Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Illinois Gov. Authorizes Third Chicago Airport  
User currently offlinejns13 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 29 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14041 times:

Saw the following article on the local NBC5 news tonight.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...ird-Airport-Peotone-216907011.html

Now, I know this has been discussed on here before, but more as a possibility. Although the FAA still must approve such a project, it seems the legislature, or at least the governor, is determined to make this happen.

Personally, I think building a third airport in Chicago is foolish and, considering Illinois' current financial situation, downright destructive. Being from the Chicago suburbs, I simply cannot see this being a success. While I understand that a good portion of the passengers using Chicago airports are transiting and/or arriving from international destinations, there is also a massive population in the suburbs and city itself that travel, and the location for this potential third airport, Peotone, is remote, to put it lightly. The existence of huge infrastructure as well as the current expansion plans for O'Hare render this project further obsolete, at least in my opinion.

I'd really like to hear everybody's opinions, though. I'm pretty inexperienced in the grand scheme of things, but this whole deal seems doomed to failure, and building an airport that won't be used to "create jobs" in rural Illinois seems like giving a poor man who has no access to fuel a car. I'd love to hear your discussion, though; apologies if this has been posted already.

Thanks,

Jordan

112 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16934 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14034 times:

I can only assume this must mean the pension problem has been solved, so great news!


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9958 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13989 times:

In addition to the stupidity of a third airport, just WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone? Anyone for a three way, split operation in Chicago?  


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineXJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13877 times:

Great, soon Top Gear can film an episode at an Amerian ghost airport. The O'hare expansion pretty well takes care of runway capacity. The only thing Chicago needs is more gate space at O'hare, which is totally doable.

User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13657 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 2):
WHICH airlines are going to be willing to move all or part of their operation to Peotone?

Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers. AA and UA said a long time ago they are not interested in Peotone. AA and UA have invested way too much into ORD to abandon it in favor of Peotone.


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4843 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13509 times:

Let me be the first to say it, is Chicago building the next Mirabel? (YMX).

I saw the news broadcast on the Chicago 12:00pm news today. They actually have broken ground for this airport. they said that while the airlines have fought it they expect a lot of the passengers to come from the SW side of Chicago. Has everyone forgot about MDW?

I can see it now. Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport. They put in a token number of flights. Then they complain that it is difficult to make the region work with 3 airports. Then traffic ebbs and flows for quite a number of years. This is the same thing that happened when MDW was upgraded and started airline service again in 1967-68.

Cargo carriers won't like it because then any cargo that arrives at Peotone will have to be trucked to Chicago, adding costs.
There is already enough truck traffic on I-57, they don't need anymore.

I think it'll make a nice GA airport that people will try, but in the end not use because who wants to drive 60 miles to get on an airplane at an airport in the middle of no where.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineGrisee08 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
This is the same thing that happened when MDW was upgraded and started airline service again in 1967-68.

Hasn't this Peotone thing been going on SINCE 1967?   

Also, look at what happened to BLV? That was SUPPOSED to relieve the THEN congested STL. Now, I think Allegiant is the only airline who kisses that runway. Correct me if I'm wrong though.



You're Losing The Game!
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13288 times:

Yes, Peotone has been going on since 1967. My concern is that it is a bit beyond the populated area. Metropolitan Chicago generally ends at the terminus of the commuter railroads, with some exurban communities beyond that. The boundary would be about 10 miles north of the "South Suburban Airport" site.

Of course, development would then radiate from the new airport to meet the current developed area, but there would be little population to the east, west, or south. Everything would come from the north or northeast. Peotone, Beecher, and Monee probably don't want to be overrun, so that can lead to lawsuits and delays.

There is infrastructure at GYY, and that is being improved. Peotone would have to be built from the beginning, it would need an exit off of I-57 and probably would get a spur. Midwest winters aren't kind to construction, and expenses mount quickly.

Then there is the 5000' runway at Bult Field, a GA airport immediately to the east of the Peotone site. Peotone would have to buy out Bult's owners.

Originally, the idea was that high speed rail would solve the access problem, but no one thinks of how long it takes to get to the magical bullet train. If it leaves from Union Station in Downtown Chicago, there is no problem with right of way, but passengers will need to take slow commuter trains or Amtrak to get to the station, and possibly need to transfer from another commuter station (Amtrak uses Union Station).

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport.

