Gary, IN thinks so, primarily due to it's geographic proximty to Chicago and the fact that it can support larger aircraft than MDW (due to the longer runway). What do you think?

Pan Am III, an admittedly suspect operation, wasn't able to make it a viable alternative. Maybe it is just too much of a hassle. If they built a light rail, maybe....

I think in addition to upgrading the facilities at GYY, the area surrounding the airport needs to be upgraded. I don't and would not feel safe using that airport, especially at night.

There was a thread on this a little over a week ago: https://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2047242
Lots of good info there.

-Mike

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 2): I think in addition to upgrading the facilities at GYY, the area surrounding the airport needs to be upgraded. I don't and would not feel safe using that airport, especially at night.

Drive through the area sometime and you will see that it is not the most desirable to say the very least. That is one of the biggest obstacles that they would first have to over come.

Gary will make a comeback!  
See my post in the other thread.

GYY is in an industrial area in the far northwest corner of Gary. This is why we can expand and not displace homes. Also it reduces the NIMBYs objecting to airport noise. People driving to the airport get off at intersections bordering the airport and drive a short distance to the free parking. We have never had a problem. Cleaning up the brownfields that surrounds us are part of our expansion plan.

Bravogolf - welcome to airliners.net as of 33 minutes ago

TWA902

First off Chicago is already over served. What do they have between ORD and MDW? 100 million passengers served a year? What is the market size? Unless its 20 million it is over served. But that aside...

Gary. ugh. The worst city in Indiana and one of the worst in the nation. While Indiana would benefit greatly from the tax revenue who in the world would use it? It isn't safe. Very dangerous city. Its like putting a new airport in LA and putting it in Watts. Very bad choice.

My 2 cents... replace some of your connecting traffic in ORD with O/D and you will see a need for a 3rd airport start to face. Plus can that region even handle more air traffic without hurting the network more than it already has?

Thanks TWA902 I had been reading the posts long enough. Time to start posting.  

Quoting Indy (Reply 8): First off Chicago is already over served......Plus can that region even handle more air traffic without hurting the network more than it already has?

Wow. Indy strikes again.

My head hurts from trying to even interpret this into understandable language, but I'll give it a try.

As much as we want to make fun of Gary, Indiana, or what have you, putting an airport there might actually draw some people and some business. Think about it. It's an airport. Besides a military base, Federal Reserve, CIA, and the Pentagon, what other type of buildings have more security than an airport? When you are talking about building an airport...it requires room...and space. All of this costs money. So you obviously want to build somewhere, like Gary, where you can get a whole bunch of a land, for a whole lot of almost nothing.

Bravo's points of an industrial area is yet another perfect reason. You get a bunch of space, you can do with it what you want to, and not have to worry about your next door neighbor. As matter of fact, your neighbors in that area would be thrilled to get commercial airport service. That means more chance for economic refurbishment and development. The shit hole that Gary once was would then be gone and there would be some life brought in to the southern suburbs on both the IL and IN side, and even extending up into southern Michigan.

Point 2-

How do you even go about replacing connecting traffic with O&D traffic? Tell Aunt Jane that she can't change planes in Chicago unless it's between the hours of 9a-3p? I don't get it.

Point 3-

That whole first part of overserving a market for 20 million that does 100 million per year....is there a polynominal function that I missed in college that would help me understand this?

STL... the stuff about Gary was a bit of a joke. I assume its the one you pass up along the highway on the way to Chicago. My wife and I have joked about that facility many times because of Gary. We always say "who would fly there?" lo. "You come out to find our plane sitting on blocks with the tires stolen and graffiti painted all over." You aren't going to get much local traffic. What you do get will likely be from the City of Chicago. And if you are in Chicago and have to deal with the traffic then why go to something like Gary instead of ORD?

Point 2 and 3 aren't even valid. Aunt Jane can connect somewhere else. Where they connect doesn't matter. If you are overcrowded you get rid of the fat first which is the connecting traffic so you can take care of your O/D where the money is anyway. Then if you have room left then fill it in with O/D. Remember problems in Chicago have a negative impact on the whole system. And on the 20/100... look at your O/D rates nationwide and compare them to the local market size. You'll see what I'm talking about.

You're trying to complain about overcapacity so if someone wants to fly from Here to There and they have to change planes, they have to do it Somewhere and not in Chicago? Maybe you missed the whole AA getting rid of the St. Louis hub in order to concentrate on Chicago and Dallas operations. Maybe you missed the whole DL getting rid of the Dallas hub in order to concentrate on Salt Lake City, Cincinnati, and Atlanta operations.

