Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Latest Wacky Idea For Chicago's 3rd Airport...  
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2105 times:

I've recently had another brilliant (or was it bizarre?) idea for building a 3rd airport in Chicago. The basic idea, to put the airport in the lake on an artificial island, remains the same as it has since it first came up decades ago.

Here's the new part: once the airport is completed, airline business at Midway is moved gradually up to the new airport, giving airlines such as Southwest, ATA, and National, a new top-notch facility at a discounted price (landing fees, etc., same as at Midway). After this gradual process is completed, Midway would be torn down to make room for a new, huge, housing establishment. The city-designer's dream, this new 650-acre square of land could, if properly developed, generate more than $700,000,000 per year in revenues.
Here's some math:

Stickney/Midway Housing Development Site:
Area: 650 Acres
(Midway sits on a 640-acre site with a small "bump" off to the East side adding the extra few.)
Area of small apartment building: .06 acres
(These would be unique "high privacy" buildings, with only one apartment per floor, a lobby making up the first floor with each of the 5 having its own private elevator. OR, given that .06 acres is more than 3000 square feet, two smaller apartments (Still, 1500 ft. for an apartment is big!).
Area of apartment and lawns: .1 acres

With room for parks, etc., # of viable buildings: 6000
(Of 650 acres, at .1 acres per building 6500 could fit, but parks, etc. are needed).
Apartments in high-privacy buildings: 5
Apartments in two-per-floor buildings: 10
(Floor area of high-privacy apartment: 2750 sq. ft.)
(Floor area of two-per-floor apartment: 1300 sq. ft.)
Price of high-privacy apartments: $2000/month
Price of two-per-floor apartments: $1000/month
Yearly value of high-privacy apartments: $24,000
Yearly value of two-per-floor apartments: $12,000
No. of high-privacy buildings: 3000
Number of high-privacy apartments: 15,000
No. of two-per-floor buildings: 3000
Number of two-per-floor apartments: 30,000
Annual return from all high-priv. apartments:
$360,000,000
Annual return from all two-per-floor apartments:
$360,000,000
Net annual return: $720,000,000



So... whaddaya' think?



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Well, it's late and I haven't anything better to do, so I'll keep going...

Aside from numerous other advantages, such as being one of the largest fresh-built in-city housing establishments in the world, and certainly so in terms of the new mellenium, the city's South Side would undergo a drastic reduction in "noise pollution". Where O'Hare is frequently the subject of much debate about surrounding buildings being adjusted for noise and incoming planes using alternate routes, Midway's thickly deadlocked position - with two story houses literaly fifty yards from taxiways used by 757s and not more than a few hundred feet beneath landing planes - has meant that debate is pointless, technology doesn't exist to mute that kind of noise. It's simply a fact that if you live near Midway, your windows rattle. That would all end, instantly making the area more pleasent, which alone would draw people in, and raise the land value substantially. All of this, combined with the new, huge housing development, would provide a surge of growth, both physically and economically, to the entire Stickney/ near-south/west side areas.



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineNZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Ummm........if you build a brand new airport on a lake, you're NOT going to be able to charge the same landing fees as Midway.
Ever heard of Kansai or Chek Lap Kok?


User currently offlineHaveric From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1247 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

It sounds like the idea is to provide discounted fees at first to encourage airlines to move there.

Reclaiming the lake is nothing new in Chicago -- Much of the lakefront and Lake Shore Drive exist on reclaimed land. Northwestern University also sits on reclaimed land in Evanston, just north of Chicago. However, I would not want to own property on the lake in the spot that would soon border an airport... And those interests are likely more powerful than those at Midway


User currently offlineKohflot From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

There's one other problem with turning the MDW site into a housing complex - pollution. The soil and any groundwater is probably beyond contaminated at this point.. definitely not a place for anyone to live.

User currently offlineBrett80211 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 266 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

I think that this is a really good idea. A new airport built out on Lake Michigan....Connecting the airport to mainland with a nice highway system, and even a high speed train. I really think people should look into this, 747-600X you should really look into proposing this to whoever is in charge. Not a bad idea at all. -Brett

User currently offlineMls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3076 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1786 times:



I think the idea for a floating or artificial island airport is a good one, but it's probably 50 years ahead of its time. With the exreme cost of locating an airport out on the lake, I think it would be a lot cheaper to just buy out the NIMBYs at the two existing airports and make room for expansion at the existing sites.