Peotone is a State of Illinois project.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13216 times:

Let's not forget that Illinois and Indiana very recently agreed to build the ILLIANA Tollway connecting I-65 in Indiana with I-57 in Illinois. It will go right next to the proposed Peotone site. I guess if you're gonna build a modern shiny new road, you might as well build an airport for drivers to go to!

User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 200 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 12915 times:

This really is a stupid airport. I can't believe it's going forward.
MDW and ORD answer all our questions for travel already.
We're from Orland Park, in the deep south Suburbs and using ORD and MDW are breezes.
Why on earth would we go to Peotone? And to echo another good question, what airline is going to fly from there without being blackmaled?
Chicago's air capacity is fine for quite a while, with gate additions maybe helping in the future.
And Milwaukee is a decent overflow. It's a nice, direct train ride away.
What on earth is a 2nd remote (3rd if you count Rockford) going to really help?

IDIOTS.


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 430 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12684 times:

This isn't about moving airlines from ORD/MDW to Peotone, this is all about political patronage for jobs, consulting contracts, land purchasing and the sorts for specific groups.

For those who live in Illinois, this falls along the line of the Prairie Parkway out in the far western burbs. Money was going to be made off those selling the land and building a highway few or non would use.

Illinois Department of Transportion will manage the facility via private development.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...port-0726-20130726,0,1995914.story

Here's something that falls along the same line....The Port of Chicago.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...1_cargo-port-the-port-lake-calumet

Can you see the pattern here...


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12585 times:

All I can say is Quinn is a fricken idiot! For all of the reasons stated by the smart people of this forum above...

User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3047 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12533 times:

Quoting jns13 (Thread starter):
Personally, I think building a third airport in Chicago is foolish and, considering Illinois' current financial situation, downright destructive. Being from the Chicago suburbs, I simply cannot see this being a success.

I doubt if there is one A-Net member that believes this is a good idea for the reasons they have provided on this forum for a numbers of years. We know from past discussions that the airlines are not interested in it. Many believe it is too far south. Most if not all of us believe that ORD and MDW are providing what is needed. GYY will be what it will be when its runway is extended. Clearly an unnecessary expense at a time when everybody knows funds are tight and money shouldn't be spent.


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12419 times:

Shut the front door.

From a political standpoint, this authorization is all about the "potential" jobs that constructing an airport at Peotone would bring in. I don't think it will ever happen, but from Quinn's perspective, he can say "I authorized the Peotone airport, which would create XY,000 new jobs for union workers over three years - but we're still hamstrung by the FAA in Washington so there's no way we can build it."

So no money is appropriated, the Fed isn't going to authorize it, and the project will continue to be talked about ad nauseum.

I didn't realize this project has been discussed since the late 60s though ... I grew up on the Iowa side of the Quad Cities (roughly 200 miles west of Chicago) and I remember hearing advertisements on the radio against a Peotone airport in the mid '90s.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12303 times:

The proposed Lake Calumet Airport was a better idea than this. I question how serious they were about it but there were some really nice renderings. I don't really have a problem with Illinois setting the land aside for a future airport at Peotone but now is not the time. O'Hare expansion will take care of a lot of the regions problems. Chicago-Gary has been a hard sell. The new runway expansion may not have a customer with Allegiant pulling out. Anyone think Peotone would really do better than Gary?

User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12258 times:

Hurry up, you may beat BER!  

But seriously, it would be completely foolish of him to build this if there are not any commitments from airlines. Would Allegiant or Spirit fly from there? I assume Southwest wouldn't think of moving flights there with how many they have at MDW.


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 368 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 12122 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
I can see it now. Ram Emmanuel forces the airlines to start using the airport.

Emanuel has always been against the Peotone Airport in favor of expanding O'Hare further. Peotone brings no benefits to the city of Chicago. It's the state that is pushing it.