Airlines want to fly and operate where the money is and what gives their passengers convenience. That's why they spent all this money to build facilities at O'Hare and make a nice and pretty little place for their passengers. Just like Northwest did in Detroit and American is doing in Miami.

So I guess what you are trying to say is that these airlines should just send 80 million passengers a year somewhere else.

-Right-

Next time you and your wife are driving past Gary, you just drive on up to Elk Grove, Illinois and tell the nice folks at United about your utterly brilliant idea.
They'll laugh you all the way down to Dallas & Ft. Worth where you can try the same approach at the headquarters of American and Southwest.

Yeah I want to focus on what AA and DL do since they are so highly profitable. Its not about sending 80 million passengers somewhere else. Sending 10 million alone would be a HUGE help. If you know anything about running a business you'd know what the airlines are doing is foolish. The idea is to keep costs down. Double handling passengers when it isn't necessary is foolish. Creating unnecessary delays is foolish. They want to redo much of ORD. Who is going to pay for that? The airlines can't afford it and it would be fascist to expect the tax payers to pay for it. Plus when you overload a market like that then you impact other cities as well which is equally as wrong. Maybe AA should have kept their STL operation and used it more for connections than ORD. There is no real value to connecting someone in ORD with the exception of increasing the chance of the flight being delayed and having to compensate the travler.

The point is the 3rd airport isn't needed. Doesn't matter if its Gary or Elk Grove.

Your brilliant idea is to overserve a market which will drive up delays and increase operating costs while adding more seats and driving down the prices. Now that is a new kind of brillaince.

No, what the United and American does in Chicago is smart. What they are doing IS keeping costs down. They are concentrating their resources on the third largest city in the U.S., along routes where there is already a high demand of travel in the business (and leisure) sector. If you want them to route even as much as 10 million people somewhere else, that requires them to utilize more resources and purchase more aircraft...hence a rise in cost. This is why American pulled out of St. Louis; to send those aircraft and resources to two other major operational centers.

Where are all these major delays you are doing trying to factor in coming from? They just don't magically happen because you have a lot of people coming and going from one place. Delays -can- happen in Chicago because of weather or what have you, but delays are more likely to happen because of something going on in one of the bazillion cities your flight might be coming in from. I fly to Chicago probably at least twice a month and if I ever have been delayed, it has been due to weather or conditions in Raleigh where American's last flight of the day to St. Louis originates from, or New York, or delays in Phoenix, or what have you. Last time I checked a flight was delayed, nobody compensated us for anything. Southwest left us sitting in Omaha for nearly four hours as we waited for our plane to arrive which had been delayed in leaving Ft. Lauderdale, then again in Philadelphia, but did manage to make up time at Midway before arriving in Omaha.

Having a large Chicago operation allows American or United to pull resources, planes, or switch out crews or what have you in order to help get the operation back to normal. GroundStop constantly posts about him being able to do that in Atlanta to help AirTran maintain normal operations.

If they want to redo much of O'Hare then let them. O'Hare has served the Chicago community and tax payers far beyond their comprehension. It has opened up markets and communities to the entire world. An airport ultimately serves as a public service for the commerce and economic sectors and keeping one on the scale of O'Hare up and running should and will be done in accordance. Much of the Northwestern suburbs can thank the existance of O'Hare for their success and growth. If they have to pay a couple of extra bucks a year for 30 years or so, then let them.

Quoting Indy (Reply 13): The point is the 3rd airport isn't needed. Doesn't matter if its Gary or Elk Grove.

United is based in Elk Grove...there will never be an airport there, however.  

The best hope for Chicago right now, and the best solution for the majority of flyers in the Chicago market (both O&D and connecting) is to reconfigure and expand ORD. It would require minimal land acquisition from people who paid very low prices for homes they now complain about due to the noise...which is why the house was so cheap to begin with.

The new terminals planned would nearly double ORD's gate capacity, and the new runway config would almost certainly double take-offs/landings possible.

Sure GYY has a 7000 ft runway, but so does DPA. Why not start serving DPA with Hooters Air as well? GYY is a nice little airport but it is also an airport in a marsh whose neighbors are steel mills. If the mills wanted to give up land to expand (they own just about all of the surrounding land), the adjacent marshes are protected making expansion difficult if not impossible. I don't see GYY getting any bigger or any busier any time soon.

