While other cities bicker....Chicago presses forward.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...sion-with-united-american-airlines

Although linked into the T5 Operations thread, this should be mentioned outside of it.

Yes, facilities are being discussed as well, but this needs to be started first.

Great that ORD is investing so much in runways but where are the new terminals to part all those planes using those runways. Looking at the map of ORD in the article new terminal could be built on the north side by runway 9L-27R. ORD land is huge why do all the terminals have ti be in the area currently in use ?

If there is a political will to build infrastructure at ORD, why not build somehting new with an additional FIS. AA wanted to fly a 77W from ORD to LHR but could not because of lack of space at T5, now with UA getting 77W is there going to be a lack of United 777-300ER at T5, I wonder.

Theres a detailed map of the terminal changes included with the article. Interesting. I have heard rumblings about new gates, there seems to be a lot more planned that isnt public yet as the article indicates. I think they are trying to get buy in from AA UA before. It looks like T5 would get a signifcant expansion 10-15 gates, additional 4 gates in Terminal 3 as well as building an additional wing the terminal where the facilities building is now. Guessing this would add another 8-10 gates?

Of course it also shows the western terminal which seems to be the sticking point.

8 runways! I know old news but dang that is a lot of asphalt. And to think LHR and DXB have just 2.

ORD needs terminal work if you ask me. Hope this project gets the green light though.

tortugamon

To me more runways are a waste of money without first improving the gate congestion problem ORD still has. It makes no sense to get even more airplanes down on the ground and then promptly find the back of the traffic jams.

Quoting jcwr56 (Thread starter): While other cities bicker....Chicago presses forward. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...lines

'While other cities bicker...' That's quite an attempt at rewriting history. ATL opened its fifth runway nearly ten years ago. Where's the evidence that ATL, DFW or DEN lack runway capacity? ORD is just playing catchup, two decades later.

The fact that ORD leads in aircraft movements but is 25% behind ATL in passenger boardings shows just how badly that the runway assets at ORD are utilized by UA and AA.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 4): To me more runways are a waste of money without first improving the gate congestion problem ORD still has. It makes no sense to get even more airplanes down on the ground and then promptly find the back of the traffic jams.

I agree completely

It's hard to believe the runway reconfiguration at O'Hare is nearing its final phase. I remember when the plan was announced, wondering if it would ever happen.

In regards to terminals, expanding international-arrivals capacity seems to be an important need. Hopefully either a T5 expansion and/ or UA and AA CBP will get on the agenda sooner rather than later.

CBP at UA and AA's terminals would be nice. But, I was pleasantly surprised the one time I arrived into the US at ORD, in 2013 on UA. The process was relatively speedy, though the fact that I arrived before 6 am no doubt helped. The train worked fine. I was at T1 in minutes, and security there on a summer weekday morning rush hour was surprisingly speedy.

Jim

Does ORD really need another runway?

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 5): The fact that ORD leads in aircraft movements but is 25% behind ATL in passenger boardings shows just how badly that the runway assets at ORD are utilized by UA and AA.

I don't think that's a fair statement. The previous runway orientation at ORD wasn't nearly as ideal as that of ATL. ORD is getting there now by re-arranging the runways to have more simultaneous movements. Also, more movements but less passengers points to more frequencies with smaller planes which is understandable considering ORD is the 3rd(?) largest O&D market while ATL might not even make the top 10. O&D passengers value frequencies.

Quoting PUDFW (Reply 2): It looks like T5 would get a signifcant expansion 10-15 gates, additional 4 gates in Terminal 3 as well as building an additional wing the terminal where the facilities building is now. Guessing this would add another 8-10 gates?

Its hard to tell from that map, but the concourse K extension would add another 15 gates or so.


Also, now that 32L/14R is out of the picture, several things can be done with terminals 1 and/or 2. Concourse C could be doubled in length. Or concourse E could get a large extension. Or just close Terminal 2 altogether and double the length of concourses B and C. Several things can be done before considering the west terminal.

From another forum:

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 4): To me more runways are a waste of money without first improving the gate congestion problem ORD still has. It makes no sense to get even more airplanes down on the ground and then promptly find the back of the traffic jams.

Both UA and AA oppose building any additional gates at ORD at this time.

