saw two people ever agree w/Smisek. Remarkable. UAL could simply upgauge at ORD and have built in expansion if they need to - no additional slots or runways required. Even use DEN and CLE more as a relief valve if it gets tight at ORD. All valid reasons why Smisek is correct and there is no reason to increase fees.

Quoting joeman (Reply 8):
Happy to see a city trying to screw the airline rather than the reverse for a change

Sincerely
STL
PIT
CLE
CVG
MEM
BNA
RDU

Hilarious Joeman.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5310 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6659 times:

Personally, I think Smisek and the City are both right. The ATC system needs updating, and ORD needs more runways. UA and AA aren't about to be stagnent for the next 10 to 20 years as to the amount of flights they intend to operate out of ORD.

Tom Horton, AA's CEO, has said that he intends to increase operations at AA's cornerstones by 20% over the next 5 years. A 20% increase would have AA/Eagle at over 550 daily departures.

If that happens, will Smisek simply sit on the number of flights he now has at ORD? Highly unlikely.

Perhaps after a few years in Chicago, Smisek will realize who delayed ORD gets, when we get weather that isn't that troublesome (snow showers that last for 6 to 8 hours, light rain showers with gusty winds, etc.). It's not like IAH, when the only real problem is a hurricane that shuts down the ATC system for several hundred miles.

What Smisek doesn't understand is that in Illinois, politicians tell business leaders what to expect, and there is no negotiation. If Smisek doesn't like it, he could move the ORD hub to CLE, where government tries to be accomodating of business.


User currently offlinejdwfloyd From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 837 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 1):

What do you base that on? The US NAS, while running with outdated technology is the safest and most efficient airspace system in the world. I'm not sure how privatizing the ATC system would improve capacity or efficiency. That idea did not work in Europe or Canada, who combined works a fraction of the traffic the US system does. There is a lot of room from improvement here State side, and new programs a moving forward to modernize the NAS.

[Edited 2012-04-25 06:17:55]

User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6357 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6452 times:

Well I guess if Smisek doesn't like it he can always move the HQ (back) to IAH. Oh wait, he and the city are at loggerheads there too. 


When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2755 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
Quote:Financially strapped airlines would benefit more from modernizing air traffic control systems than “pouring concrete,” Smisek said.

Pressed on what type of expansion is needed to meet passenger demand at O’Hare, he replied, “None.” He argued that expansion work already completed at O’Hare was “more than sufficient” to meet “any reasonably foreseeable demand.

Have to agree with Smisek. The additional runways have been and are being built at this time. The ATC system is what is now needed to speed up performance and efficiency. And why should they pay for higher fees to build another Terminal for other carriers. If LCC's want in then let them fund it. If the city wants them in then the city should fund it.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 552 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5676 times:

Would this runway make it A380 ready?

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5662 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 21):
Well I guess if Smisek doesn't like it he can always move the HQ (back) to IAH. Oh wait, he and the city are at loggerheads there too. 
Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):
Looks like Smisek is telling Chicago that at least for UA there is no need for a new runway at ORD or a new airport. It seems the mayor thinks differently.

It makes good sense for the airport to be completely full and totally constrained, if there was any spare room then WN might try to build a customs facility or something. We all know competition costs jobs and should be avoided at all costs. :p


25 Post contains images Hirnie : Have you got any source or study to backk up it's the safest in the world?
26 cyeg66 : Really? A little one-sided in your analysis, methinks.
27 Post contains links and images lightsaber : I 100% agree that new ATC is required. However, the new runway arrangement will also simplify ATC tasks... UA knows the duopoly will be watered down a
28 PGNCS : It's a two way street. Have you looked at the historical fee structures in CVG and PIT? Airlines invest in hubs they believe can make money. That doe
29 AADC10 : It is not just that UA and AA do not want to finance new runways, although that is a factor. They also want to prevent competitors from moving in. UA
30 lightsaber : I think this is the main reason UA is objecting. If there are a significant number of new flights to compete against, both UA and AA would have to dr
31 N1120A : Not really outdated, just needs improved technology. The backbone of the system is fantastic. And I'm happy for that every day. ATC is a fundamentall
32 pilotpip : You can add all the runways you want. You're still going to need space in the air and on the field for them. The runway in MKE doesn't see the use tha
33 Max Q : Agreed
34 GoBoeing : Ever think that those places were lucky to even have any semblance of a hub in the first place?
35 777fan : I absolutely think it'd be a doomsday for ORD management and the city of Chicago, within the context of tax and revenue collection. Should MDW ever o
36 kordcj : Do you really see this happening though? Unless Chicagoland undergoes a HUGE population expansion which it has not in the past several years or decad
37 Cross757 : In my opinion, it's not necessarily expansion that ORD is after, but rather the new runways are being built to improve the operational efficiency of
38 Post contains links strfyr51 : http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...demand-for-ohare-expansion-peotone That wasn't all Smisek had to SAY. Read this Article in Crain's Chicago Busi
39 christao17 : Very well thought-out and articulated points. The new ORD runway layout, will save airlines a huge amount of money over the lifetime of the airport,
40 bjorn14 : To be fair BLV was a conversion of Scott AFB not an airport built from scratch.
41 ZBA2CGX : Sure, the city can do that. As long as the airlines agree to make all the existing gates Commonn Use. I would like to get the best gate utilization i
42 United787 : Very true although I think the BIGGEST reason to complete it now is political. Do it while you have the political power to do so. You try to come bac
43 kordcj : According to the lawsuit that UA and AA filed against the city to prohibit the city from gaining funding for Phase II of the OMP, the Amended and Res
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...
No Need For Aviation Magazines Anymore posted Wed Oct 25 2006 06:41:27 by Boeingforever
UA: No Liability For Electronic Items In Baggage posted Sat Aug 19 2006 01:45:59 by BoomBoom
UA To File For ORD-CUN/PVR, LAX-PVR/SJD posted Wed Oct 12 2005 23:48:18 by MAH4546
No Need For The USAir A350 Deal posted Thu Jun 16 2005 22:35:35 by Beauing
Delta To Stay Solvent In 2005, No Need For Chp 11. posted Tue May 10 2005 13:43:55 by Juventus
UA/NW Approved For ORD-PVG/DTW-NRT-CAN posted Fri Jul 23 2004 18:44:28 by MAH4546
New Cost Figures For ORD Expansion posted Tue Feb 10 2004 03:41:49 by ORDnDFW777
No Need For Good Luck, He Won! posted Sat Jul 28 2001 16:36:45 by Hkgspotter1
Need For A ORD-LGW Flight posted Sat Nov 4 2000 19:19:01 by TWA902fly
Report: UA Wants ORD Expansion Slowed Down posted Mon Dec 20 2010 18:29:15 by FWAERJ