SLUAviator
Please open your eyes then. If you haven't been paying attention, GYY has received its record of decision from the FAA for expansion. RW 12/30 will be extended to 8900 feet and will go CATII. If you check DPA, has a weight limit to prevent commercial flights. And please before you make statements check your facts before they make you look foolish before people who know the facts.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 15): The best hope for Chicago right now, and the best solution for the majority of flyers in the Chicago market (both O&D and connecting) is to reconfigure and expand ORD. It would require minimal land acquisition from people who paid very low prices for homes they now complain about due to the noise...which is why the house was so cheap to begin with.

What is the average home cost around O'Hare?

Indy:

You have to understand why ORD and MDW are getting so much traffic. First, the Chicago metropolitan area is growing. Thirty-five years ago, the region had about 6,000,000 residents. Now, it has over 8,000,000. In 1970, Npaerville, which is about 28 miles west of the Loop, had about 25,000 residents. Now, it has 115,000.

All of these people need an airport, or two, or three.

Second, while I'm sure there is a lot of connecting traffic that could go elsewhere, such as a person flying PVD-ABQ, a substantial amount of the connecting traffic is going to or coming from smaller cities in the Midwest, such as Des Moines, Champaign, or South Bend. Chicago is a logical choice for a connection.

Third, a lot of people flying through ORD on UA or AA have to due to company policy. My wife's employer is based in CVG. Because DL is the primary carrier, she must fly DL to CVG or ATL, since DL flies non-stop. She can choose any carrier for cities in which DL doesn't fly non-stop, provided that there is non-stop service from ORD or MDW.

So, she can fly AA to PHL or SEA. But if there is no non-stop service out of Chicago, she's back on DL. So for a trip to Sao Paulo, she would have to fly into overburdened, delay-prone ATL and change planes.

So, someone in New York flying to GRB may have to take UA or AA via ORD, rather than avoiding the congestion and flying NW via DTW, because of an employer's contract with UA or AA.

Remember that ORD will be expanded. The political forces are lined up to get expansion done. And in Illinois, cost is never a consideration.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 15): United is based in Elk Grove...there will never be an airport there, however. Wink The best hope for Chicago right now, and the best solution for the majority of flyers in the Chicago market (both O&D and connecting) is to reconfigure and expand ORD. It would require minimal land acquisition from people who paid very low prices for homes they now complain about due to the noise...which is why the house was so cheap to begin with. The new terminals planned would nearly double ORD's gate capacity, and the new runway config would almost certainly double take-offs/landings possible.

I would agree that when you look at a map of the place it really does need to be reconfigured. There comes a time when needs change and current designs no longer work. Sometimes it would be nice if you could close shop for 4 years, wipe the place clean and rebuild from scratch. That obviously isn't an option. But someone has to pay for that place. I don't know how the airlines can afford it. Would the City of Chicago stick tax payers with the bill? Maybe a dumb question  

Realistically MDW is capped. It was really a bad location and even worse design. But what do you do when you are completely surrounded like that? But Gary? But then again LAX is near/in Compton I believe. And Compton = Gary.

"First off Chicago is already over served. What do they have between ORD and MDW? 100 million passengers served a year? What is the market size? Unless its 20 million it is over served. But that aside..."

Chicago over-served? Haha, god I almost fell out of my chair reading that one.

Ok. Given the market size you tell me what is a perfect number for a city of less than 10 million. Of course you will need to figure out how to pay for the expansion and handle the delays in the area. I'm sure you'd be happen with 200 million. lol And you also think that Chicago has a right to dictate airtravel to the rest of the nation because that is what would happen. Their backups would impact everyone. Unless of course you have a great plan to stop that as well.

I'm all ears. Lets hear your great ideas.

Indy:

When MDW opened, Charles Lindbergh was flying airmail to St. Louis. There were no houses near the airport. One square mile was fine, because air traffic in the 40s and 50s was nothing like today, and Lockheed Constellations and DC-7s didn't need 10,000 foot runways.

It is curious, though, that Mayor Daley has no problem with tearing down houses in the suburbs, but he has never considered expanding MDW. But, that would entail building runways over several busy streets and intersections, which would be horribly expensive.

My understanding is that ORD expansion will be paid for like other expansions at ORD. The City will float a bond issue, with maturities in the range of 15 to 30 years. Interest and principal will be paid out of landing fees, gate rentals, PFCs, and concession revenues.

With increased capacity, up to 1.6 million operations annually, the assumption is that more traffic will increase revenue to the City.

Altough it would be easier if ORD shut down for 4 years, ATL managed to reconfigure. Before the current runway configuration, I think ATL had 3 runways in a triangle pattern, with the terminal on the north side of the field. ORD expansion currently does not call for changes to the current terminal complex. But there are plans for expanding Terminals 2 and 3, and some new terminals, but those many years in the future.