I agree they need to focus on the terminals and expand the amount of gates BUT...

I think the political window for this last runway may be closing very quickly so if they ever want to get the runway built, they may need to do it sooner than later. IMO, momentum is building against the runway expansion project from a new group of people, the people within the City of Chicago limits that live on the Northwest side. I think these people didn't really pay attention for the most part before and now are affected by airplane noise.

Before anyone says "I don't feel sorry for these people, they moved next to an airport, the airport was there first, too bad." Realize that a lot of the people that are now affected by the new runways were not previously under a flight approach path and live miles east of the airport. No one would have predicted this 15-20 years ago when they bought their homes. Don't get me wrong, I support the runway expansion 100%, but I am sympathetic to them.

It may get very difficult to build this last runway. Previously, the fight has been with the suburbs that are to the west but those people don't vote for the City of Chicago alderman and mayor.

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 5): 'While other cities bicker...' That's quite an attempt at rewriting history. ATL opened its fifth runway nearly ten years ago. Where's the evidence that ATL, DFW or DEN lack runway capacity? ORD is just playing catchup, two decades later.

You should think more globally, it's not always about the U.S. on these forums.

Yes Jet are loud, However, they are not as loud as they were even 15 years ago. I lived near MKE for 8 years in the 70's and early 80's. less than a mile away from 7R. Talk about loud we would have to stop telephone conversations as the a/c were departing because those old DC8, 727's and DC-9 were LOUD!!!! And the USAF -KC refueler's before they were given new engines were really loud you could not hear yourself think. The a/c of today are much quieter and PW, RR, and others are working on power-plants that in ten or so years will make the next generation of a/c so quite you will hardly notice them. The C-Series is a prime example of what is to come.

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 14):

As an aviation community, we cannot point to how loud airplanes were in the good old day as a justification for aircraft noise, because that's irrelevant today. You can't go to someone under a new flight path and say "planes are so much quieter today." People don't care about yesterday (not do people care about the future of the path negatively affects them) they only care about the here and now.

Planes today are still a noisy piece of technology. They are still noticeable in a city environment, 7 miles from the airport and 2100 feet high on approach.



Saying that, it's good that Chicago is getting the runways in order, here is to a better terminal structure in the future.

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 15): Planes today are still a noisy piece of technology. They are still noticeable in a city environment, 7 miles from the airport and 2100 feet high on approach.

I guess the A320NEO and 737Max will help a lot once they are more common, as they are significantly quieter than their predecessors.

Maybe an odd question from someone who never has been to Chicago or the US - but why does ORD have so many more runways than other large airports. Does it really have so many more movements compared to newer airports?

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16): Maybe an odd question from someone who never has been to Chicago or the US - but why does ORD have so many more runways than other large airports. Does it really have so many more movements compared to newer airports?

It's the number of a/c movements coupled with how lousy the weather can get. It is not intended for every piece of pavement to be used at the same time. If you have a strong wind coupled with low vis/ceilings then you very quickly get down to one runway and those cancellations and delays quickly ripple throughout the US system.

In 2014 more than 25% of all flights operating in and out of ORD were delayed/cancelled. This does not even count the hidden delays that are unreported as airlines over-block flights to cope with airport congestion....Every morning, most people leave a little (or a lot) early to go to work, just because you got to work on-time, doesn't mean you don't think your city council or your state doesn't have to fix the traffic problem on the highway, and you would love to do something with those extra 30 or 45 minutes then sit in traffic.

As far as any comparison of aircraft movements with any airport anywhere in the world, the only peer that ORD has is ATL. The next step down is a "fight" between LAX & DFW those airports are well over 100K airport movements less then ORD. The first non-US airport is PEK at number 6. Also look at the top 5 and think how bad the "average" bad weather is in those locations, and you see why ORD NEEDS 8 runways.