User currently offlineSurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2797 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11959 times:

Unbelievable. Where do I even begin? Illinois now has the worst finances of any state in the country, yet they are more concerned with a pork barrel airport project than tackling their fiscal problems? Unlike California, which has taken painful but necessary steps to rectify its similarly poor finances, Illinois does not seem to be doing anything but ignoring the problem - and getting worse! With its credit rating lower than all other states, Illinois will pay hefty interest rates to fund things like this airport. The bond issue covering the airport land purchase alone will likely cause about $18 million in *extra* interest payments per year, or $450 million over the life of the 25 year bond. Now, that's a $1.3 billion bond issue covering all kinds of infrastructure projects, but I wouldn't be surprised if greenfield airport construction alone may cost a similar amount. For the sake of Illinois taxpayers, I can only hope the state doesn't actually spend more money on building this absolutely unnecessary airport. They are already paying dearly as it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...is-credit-rating-st_n_3496264.html

Other than pork barrel spending, I just don't understand the rationale behind this airport. Chicago has recently invested billions in its two existing airports, including the new MDW terminal and improved ORD runway configuration. MDW is close to downtown Chicago, and a key economic engine for an otherwise impoverished part of the city. The runways may be short, but WN and other LCCs seem perfectly happy with MDW. ORD is at the heart of the suburban business/industrial corridor, and close to the wealthiest Chicago neighborhoods and suburbs. At ORD, hub carriers AA and UA have more than enough room for their needs, new domestic entrants like B6 and VX managed to find space in the domestic terminals, and foreign carriers continue to add service. Both airports are directly linked to the city's el network. As for a third airport, MKE has a direct train link with the city of Chicago and is an easy drive from the northern suburbs. Other "Chicago" airports have fared poorly - RFD is no more than a quasi-charter vacation package gateway, with no proven ability to support any actual network service (i.e. NW to DTW/MSP, UAX to DEN, F9 to DEN), while GYY seemingly can't support any commercial service at all.

I'm not aware of any airlines supporting this project - even the likes of G4 or NK. Most of the money is on the other side of town, and unless they took a drastic step like shutting down MDW (won't happen, and in such a scenario I'd expect WN to pay for an ORD west terminal before going way into the boonies) the airport would probably only get cargo and GA. Seems like an incredible waste of time and money at a time when Illinois should be cutting back on its spending.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 733 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11878 times:

So why did Chicago just expand ORD? I don't see how IL needs an expanded major hub at ORD plus a DFW sized new hub in the greater Chicago area.

User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4482 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11808 times:

So stupid. If they really needed a 3rd major pax airport, I would think upgrading LOT would make a lot more sense or if they needed a new airport then put it on the west side of Plainfield south of Aurora. LOT has a ton of room though to expand.


Any opinion/comment posted is that of my own and not that of Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5066 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11764 times:

The will come when Chicagoland will need a third airport, but that is probably 30 or 40 years into the future. Back in the 1970s, the 6-county area had about 6 million residents. Now, the area has more than 8 million residents. The growth in the metro area is beyond the collar counties and in the southwest suburbs.

If you believe aviation pundits, today's 600 million air travelers will be around 1 billion by 2030. You have to assume that the growth of air traffic in and out of the Chicago area would be similar to national growth.

Yes, ORD has plenty of capacity, but the belief is that with the proposed configuration of 6 east-west runways plus 2 cross runways, the operational limit is around 1.6 million. Back in the peak years about a decade ago, ORD was close to 1 million annual operations. So, the expansion program will only add about 60% more capacity over the peak operations.

Plus, there is a question on how to increase gate space. The City wants to build a western terminal, but no one has figured out how to connect the proposed terminal to Terminals 1,2,3, and 5. Years ago, there was a proposal to build a new Terminal 4 (AA/oneworld international flights) and new terminal 6 (all non-UA/AA domestic), and make Terminal 2 an international terminal for UA/Star. So, who knows if and when the City will increase gate space. And frankly, other than B6 and VX, who is going to use additional gate space? AA certainly has room to expand, even after the US merger. There are several gates that don't have jet bridges. Those could be easily put back in service. For UA, it's more likely that some RJ frequencies would become mainline frequencies, before we see UA being short of gate space.

MDW will eventually reach its operaitonal limit. WN can't keep adding flights, and no one wants to see MDW built out beyond its current boundaries. Plus, running runways over 55th, 63rd, Cicero, and Central would be an engineering nightmare.

That said, here's the major problem.

While driving to Peotone from the Loop and the south surburbs is relatively easy, it's getting there from the western suburbs that's the issue. There is a fair amount of population west of Chicago, as well as a large amount of office space along I-88, including Oak Brook, Downers Grove, Lisle, and Naperville. Major corporations with offices in that corridor include McDonald's, BP, Navistar, Aetna, and Exelon.

People going to and from the west suburbs can't easily get to Peotone. There had been a plan to extend I-355 from I-80 to I-57. But, becasue it took so long to get the extension from I-55 to I-80 built, the area of the proposed route to I-57 became very developed. The Tollway Authority has said that the purchase of land for the extionsion would be quite high, compared to the costs for buying land for I-290 to I-55 and I-55 to I-80.