Thanks Ckfred. Excellent post. How do you see this changing if UA fails? I'm not trying to root UA into the grave. lol. Just with it being a possibility I thought I'd ask.

Ckfred... you mentioned paying for it by floating a bond. If the costs I have seen are close to reality ($10 bil I believe) that would add quite a bit to the operating costs for the airlines wouldn't it. How would that work with WN operating a large focus city/hub in MDW? The dynamics aren't the same anymore. When AA and UA had a citywide monopoly they could easily add in the extra fees. But with having a competitor in town it wouldn't seem so easy.

Sugar,

You forget Midway just went through its own expansion/renovation project a few years ago. O'Hare is now doing the same. No big deal.

One thing for sure, I certainly bet if -anything- happens at Gary, it is going to have to be the work of the State of Indiana. Chicago is quite content with its two airports as it is.

Quoting Indy (Reply 20): But then again LAX is near/in Compton I believe. And Compton = Gary.

It is actually not very close to Compton at all. The only questionable area near LAX is Inglewood, which is not all bad and the rest is actually rather well off areas like Playa Del Rey, Marina Del Rey and Westchester

Quoting STLGph (Reply 26): You forget Midway just went through its own expansion/renovation project a few years ago. O'Hare is now doing the same. No big deal.

What MDW went through and what ORD will go through aren't even in the same league. It is unlikely that Indiana will do anything in Gary. Why would they spend money on an airport up there that would primarily serve Chicago. That method will never happen. I'm guessing it would have to be some kind of private venture.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27): It is actually not very close to Compton at all. The only questionable area near LAX is Inglewood, which is not all bad and the rest is actually rather well off areas like Playa Del Rey, Marina Del Rey and Westchester

My mistake. I may have misunderstood what the person was saying. They may have meant they had to go through Compton to get to LAX.

Like I mentioned in an earlier post:

Maybe the passengers could be shuttled in from downtown Chicago w/ helicopters. Sort of like TPA and LAS w/ the people movers.Or Dulles w/ the big buses. Only instead of trains and buses, use Chinooks........Just joshing , of course. We wouldn't want the pax to slip past the casino boat gantlet.Which is all that is there.

In terms of Economic development, Gary IN deserves the chance at that for sure. But it is wayyy too juicy for IL politicians to let an opportunity like that slip away to a bunch of Hoosiers.

I wish Jesse Jackson Jr. were an a-netter. He could give you a real spin on why a 3rd airport should be located in his district(south side of Chicago) and NOT in Gary IN.

Quoting Indy (Reply 8): First off Chicago is already over served. What do they have between ORD and MDW? 100 million passengers served a year? What is the market size?

Chicago is actually the most UNDERSERVED market in the country. With two airports, ORD and MDW, the Chicago area (as defined by Nielsen) has a household base of 1.7MM per airport.

Compare that to New York (with six area airports), which has 1.2MM households per airport. Or Los Angeles (with five airports), which has 1.1MM households per airport. Or Dallas (with two airports), which has 1.0MM households per airport.

The main threats for GYY major development comming from other non-Chicago airports could be Rockford IL, Milwakee WI and South Bend IN.
If one of those gets a high-speed rail link to Chicago (plus bigger terminals Rockford and South Bend), with those airports at 45 minutes from the Loop any big development for GYY will be questionable.
South Bend Airport already is a trainstation with service to Chicago!

I believe that Gary and the State of Indiana are working on some long-range expansion, including lengthening the main runway and expansion of the terminal.

As for ORD, John McCain once went ballistic at then-Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, because he was blocking legislation that would have given federal approval of ORD expansion. Sen. McCain felt that it was wrong of surburnites who live near ORD to put their own personal interests ahead of the needs of the air travelers who need an expanded ORD to improve the entire air travel system.

Remember, building the 3rd east-west runway isn't going to be terribly disruptive, because it will be south of 27L-9R, and I think 22L-4R will stay in its current location. And most traffic departing 32L start take-off rolls several thousand feet from the end of the runway.

As for what happens if UA goes under? I think B6 would come into ORD in a big way.

GYY will never be viable as long as the train at the end of the runway has priority over air traffic. Ridiculous.

Quoting Atcrick (Reply 33): GYY will never be viable as long as the train at the end of the runway has priority over air traffic. Ridiculous.

With the recent approval of the master plan the train tracks will be moved. This will not be an issue in the future.