Aircraft Movements 2013 FINAL (Annual)
Last Update: 22 December 2014
Aircraft Movements
Landing and take-off of an aircraft
Rank City (Airport) Movements 2013 Movements 2012 % Change
1 ATLANTA GA, US (ATL) 911,074 930,310 (2.1)
2 CHICAGO IL, US (ORD) 883,287 878,108 0.6
3 LOS ANGELES CA, US (LAX) 696,443 698,619 (0.3)
4 DALLAS/FORT WORTH TX, US (DFW) 678,059 650,124 4.3
5 DENVER CO, US (DEN) 582,653 612,567 (4.9)
6 BEIJING, CN (PEK) 567,759 557,160 1.9
7 CHARLOTTE NC, US (CLT) 557,948 552,093 1.1
8 LAS VEGAS NV, US (LAS) 520,992 527,739 (1.3)
9 HOUSTON TX, US (IAH) 496,908 502,677 (1.1)
10 PARIS, FR (CDG) 478,306 497,763 (3.9)

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 4): To me more runways are a waste of money without first improving the gate congestion problem ORD still has.

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 6): I agree completely

Generally looking at it in isolation, I would agree. However, don't forget that this might be a unique chance to get that runway built AT ALL due to nimby opposition. Look at the problems airports in developed countries face all over the place building additional runways - forgoing that chance now because terminal capacity isn't optimal would be absolutely negligent.

Quoting United787 (Reply 12): No one would have predicted this 15-20 years ago when they bought their homes.

That's ridiculous and you know it. 15-20 years ago ORD was the busiest airport in the world, assuming it would not expand at all was pretty damn stupid of these people and they don't deserve any pity. Airport expansion is a common fighting ground all over the place in any community with a large international airport. Moving there, even if it's currently out of the way of flight noise, is placing a bet, and if you place a bet you have to be prepared to lose.

[Edited 2016-01-09 04:18:29]

Quoting aviationaware (Reply 18): That's ridiculous and you know it. 15-20 years ago ORD was the busiest airport in the world

[quote=PassedV1,reply=17]the only peer that ORD has is ATL. [/quo

Those numbers are old ORD is the worlds busiest airport based on aircraft movements once again.

Quoting jcwr56 (Thread starter): While other cities bicker....Chicago presses forward.

Wow! Impressive. I did not think they would actually go ahead with this development. But I guess it is a good thing that they do.  

If they really build it, would there be any other airports in the world with SIX parallel runways?!?

How many simultaneous approaches would that layout be able to handle?

Quoting BryanG (Reply 22): If they really build it, would there be any other airports in the world with SIX parallel runways?!? How many simultaneous approaches would that layout be able to handle?

I believe they would have 4 simultaneous approaches and 2 for departures.

They should already have the ability for 4 simultaneous approaches; the new runway will allow for more departures or an increased mix of arrivals and departures.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 9): I don't think that's a fair statement. The previous runway orientation at ORD wasn't nearly as ideal as that of ATL.

Lets also not forget that ORD ranks in the top 20 worldwide in terms of cargo, Atlanta doesn't even break the top 20.

Quoting United787 (Reply 12): Before anyone says "I don't feel sorry for these people, they moved next to an airport, the airport was there first, too bad." Realize that a lot of the people that are now affected by the new runways were not previously under a flight approach path and live miles east of the airport. No one would have predicted this 15-20 years ago when they bought their homes.

Exactly! We have to remember this was a runway re-alignment that has been unseen before. My girlfriend live's under the approach path to 27R and good God can it get loud there, especially on an east flow day when it seems like it's a constant stream of MD-80s.

Quoting aviationaware (Reply 18): 15-20 years ago ORD was the busiest airport in the world, assuming it would not expand at all was pretty damn stupid of these people and they don't deserve any pity

While not thinking that it would expand would be dumb, we are talking a complete runway re-alignment. The majority of the area under the old departure and approach paths was industry and rail yards, it has now become offices and houses.

They should just go ahead and rename it "Richard M. Daley Field at O'Hare International Airport." The entire project is all Richie.

And, like others, I think the focus at ORD should be terminal enhancements instead of more runways. Quite frankly, I, as a Chicagoan, find the terminal facilities to be an embarrassment to our city. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if we actually had gotten the 2016 Olympixs.

Quoting bcoz (Reply 26): And, like others, I think the focus at ORD should be terminal enhancements instead of more runways. Quite frankly, I, as a Chicagoan, find the terminal facilities to be an embarrassment to our city. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if we actually had gotten the 2016 Olympixs.