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7552 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Uhhhh.............NO!

Umm, quite simply you can't do this, end of story. There is no way in this day and age of environmental regulation you could build an island like this in the middle of the lake. Cost of this project would be inout of this universe. Completely unrealistic. Sorry guys.

Just wait to see much much NIMBY and opposition this project would stir up.


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

lol, nice try PSU.DTW.SCE, you make it sound like there is something unenvironmental about building an island?

By the way, no one with lakeshore property would be severly affected, the site proposed is about 9 miles (14.5 km) out.
In terms of cost, there are dozens of factors to compensate. First, the Midway proposal as suggested here. Environmental cleanup is possible on that land, and if it is contaminated, it could be shipped out to form the top layer of the island - which would have no contact with the water. All rainwater would be filtered before going into the lake, making the island essentially one huge water filter. Anyway, there is nothing negative about the environmental impact especially when compared with other options.

And the bit about landing fees, etc., was aimed at three airlines: ATA, National, and Southwest - they operate out of Midway to a large extent right now. Those airlines would have permanent landing fees, etc., which are the same as those at Midway, all others would pay "standard" rates.



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineMDCjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 175 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Its Bold, its brave, I like it. Forget the cost. Lets get to work! Big grin

User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

Thanks, MDC!

Okay, Johan - Yes it is a SHORT message, but it is a GOOD one. Sheesh...



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5643 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

What about expanding GYY?


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineDragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

Isn't Kansai slowly sinking?

--dragogoalie-#88--



Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
User currently offlineDoug_or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

unfourtunately, no. Kansai is not slowly sinking, as it was designed to do. it is quickly sinking.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offlineIllini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

OK- problems I can see with this:

1- OK, you build luxury apartments at the site of Midway Airport. You are not going to be able to lease them to anybody. Nobody who could afford a $3000-$4000/month apartment would want to live there. (and don't kid yourself; those would be cheap rents on Chicago standards)

2- Pollution. Midway has been an airport for almost 70 years. Back in the day (well, heck, to this day to some extent) fuel, oil, glycol, ect would get spilled/dumped on the ground without much of a thought. Most GA airfields are unusable for anything else because of 30-40 years of pilots spilling leaded fuel samples on the ground checking for water.

3- Infrastructure. How will you get people to this major airport out in the middle of the lake. Where will the expressway be built from? How will you get enough fuel out there for airliners. Pipeline? Now you've got a pipleline full of Jet-A running right through the middle of Chicago's drinking water supply.

4- Cost. People in America aren't generally as interested in boondogle public works projects for the sole reason that "we COULD do it" as the public in SE Asia is right now. We already went through that stage  Big grin

There are others, but I have to get going...

-Mike



Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1634 times:

Reclaiming the lake is nothing new in Chicago

Who said the Lake was Chicago's to reclaim?

Lake Michigan is a large body of water but it IS still just that...a Lake. Actually one of the most precious natural fresh water resources in the world, and the only one completely within the borders of the US. This is not like an ocean, folks....pollution doesnt wash in and out with the tide.

A massive construction project the size of which has been proposed could conceivably foul the whole southern end of the Lake with sediment(already polluted by decades of industrial negligence in the Chicago area) , and states and communities from Chicago's North Shore to Montreal could be affected. The Great Lakes ecosystem is already in enough trouble. Undertaking a massive airport construction project just to free up some land to build condos sounds a bit small sighted to me.



User currently offlineScutfarcus From United States of America, joined May 2000, 396 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1616 times:



I like the idea from an urban planning perspective, but yeah, it's pretty unlikely for a number of reasons! Aside from the incredible cost of building a huge island in the lake, don't forget the massive rehabilitation of the Midway terminal now nearing completion!

I've always maintained the the solution is a re-habbing of Gary, IN airport and a freqent high-speed train from the Loop to Gary, as well as MKE with a few stops in the suburbs. Too bad the fact that those airports are in different stats creates a political nightmare that would probably be insurmountable. Oh well...