Quoting Indy (Reply 28): What MDW went through and what ORD will go through aren't even in the same league.

To you, it isn't, but to the citizens of Illinois it made Midway Airport a much easier, friendlier, and nicer airport to use.

At O'Hare, to the citizens of Illinois, it will make it a much easier, friendlier, and nicer airport to use.

Hey ORD, where did you get those statistics? (1.7 MM per airport) Similar numbers would be useful to me for a project I am working on.

Thanks in advance

Here is an interesting article http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...le?AID=/20050421/BUSINESS/50421008

Quoting Dnl65 (Reply 36): Hey ORD, where did you get those statistics?

I simply took Nielsen Market Research data of the number of households in a given DMA (demographic market area as defined by Nielsen) and divided by the number of airports in that area.

I think this is a very interesting issue.

I have sat back and not responded for a few moments but now its time. Folks you have got an airline that already serves GYY. In addition I think we all can agree that Myrtle Beach, MYR and Nassau, MYNN are not in the top ten demand markets from Chicago. So...... Go with me on this. Lets say that for the month of March Hooters ran at about oh 57% load factor out of GYY (lets Just say 57%  )I have no idea where that number came from but whatever. THAT IS ONLY TO MYRTLE BEACH what if the market was LAS or PIE. I bet the aircraft would be full. GYY is the perfect airport for the vacation traveler, lots of time and cheap. ORD and MDW will always be better for the business traveler. GYY is moving the railroad and we will have 8900ft. then there is no stoping it.

But wouldn't you agree that there needs to be some "upgrading" of the general area where the airport is?

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 40): But wouldn't you agree that there needs to be some "upgrading" of the general area where the airport is?

Think about this? If you flight was cancelled and the airline wanted to put you up for the night, would you want to stay around the Gary airport? I know I would not.

First of all I can't think of a better 3 star hotel then the Trump Casino and Hotel YES DONALD TRUMP that is the hotel airlines at GYY use. Also the airport is boarded by East Chicago Folks this is not only a Gary Issue lets talk about the other cities as well.

Luv2fly

Have you ever actually been to GYY or where you just passing by?

If an airline had to provide overnight housing,they would probably use the hotels attached to the gaming boats. If full then in Hammond or Merrillville. The Blue Angles and Thunderbirds use the Trump Hotel when they perform for the Chicago Air and Water Show. I didn't hear any negative comments from them.

I am talking about people who drive to the airport...or arrive at night and GYY is the final destination; i sure as hell would not want to be caught in that area...i am sorry but i have driven through that area a lot and it is not something i would prefer.

How does Gary compare to Watts?

Quoting 7E72004 (Reply 44): I am talking about people who drive to the airport...or arrive at night and GYY is the final destination; i sure as hell would not want to be caught in that area...i am sorry but i have driven through that area a lot and it is not something i would prefer.

I have to agree with you on this.

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 32): As for ORD, John McCain once went ballistic at then-Senator Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, because he was blocking legislation that would have given federal approval of ORD expansion. Sen. McCain felt that it was wrong of surburnites who live near ORD to put their own personal interests ahead of the needs of the air travelers who need an expanded ORD to improve the entire air travel system.

Ah yes, Filabustering Fitzgerald...don't even get me started on him. To be fair, I'm a Chicago suburbanite, and Fitzgearld lives in the next town over, Inverness. For anyone familiar with the Chicago area, you understand why Fitzgerald couldn't give two hoots and a hollar over ORD expansion. He just doesn't want to be stuck with the bill.

But what many opponents don't want to admit is that expansion would bring thousands of new jobs and revenue to the City. I'm sorry for those who need to be moved, but the future of air travel in Chicago, and the fact that ORD has probably the largest impact on global aviation of any airport, is a lot more important than a few houses.

"
Ah yes, Filabustering Fitzgerald...don't even get me started on him. To be fair, I'm a Chicago suburbanite, and Fitzgearld lives in the next town over, Inverness. For anyone familiar with the Chicago area, you understand why Fitzgerald couldn't give two hoots and a hollar over ORD expansion. He just doesn't want to be stuck with the bill."

I wasnt aware that that a-hole lives in Inverness? What the hell....damn it thats freaking highland park/glencoe territory...and if you been up Sheridan Road you know what im talking about.

Seems like aside from the non-desireable location that GYY is in, getting there would seem like a b**ch. Try going East on the tollway at rush hour or during the holiday season...I think it would be make more sense to have some sort of rail link from ORD to MKE. But then again, as far as planning goes, it would take light years for an agreement where the municipalities between ORD and MKE were all in concurrance.