T2 & T3 are vintage terminals; a modernization of each has been completed. T2 -- long one of the biggest eyesores in the nation -- looks quite respectable. There's really little else that can short of demolishing and rebuilding them, and that will never happen given the logistics and cost. T1 is already a modern terminal and UA & ORD are currently refreshing it.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 1): If there is a political will to build infrastructure at ORD, why not build somehting new with an additional FIS. AA wanted to fly a 77W from ORD to LHR but could not because of lack of space at T5, now with UA getting 77W is there going to be a lack of United 777-300ER at T5, I wonder.

There's already an active thread on this but that AA could not operate the 77W into ORD is total B.S. -- the plane is only briefly parked at T5, and that T5 couldn't process an additional 100 passengers seems silly. AA did happen to find space for 160 additional passengers arriving at T5 from PUJ about the same time the 77W from LHR would  . None of this will matter in a few years when pre-clearance is expanded globally.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 17): In 2014 more than 25% of all flights operating in and out of ORD were delayed/cancelled. This does not even count the hidden delays that are unreported as airlines over-block flights to cope with airport congestion....Every morning, most people leave a little (or a lot) early to go to work, just because you got to work on-time, doesn't mean you don't think your city council or your state doesn't have to fix the traffic problem on the highway, and you would love to do something with those extra 30 or 45 minutes then sit in traffic.

ORD needs to hire an independent study to determine the reasons for delays. I suspect a lot of it is simply people. I've lost count of the number of times I've been delayed, simply because of inadequate staff for deicing.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 27):

Term 5 could handle the Pax, the issue was the terminal didn't have anymore available 77W gates as they have a larger wingspan than the 772. They could have flown it at a different time but AA wanted during the peak euro push.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 27): There's already an active thread on this but that AA could not operate the 77W into ORD is total B.S. -- the plane is only briefly parked at T5, and that T5 couldn't process an additional 100 passengers seems silly

It had nothing to do with PAX, it had to do with the swap from a 76W to a 777 at the wrong time of the day. The gate mix could not handle it at the time AA wanted.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 27): T2 & T3 are vintage terminals; a modernization of each has been completed. T2 -- long one of the biggest eyesores in the nation -- looks quite respectable. There's really little else that can short of demolishing and rebuilding them, and that will never happen given the logistics and cost. T1 is already a modern terminal and UA & ORD are currently refreshing it.

The road-facing facade, check-in areas and baggage claim have received marginal improvements. The rest of the facility, IMO, has not. Concourses H and K look exactly as they did in 1990's Home Alone. The same can be said of aTerminal 2. I understand that there are logistical issues to building something new, but I personally feel not much attention has been paid to the passenger areas on the secure side.

Quoting apodino (Reply 31): The noise footprint wouldn't be changed that much more, and that particular approach was common in plan Weird that was used prior to the realignment.

Plan Weird, prior to the runway realignment, was arrivals on 22R and 27L (the new 28R). 27R (the new 27L) was for overflow only and was used as a passive LAHSO runway with 22R.

Plan A is the configuration that had 27R (the new 27L) as a primary arrival runway along with 32L. If the weather was clear with westerly winds, running arrivals to 27L and 27R, (the new 28R and 27L) on visual approaches, was the most efficient for the tower as both arrival runways had perfectly-positioned high-speed exits and it allowed for 3 different departure runways.

Quoting apodino (Reply 31): 2. Given the fact that Rahm Emanuel has almost no political capital left as folks are ready to run him out of Chicago, could he actually get this done? Is he so far in the trench that he has nothing more to lose by pursuing this, or might he be trying to hold on to what little support he has by supporting this?

ORD expansion is not something that has traditionally pit the city interest groups against each other the way education and schools does for instance. Anything related to ORD in terms of politics is usually a city vs. suburbs battle.

Quoting bcoz (Reply 30): The road-facing facade, check-in areas and baggage claim have received marginal improvements. The rest of the facility, IMO, has not. Concourses H and K look exactly as they did in 1990's Home Alone. The same can be said of aTerminal 2. I understand that there are logistical issues to building something new, but I personally feel not much attention has been paid to the passenger areas on the secure side.