So, getting to Peotone from some place like Hinsdale, Westmont, or Bolingbrook will mean getting on to I-294 and heading south to I-57 (work has stared on the 294/57 interchange), or taking I-355 to I-80, and then probably taking secondary streets and highways to the airport.

That is not a way to get people to switch from ORD and MDW.

By the same token, Gary still has plans to lengthen the main runway at GYY. If Chicagoland keeps expanding along I-90, RFD becomes a potential third airport. I know people in the northern suburbs who use MKE, since traffic on I-294/I-94 is often lighter than going south towards ORD.


User currently offlineillinoisman From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11604 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
Fedex, UPS, DHL, Polar, Atlas, etc. Peotone might be good for cargo traffic but not for many passengers.

If the purpose is for cargo, then I think RFD is suitable. No need to build another freaking airport when that is primarily what RFD is for. It's already a large hub for UPS, so quit wasting time and money and expand that airport if even necessary.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
They said that while the airlines have fought it they expect a lot of the passengers to come from the SW side of Chicago.

Yeah, I really want to spend $20 on gas to drive down to Peotone instead of going to ORD or MDW...NOT! Why build an airport near Peotone when you can just spruce up GYY?


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11552 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 15):
Hurry up, you may beat BER!  

Hahaha! Laugh for the day!

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 21):
If the purpose is for cargo, then I think RFD is suitable

You can never have enough cargo airports. :P jk I totally agree.

Seriously?! Peotone? If you are going to build a new airport at least pick a more intelligent location. I agree that Lake Calumet and out near Aurora are much better places. I believe we discussed this recently in a Chicago Airport Thread.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 20):
If Chicagoland keeps expanding along I-90, RFD becomes a potential third airport.

They would sure like that. I think because of expansion there that RFD is more viable then Peotone.


User currently offlineAustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1339 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11515 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Let me be the first to say it, is Chicago building the next Mirabel? (YMX).

That's exactly what came to my mind first. Such a transit-only airport will probably never work.



WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3638 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11483 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 15):
Would Allegiant or Spirit fly from there?

NK expressed interest at one time, but is mostly interested in GYY right now because of their ORD gate situation and the airport expansion in progress. Even with the volatile state of service at GYY, I could see NK running at least 10 flights a day from there before the first slab of concrete is poured in Peotone.

Quoting illinoisman (Reply 21):
If the purpose is for cargo, then I think RFD is suitable. No need to build another freaking airport when that is primarily what RFD is for. It's already a large hub for UPS, so quit wasting time and money and expand that airport if even necessary.

The City of Chicago has always advocated expanding RFD and GYY over building Peotone, and the Chicago Department of Aviation has agreements with both airports. The Chicago-Gary Airport Compact came about in 1995, while the similar deal for RFD came about a decade later. There are also plans to both extend the South Shore Line to GYY and make RFD a key stop on a new Metra line that is in the works. There are no such rail plans for Peotone.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 16):
Emanuel has always been against the Peotone Airport in favor of expanding O'Hare further.

As did Mayor Daley before him. I remember reading an Airways magazine article from 19 years ago where Daley pounced on the mere idea of Peotone and how much a cab ride to downtown would cost.

No one has mentioned this: The Illinois governor's race is next year. Expect the Republican opponent to Pat Quinn to turn Peotone and the use of tax dollars on the project into an election-year issue.