User currently offlineUAL Bagsmasher From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2146 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

What about the bad fog that is forever lousing things up at CGX? There is fog over the Lake practically every few days. Can we say "delays?" What about all the fish habitat etc. that will be destroyed? As for expanding GYY, it isn't too far from Chicago, but the neighborhood around GYY is, well, not the best. Sad Don't quote me, but I think the town of Gary was voted Murder Capital of the Country or World not too long ago.

User currently offlineDoug_or From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

quote me. it wasn't voted... it is.


When in doubt, one B pump off
User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

Well, many of you make good points, and they have all already been accounted for. If you have a minute, please scroll down until you see your comment (or just read them all). Original responses are in bold, and my responses to yours are in normal typeset. Because many of you commented on Gary, those issues are all addressed at the bottom, together...

Isn't Kansai slowly sinking?
-
unfourtunately, no. Kansai is not slowly sinking, as it was designed to do. it is quickly sinking.


Precisely. Kansai was built simply by pouring dirt en mass into the lake, ton upon heavy ton. The airport's runways opened at 40 ft. above sea level and are currently passing 18. The terminal itself is supported literaly by sliding metal plates under the various support columns.
With Chicago Mayors Daley International (MDI or KMDI), the proposed airport, the island would be supported on triangular mirrored-pyramid steel beams. And don't worry, the loads they'd have to bear would be far less than those of the average large-scale bridge. They would be close enough together and great enough in number and strength that the failure of any one, two, or even ten would not be a problem. Because the island would end up being "hollow" the net weight gains on the lake bottom would be nill, as would (therefore) the rate of sink.


1- OK, you build luxury apartments at the site of Midway Airport. You are not going to be able to lease them to anybody. Nobody who could afford a $3000-$4000/month apartment would want to live there. (and don't kid yourself; those would be cheap rents on Chicago standards)

2- Pollution. Midway has been an airport for almost 70 years. Back in the day (well, heck, to this day to some extent) fuel, oil, glycol, ect would get spilled/dumped on the ground without much of a thought. Most GA airfields are unusable for anything else because of 30-40 years of pilots spilling leaded fuel samples on the ground checking for water.

3- Infrastructure. How will you get people to this major airport out in the middle of the lake. Where will the expressway be built from? How will you get enough fuel out there for airliners. Pipeline? Now you've got a pipleline full of Jet-A running right through the middle of Chicago's drinking water supply.

4- Cost. People in America aren't generally as interested in boondogle public works projects for the sole reason that "we COULD do it" as the public in SE Asia is right now. We already went through that stage


1- My original post stated that apartments would run for as low as $1000/mo. There is no reason for which this couldn't be as low as $750. Without the noise pollution of Midway, this neighborhood would be relatively pleasent. While Chicago's south side is often associated with nastiness, the Midway area is as much to the West as it is to the South. This project would offer nice, affordable housing, and without Midway's noise the land value would rise anyway. The entire area would undergo a regrowth.

2- There's no reason that land which supports an airport now couldn't support another airport. This land would be transferred carefully to the middle of the top of the island's upper soil layer. It would not contact the water at all, and water draining off of it would be filtered (see comments below). In any case, landfill would be placed in the Midway site instead of on the island, resulting in wholesome land for construction.

3- Don't worry, there will be no pipelines and no visible connections. The expressway connection, currently called I-790, will run from just north of Navy Pier to the island, via underground/water tunnel. The tunnel option was far preferable to a bridge because it is immune to weather, ship collisions, and airplane crashes. At the airport end, the tunnel would remain underground. At Chicago's end, the tunnel would rise up from underwater to connect with Lake Shore Drive and the existing Kennedy Expressway (90/94) branch which reaches out to Ohio St. The new connection would run over Ohio St. out to I-790. The area where the expressway rises up from underwater would form a huge new pier. At the center of this pier would be a new, tall tower. Real estate therein would provide another good funding source for the project (remember that property East of Lake Shore Drive really doesn't exist except for one or two locations, and on the North side of the city, it would be phenomenally valuable). Anyone objecting to having their lake-front view obstructed would be offered a newer, larger, same-rent condo. in the new tower. The tower's base and all connecting roads would be in the underground I-790/Lake Shore Drive interchange, so the tower would flow literally right into the fields of grass and trees making up the new park area. This huge new park would be named Lake Shore Park and would replace the existing one which isn't even on the Lake Shore and is very very small. Oil and other fuels would be shipped to the island by tankers which would dock at far-side Berths, just as at Kansai.