Quoting apodino (Reply 31): I disagree totally. T2 had a lot of work done to it, but it really just feels like window dressing to me, and the terminal doesn't feel improved at all. It is the classic example of "lipstick on a pig". Concourse G is Respectable but H and K look identical to their Home Alone appearance and that movie was filmed in 1990 I believe.

AA spent $208M modernizing its facilities in Concourses H & K from 1987-1990; in comparison, UA's entire Terminal 1 project was budgeted at $350M (but ultimately swelled to $500M). After acquiring the leases to Concourse G, AA completed a similar $80M project there (1999-2001). The whole point of AA's sponsorship of Home Alone was to showcase its newly modernized ORD facilities, during an era in which ORD was arguably the most important airport hub in the country.

The breadth of the T2 modernization isn't nearly that of T3, but over the last 15 years its received new new flooring, updated ceiling, new lighting, expanded retail/concessions, etc. UA finally completed an overhaul, re-designing the gate hold areas and designating them only for a single flight, accompanied by a jet bridge.

- - -

T2 & T3 are about on par with most facilities across the country -- most of DFW, IAH, ATL, the older sections of MSP, etc. They don't compare to T1 or the newer facilities, but you can't expect that from 54-year-old facilities.

Quoting aviationaware (Reply 18): forgoing that chance now because terminal capacity isn't optimal would be absolutely negligent.

Agreed. Terminals can happen with a lot less NIMBYism, they need to get the runway done now before it is too late and I think they all know that.

Quoting aviationaware (Reply 18): That's ridiculous and you know it. 15-20 years ago ORD was the busiest airport in the world, assuming it would not expand at all was pretty damn stupid of these people and they don't deserve any pity. Airport expansion is a common fighting ground all over the place in any community with a large international airport. Moving there, even if it's currently out of the way of flight noise, is placing a bet, and if you place a bet you have to be prepared to lose.

No, I don't. Of course people would expect expansion at ORD but as iflylots stated below, a complete runway reconfiguration was never anticipated and had never been attempted at such a large scale anywhere in the world. Please correct if me I am wrong on this. Since you aren't not from Chicago, I will give you an example. Someone living in the Wildwood neighborhood (Caldwell and Wildwood) is 6 miles east of the airport. They probably never saw a plane directly overhead. They probably don't consider themselves anywhere close to the airport. It probably takes 15-20 minutes to get to the airport. Now they are under the approach of runway 27R and see planes on a regular basis. The same could be said for someone who lives in the Portage Park neighborhood (Berteau and Laramie) 6 miles east, 15-20 minutes to the airport in good traffic. If you lived a mile north, you would have seen planes on a regular basis, but a mile makes a big difference in the City. I can't remember if 28L will see many arrivals...correct me if I am wrong.

Quoting iflylots (Reply 25): Exactly! We have to remember this was a runway re-alignment that has been unseen before. My girlfriend live's under the approach path to 27R and good God can it get loud there, especially on an east flow day when it seems like it's a constant stream of MD-80s.

Quoting iflylots (Reply 25): While not thinking that it would expand would be dumb, we are talking a complete runway re-alignment. The majority of the area under the old departure and approach paths was industry and rail yards, it has now become offices and houses.

Agreed this reconfiguration was unprecedented and unanticipated.

Quoting bcoz (Reply 26): They should just go ahead and rename it "Richard M. Daley Field at O'Hare International Airport." The entire project is all Richie.

Careful, King Richie is hated on this forum because of his destruction of his beloved Meigs Field CGX. IMHO, I think he should be forgiven because of the ORD expansion project, he should take the credit for having the political foresight, will and muscle to make it happen. Very few politicians in the western world could pull off what he did. The benefits can be seen throughout the country. ORD may still be delay prone but the skies are less congested because of this project...the congestion has shifted to the penalty box holding areas around ORD and will remain that way until they expand the terminal capacity. Better there than circling over NW Indiana or waiting on the tarmac at LGA for air traffic approval to depart for ORD.

Quoting apodino (Reply 31): 1. All of the new flight patterns are in use now, and wouldn't be changing anymore. the new runway 9C-27C, would be just north of 9R-27L which is already used for arrivals. The noise footprint wouldn't be changed that much more, and that particular approach was common in plan Weird that was used prior to the realignment.