And don't forget the FAA's veto power- up to this point, the FAA has supported expansions at RFD and GYY over building a greenfield airport in Peotone. And I don't see that changing, given that the POTUS is a Chicago guy, not a downstate guy like Quinn - and it's the downstate and south suburban folks pushing Peotone the hardest. They need to only look in their backyard at BLV to get a taste of reality.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
25 par13del : Well I have seen articles stating it is also about jobs in the south, now if ORD and MDW are providing jobs for folks in the metro area proper as wel
26 FWAERJ : As I've said before, NK wants to grow more in Chicago, but can't get additional gates. Although I expect US to release their 3 gates at ORD T2 follow
27 rampart : You mean, like New York City, which split airport capacity 3 ways since the 1960s? That's when the metro area was smaller (Chicago-sized) and airline
28 Post contains images victrola : Political patronage for jobs, and consulting contracts??? I'm shocked that you would insinuate such a thing could occur in Illinois
29 Post contains images Marcus : This airport will be so far from the main populated areas that Ryanair could fly there and call it Chicago South
30 scutfarcus : Amazing. I can't believe this is popping up again. For god's sake, if you want to spend money then upgrade Amtrak to MKE, at least that stands a chanc
31 enilria : I don't even buy that. There is a ton of belly cargo intermingling with freighters at ORD. That's not going to work if they move the cargo carriers e
32 UA787DEN : Why? Of course I do live closer to the Northwest Parkway segment... I believe it. But at least it would be used to its capacity.
33 rampart : If you're asking about E-470, it's because anytime I'm in Denver I'm renting a car, and the rental companies have a ridiculous surcharge for the toll
34 Post contains images jreuschl : Maybe Ryanair can start international flights from here?
35 jayunited : I'm sorry but when I read your post I had to laugh. FedEx, UPS, DHL, and other cargo companies moving their operations to Peotone is absolutely crazy
36 kordcj : I think the difference is that EWR/JFK/LGA are all relatively close to a vast majority of NYC's population, not 45 miles away from city centre like P
37 Post contains images UA787DEN : Makes sense. Living two minutes from the parkway makes me a bit more likely to use it. That's the thing. It's not a worthwhile investment currently.
38 Post contains links KarlB737 : After all is said and done I think what you have stated above is exactly what will actually happen. Initial improvements starting with lengthening th
39 rampart : I can see that. But, back when the NYC airports took form (and that's going back to the 1920s and 1930s), it made most sense to occupy coastal marsh.
40 ckfred : Actually, Pat Quinn grew up in west suburban Hinsdale, and I believe he is a Chicago resident. As for downstate support of Peotone, I think it's a no
41 EWRandMDW : GYY is in Indiana and last I heard, Indiana voters can't cast ballots in Illinois.
42 par13del : Is there room to grow at MDW for the legacies, and if they are now in bed with WN, is that because the legacies were entrenched at ORD and were not i
43 ckfred : True, but remember that CVG isn't in Ohio. It's across the river in Kentucky. If you go to either ORD or MDW, you see a lot of Indiana license plates
44 luckyone : A couple things here: 1. Peotone is more than twice as far from the Loop as O'Hare. 2. There is no transportation link from Peotone to The Loop. 3. Ga
45 Post contains links type-rated : Come on now, you don't think the City of Chicago is going to idly sit by and watch a project like this pop up in their own front yard without throwin
46 luckyone : read the rest... So, no. I don't envision Mayor Emanuel encouraging airlines to use a new facility outside of Chicago.
47 type-rated : I think that's what I said in the statement above. Chicago will find a way to delay this project.
48 Beardown91737 : I also don't see that much freight relief coming to ORD. Just look at Southern California. ONT is the West Coast hub for UPS, and warehouses surround
49 MaverickM11 : [quote=type-rated,reply=45][And look who is involved in this....well what do you know...../quote] I thought he was spending with Amanda Bynes? Who let
50 Post contains images mayor : In my opinion, the PERCEIVED necessity for Peotone is in the minds of those that stand to benefit most from the sales of land, revenues, etc. that MI
51 jns13 : I think, as several have mentioned, that Mirabel serves as the best comparison: built for demand that wasn't there, and now seen as a bit of a white e
52 mayor : Just as an FYI, when I worked at DL cargo at ORD from '71-'80, we averaged about 90 outbound (mainline, of course) flights a day and we originated mo
53 B747400ERF : Besides the fact that RFD exists for this purpose, cargo is more and more reliant on transferring of belly cargo in passenger aircraft to cargo aircr
54 MKENut : We sit up here in Wisconsin and just laugh at Quinn. He is mismanaging the State of Illinois and will probably end up in jail after he leaves the gove