4- On the contrary, in SE Asia its the governments which want these "boondogles", not the people. In the US we have a sense of pride for such things. But this airport isn't about that anyway, it's about solving a problem. No one gets put out of their houses, no business are relocated, and the new airport is very very accessible. Ten to fifteen minutes of straight, uninterupted driving takes you right into the heart of the city. (By the way, the integration phase would involve making LSD wider to accomodate the increased flow).

Reclaiming the lake is nothing new in Chicago

Who said the Lake was Chicago's to reclaim?

Lake Michigan is a large body of water but it IS still just that...a Lake. Actually one of the most precious natural fresh water resources in the world, and the only one completely within the borders of the US. This is not like an ocean, folks....pollution doesnt wash in and out with the tide.

A massive construction project the size of which has been proposed could conceivably foul the whole southern end of the Lake with sediment(already polluted by decades of industrial negligence in the Chicago area) , and states and communities from Chicago's North Shore to Montreal could be affected. The Great Lakes ecosystem is already in enough trouble.

This project would be hard for environmentalists to argue, thouguh knowing them they'll find a way. Just as beavers build dams, we as humans have both the right and obligation to develop this planet to best suit our needs and respect others'. Legally, the lake is Chicago's to reclaim because anything South of Wisconsin's border and West of Indiana's is part of Illinois and since no other town has laid claim to it... we'll be the first.
You are entirely right about its preciousness and at least 95% right about its delicacy. Almost every other airport similar to KMDI drains outwards. Kansai, for example, has an incredible network of drainpipes running from the entire airfield and apron to a virtual sewer system which empties right into Osaka Bay. At KMDI, water would run inwards, to a central filtration plant, and then be expelled pure. The result is that the airport would act as a huge purification system. Also, the shoreline areas are proven to aid life in general. Fishes and Chicago's infamous Zebra Muscles would amass themselves on this new shoreline. Ultimately, the airport would do as much good as bad. Also remember that "noise pollution" is largely a human term. O'Hare airport is as good a place to go to see rabbits, birds, and prairies as it is to see airplanes. Therefor, the KMDI airport with the proposed closure of KMDI would drastically reduce noise polution, prevent huge polution increases to land-based areas such as Peotone, O'Hare's surroundings, or the already-filthy Midway. So you talk about strict environmental regulation. Well how's this for strict - an airport which not only doesn't harm the environment, but actually turns around and helps it!
Undertaking a massive airport construction project just to free up some land to build condos sounds a bit small sighted to me.
You would be right except that that's not the point. The original post was made on the assumption that many of you had read my earlier posts about the KMDI project in its original phase. This is only a small sub portion of that larger concept. The airport idea is to keep airports from expanding in populated areas, yet at the same time to be closer to Chicago than any existing ones (including, beleive it or not, Gary). By building the airport where and how it has been proposed here, traffic would occupy a new, "pure" (straight and uninterupted) expressway into Chicago directly, not miles and miles of stringing through suburbs and intersections on existing expressways which are already frequently filled to capacity. In any case, you are right when you say that it would be asinine to do it just to free up some land. That's a very small part of the overall idea.

What about the bad fog that is forever lousing things up at CGX? There is fog over the Lake practically every few days. Can we say "delays?" What about all the fish habitat etc. that will be destroyed?
Bad fog? No comprende. Lake Michigan is home to winds, not fog. This would be the second time fog has been mentioned as a potnetial threat. The first time it was brought up the solution was simple: What fog? Where did you get this from? Fog is not a major problem on the lake. Also, fog itself isn't enough to keep planes from landing. At CGX, yes, perhaps, for little things with limited instrumentation... At an international airport fog would not alone keep things from happening. That requires nasty winds and rains, and those would affect O'Hare as much as the MDI. In looking into the weather, it seems that the biggest problem with the lake is - of all things - waves, and those are easy to avoid. Fog simply isn't a problem (not to mention that there really isn't much of a fog situation here in Chicago).