55 AS739BSI : I could not have said it better myself. MKE still has flights from ORD. If HSR was established to MKE, I think it would make MKE a bit more attractiv
56 Post contains links and images skywaymanaz : I found the renderings for the Lake Calumet Airport proposal. They look way better than Peotone. http://urbandesign.g2a2.com/Urban_Design/City_and_Air
57 FLDude : Reading this thread makes it pretty obvious why Peotone is proposed. My answer would be improve the rail links to RFD, GYY, and MKE, and let those se
58 deltadawg : Knowing the politics in Chicago and Illinois one really has to ask the question "Where is the land that the governor owns or who is he doing a favor f
59 mayor : However, if most of ATL's traffic is connecting rather than O&D, what is the use of having another airport? And, if one airline has the preponder
60 rampart : "Splitting operations" has been mentioned several times. In Atlanta's case, there is no need to split operations. Either there will be sufficient O&a
61 hohd : Chicago does not want this airport, IL state wants it. But their financial situation is precarious. IL does not want to be the first state to be decla
62 AviationAddict : I don't know enough about the whole situation to comment with any degree of certainty but, I would think politics are playing a huge role here...GYY
63 Post contains images lightsaber : What are they thinking? Do they really think there is a shortage of hubbing capacity not *very* convenient to O&D? Have they talked to STL, PIT, M
64 skywaymanaz : That's my thought as well. Peotone is much further out than Gary. If GYY was a runaway success with limited options to expand than maybe there would
65 ouboy79 : GYY makes a lot less sense than just upgrading KLOT. That airport is actually in IL, near close to some of the bigger SW suburbs, and has room to exp
66 iFlyLOTs : I have always been an advocate for upgrading LOT, DPA and ARR to cover what GYY could do. I think that if you built a proper terminal at DPA you coul
67 slider : Pretty much. Exactly right. It's a power play by Quinn and an idiotic one at that. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns! Your entire post is totally
68 AviationAddict : Yeah, agreed, that does make sense too; I hadn't even thought of LOT. Regardless of which one (LOT or GYY) though they definitely seem like better op
69 Post contains images westindian425 : Very superficial, I know, but as an aviation lover, I must bring this up: Some years ago, Meigs Field was closed, much to the chagrin of many, many pe
70 Post contains images AviationAddict : Ha, it was only a matter of time before someone brought it up! Meigs could never have handled the equipment or schedules the third airport would be a
71 rampart : Yes, all the way back in reply 25 (granting the missed spellcheck): Remember when Air Illinois had service to CGX? Twin Otters, or was it the HP Jets
72 TVNWZ : Why not also resurrect the new St. Louis airport in Waterloo plan?[Edited 2013-07-29 12:15:15]
73 EaglePower83 : That's well and good. I actually agree. If IL and Chicago want to reserve land in Peotone...or even around the DuPage airport area, I'm all for that.
74 mayor : I doubt that. It was the NIMBYs that shut down the DuPage County airshow in the 70s and how much growth has taken place in that area, since then? Thi
75 rj777 : Wonder how this will affect MKE?
76 rampart : Devil's advocate here, but what if this is Illinois realizing that some big-picture planning is in order that Chicago is not realizing? Several poste
77 MKENut : I agree, but Chicago and Milwaukee are rivals and there is no real interest in talking much less cooperation. Sad but true.
78 rampart : Which I think is the reason Illinois is pushing the airport, because Chicago isn't. Everyone should read the history of Cincinnati Northern Kentucky
79 lightsaber : Said early and well. There is no O&D need where this airport is proposed. WIth connecting traffic having poor yield vs. O&D, this 3rd airport
80 Beardown91737 : That makes a lot of sense, but there are two other plausible reasons, even though I agree that there will be a lot of politically connected construct
81 rj777 : Actually wouldn't this be a FOURTH airport? What about Rockford?
82 ORDBOSEWR : This is so dumb I can't even explain. We will have at most 5 major airlines in the US before the end of the calendar year. 2 of which have hubs at ORD
83 Post contains links travelin man : You can't use the NY or LA situation as "models" for Chicago, because they are completely different situations. 1. NY and LA's airports have been aro
84 Post contains links travelin man : Also, speaking of the Spanish "ghost airports", this quote caught my attention: All of these airports share some things in common. They’re located o
85 PITrules : I'm not sure what everyone is up in arms about. The article clearly states that Illinois is only purchasing the land only, not building the airport. "
86 jcwr56 : Clearly you're not from Illinois to understand what this means. It's not symbolic, taxpayer dollars will be spent to purchase land, contracts to poli