All that Gary Stuff
What about expanding GYY?
-
I've always maintained the the solution is a re-habbing of Gary, IN airport and a freqent high-speed train from the Loop to Gary, as well as MKE with a few stops in the suburbs. Too bad the fact that those airports are in different stats creates a political nightmare that would probably be insurmountable. Oh well...
-
As for expanding GYY, it isn't too far from Chicago, but the neighborhood around GYY is, well, not the best. Don't quote me, but I think the town of Gary was voted Murder Capital of the Country or World not too long ago.
-
quote me. it wasn't voted... it is.

Well, thank you all for making the point for me  Big grin ! Actually, the nation's capitol, Washington DC, has a higher murder rate, but if you've ever been to Gary you'll know what these guys are talking about. It consists largely of very outdated steel factories which are massive, unsightly, Star Trek's "Borg" -like structures of old, rusting metal make. The stench in that city is often thick and fowl, and crime is, obviously, no foreigner. As it is, Gary's airport is very underused. The terminal has been renewed but is still no larger than the average Interstate rest area. If you get there at the right time, you'll see a lonesome Pan Am 727 (with winglets!) flying in and out of the airport. Just as Midway is often considered "lower class" or "secondary" when compared with O'Hare, Gary is considered the same step down from Midway. As an airport already underused, it is not choice for expansion. Also, let me point out that the propaganda you hear about it being in a good location is simply untrue. It is accessed only by very small very poorly maintained roads which wind through junkyards and abandoned factory areas. The airport itself is occupied by a grand total of 4 airplanes (or less) at any given moment, and 3 of these are old WW2 era planes. The Confederate Air Force maintains the Western Hemisphere's only JU-52 at this airport (I think it's a 52, either way, it's a Junkers and the only one within a gazillion miles). Expanding the airport on any useful scale would not be easy, and ultimately you'd have to go ahead and do some landfill anyway - but this area is as polluted as it can get and that would be an environmental travesty. That, combined with the fact that the airport would have to have odd and twisted expressways added which would link to the Chicago Skyway - creating huge traffic jams and delays of up to 2.5 hours - makes this option unpleasent. All of that is assuming that Indiana feels like letting Chicago use an airport wihch rightly belongs to it anyway. Granted, no one flies to Gary unless they want the Pan Am cheep ticket into Chicago, but Indiana and Gary will have their soap box about us essentially taking over NW Indiana.



"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1476 times:

One problem that hasn't been mentioned -
for any airport to significantly allieviate Chicago's congestion problems, It needs to be able to handle a high traffic volume
efficiently, even in Chicago weather. This means long runways, pointing different dirrections, that do not intersect. It is also good to have at LEAST 2 parralel runways, oriented to prevailing winds, separated by enough distance to permit simultaneous approaches. This is why there have been so many proposals to reorient Ohare's runways.

All of the above requires a HUGE ammount of land. The normal problems of building any airport go up drastically. They did it in Denver - on flat, unnoccupied land and with huge cost overuns. The resulting high landing fees have scared traffic away, defeating the purpose of building such a capable airport in the first place.

You could build an airport on Lake Michigan, but unless you are willing to spend 80-100+ Billion dollars to build a huge Atlanta or Denver type of field you will have not done much more than replace Midway. If you try to cram allot of new traffic onto it without expansion - you could get a Laguardia type situation. No matter how much you spend the airport will not be anywhere near as easy to expand as DEN.

I hope I am wrong - but I don't think it could work.



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...
A 3rd Airport For Paris posted Sun Dec 2 2001 06:01:24 by Planenutz
Should Chicago Get Its 3rd Airport? posted Wed May 30 2001 22:45:33 by LAX
Another Name Change For East Midland Airport posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:29:33 by NEMA
My Idea For Delta's Success At JFK posted Mon Oct 2 2006 02:45:59 by Kaitak744
Chicago Midway Airport - 1955 posted Thu Sep 7 2006 03:29:24 by BC-12D
Idea For B6: Late Night JFK-FLL Flights posted Fri Jun 9 2006 04:12:02 by RJpieces
Extra Aisle Idea For A380.... posted Wed Mar 22 2006 21:03:07 by BA380
"ILM" Is Official Name For Wilmington, NC Airport posted Thu Feb 16 2006 21:37:47 by GoAllegheny
20 Year Master Plan For Capital City Airport (LAN) posted Thu Feb 9 2006 19:36:01 by KarlB737
What's The Future Hold For Sheffield City Airport posted Sun Jan 1 2006 23:55:25 by Gilesdavies