87 rampart : I didn't mean these to be models. Just examples. Obviously, every city is different. That said, the short-sightedness of most here is amazing. This i
88 FRAborn : And with one state have a backwards thinking Governor and the other spending money they don't have, a HSR connection ( or any type or cooperation) wi
89 Post contains images mayor : I don't know how much clearer this can be said, but let me give it a shot.........THIS IS MONEY THE STATE DOES NOT HAVE!! Sorry I had to yell, but th
90 Post contains links PITrules : Money they don't have, or priorities not in order? http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/illinois_state_spending.html $12.4 BILLION on welfare? 10.7 BI
91 slcdeltarumd11 : LOL everyone avoids E-470 its almost always empty. I think this is a bad time to build such an airport. There is so much empty gate space and airport
92 mayor : I don't think you understand..........they're allocating $70mil for land for an airport that CHICAGO doesn't want, but "some" in the rest of the stat
93 PITrules : Again, I don't think anyone here can predict what Chicago's aviation needs will be decades from now... that includes Chicago and the airlines. Not to
94 Post contains images rampart : That explain a lot. Short term thinking and short tempers. Seriously, I know it's not needed now. or in 5 or 10 years. But now is the time to buy lan
95 EaglePower83 : Being from the South Suburbs..........if all they're doing is RESERVING land for future use, then I'm ok with that. But those of us from IL often know
96 jcwr56 : Here's the short term thinking, 45 years....This airport was first discussed back in 1968. Politics my friend...this airport is all about politics, mo
97 Post contains links KarlB737 : RFD reacts to this story including remarks from RFD Director, Mike Dunn: Courtesy: WIFR-TV - Video Report At Link Peotone Airport Approved; Competitio
98 mayor : Hell, RFD is even further away than Peotone.......logistically, I doubt if it's much better....BUT, it is handier for those that live in the far nort
99 Post contains images rampart : That might imply that MDW property might be better suited for urban residential infill eventually. With all the capacity in ORD an all...
100 ytib : At least with MidAmerica Airport outside of St Louis (but in Illinois) the field was already there.
101 mayor : And I'm guessing that the taxpayers paid for it twice......once as Scott AFB and the second time as BLV......am I right? At least it was useful once.
102 Post contains links BMI727 : Actually they basically built a whole new airport connected to Scott AFB by one taxiway and a shared control tower. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikip
103 mayor : But WHY? Some politician have some farmland he wanted to unload?
104 BMI727 : I was too young at the time to remember why it was built that way. As for the airport itself it was a case of it making decent sense at the time, lik
105 YXwatcherMKE : Can you Explain what you mean by "BRAC'd"? Please...
106 mayor : BRAC is the Base Closure and Realignment Commission.........charged with finding military bases that are unecessary (in their minds, apparently)......
107 luckyone : That, coupled with gas around $4.00/gal means we have probably seen the suburbs extend about as far as they realistically can. As it is, the outer bu
108 Beardown91737 : Even with effort of putting jobs into the Chicago Loop, that doesn't stop Naperville/Lisle from being a tech center. If businesses continue to grow th
109 YXwatcherMKE : It may not be HSR between Chicago an Milwaukee but the train that runs between the to cities does it in 90 minutes with 3 stops on the way. One reason
110 mayor : I worked at ORD for 8 1/2 years ('71-'80) and drove every day from out past Aurora and it took me, on a good day, at least an hour to get to work in
111 AS739BSI : It is hard to say who would benefit in air transportation from an HSR line. Some might go to ORD for a direct non-stop flight. Those who want to avoi
112 mayor : Makes me wonder what would have happened if WN hadn't come along......what would MDW's future have been? Don't forget that MDW was a virtual graveyard
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...
Third Chicago Airport? posted Tue Aug 7 2001 00:23:15 by Traytable
Third Chicago ("Lincoln National") Airport News posted Thu Apr 8 2004 19:06:29 by Mikey711MN
Boy, 9, Forgotten At Chicago Airport posted Mon Jul 26 2010 18:26:50 by aaflt1871
ZRH To Be The Third A 380 Airport In Europe posted Sat Mar 27 2010 12:37:25 by ZRH
3rd Chicago Airport Back On Agenda posted Thu Mar 19 2009 17:04:52 by AmricanShamrok
Third Istanbul Airport Ready By 2013.. posted Tue Nov 11 2008 10:03:57 by Beaucaire
Third Australian Airport In AirAsia X Bid posted Wed Mar 26 2008 21:28:18 by REALDEAL
Jetblue To GYY (Gary/Chicago Airport) Soon? posted Wed Jun 7 2006 01:04:37 by InTheSky74
Improvements At Gary/Chicago Airport GYY posted Sat May 14 2005 19:06:42 by BravoGolf
Is Gary, IN A Viable 3rd Chicago Airport? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 19:47:20 by DAYflyer