I bet you are correct but public perception will probably not understand the finer details of the traffic patterns. The will just see more runways equal more noise.

Quoting apodino (Reply 31): I am not so convinced AA is. AA wants to grow ORD and the reason they are having issues is because they are gate constrained on the mainline side. They have said this consistently.

That may be true, but they have repeatedly told the Chicago Department of Aviation that they don't want to pay for new gates. I don't think AA really wants to grow ORD that much and most of the growth will come from upgauging which doesn't necessarily require more gates.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 36): That may be true, but they have repeatedly told the Chicago Department of Aviation that they don't want to pay for new gates.

The only reason why UA and AA have opposed this in the past is because the CDA also wants more gates for the LCCs and ULCCs serving ORD. UA and AA don't want their money used by the CDA to cross-subsidize the competition.

Quoting CHI787ORD (Reply 33): ORD expansion is not something that has traditionally pit the city interest groups against each other the way education and schools does for instance. Anything related to ORD in terms of politics is usually a city vs. suburbs battle.

I dunno.... There have been some pretty vocal critics in the city on the Northwest Side after the opening of 28/10C. I don't remember hearing as much when 27R/9L opened.... and that path takes aircraft over Park Ridge and Niles.

Quoting United787 (Reply 35): Careful, King Richie is hated on this forum because of his destruction of his beloved Meigs Field CGX. IMHO, I think he should be forgiven because of the ORD expansion project, he should take the credit for having the political foresight, will and muscle to make it happen. Very few politicians in the western world could pull off what he did. The benefits can be seen throughout the country. ORD may still be delay prone but the skies are less congested because of this project...the congestion has shifted to the penalty box holding areas around ORD and will remain that way until they expand the terminal capacity. Better there than circling over NW Indiana or waiting on the tarmac at LGA for air traffic approval to depart for ORD.

I can't claim to have looked at any studies, but is the building of 28L/10R and this final runway (27/9C) really increasing efficiency that much? I'll give you that 27R/9L and 28/10C were needed.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 37): The only reason why UA and AA have opposed this in the past is because the CDA also wants more gates for the LCCs and ULCCs serving ORD. UA and AA don't want their money used by the CDA to cross-subsidize the competition.

No, AA & UA are opposed to further expansion because their current facilities warrant sufficient opportunity into the distant future and they don't want to take on the lion's share of billions it'd cost to construct a new terminal, which would be passed onto them indirectly. Keep in mind that when the modernization program was in full-swing in the mid-1980s, ORD was projected to reach 100M passengers by the mid-1990s -- 40M more than its next closest rival ATL. ORD had seemingly infinite growth, hindered only by the capacity of its facilities.

Today, it's a different world. ORD is no longer the focal point of its respective hub carriers' networks, DFW/IAH/ATL are anchoring the growth regions of the USA while ORD sits in a stagnant region and MDW has grown into a viable alternative, now handling in excess of 20M passengers annually.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 40): sits in a stagnant region and MDW has grown into a viable alternative, now handling in excess of 20M passengers annually

LOL. In the same sentence you claim it's "a stagnant region" and that "MDW has grown into a viable alternative, now handling in excess of 20M passengers annually."

You're funny!

If you happen to be interested in actual data...

ORD in 1985: 50 million pax
MDW in 1985: 1.5 million pax
Total in 1985: ~51.5 million pax

ORD in 2015: Will be about ~76 million
MDW in 2015: Will be about ~21.5 million
Total in 2015: Will be about ~97.5 million

So growth of 46 million pax.

IAH in 1987: 15 million pax
HOU in 1987: 8 million pax
Total in 1987: 23 million pax

IAH in 2015: Will be about ~43 million
HOU in 2015: Will be about ~12 million
Total in 2015: Will be about ~55 million

So growth of 32 million pax.

Other "growth regions" are mostly similar.

Please explain how the Chicago region is stagnant, I'm interested to know. I would say that considering the main population growth areas in the last 30 years have been in the south and west, that makes it even more impressive how air traffic in Chicago has continued dramatic growth in the long-term.

Also, you may be interested to know that ORD is going to post about 10% pax growth this year. That's more than double the next closest major US airport.

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 41): LOL. In the same sentence you claim it's "a stagnant region" and that "MDW has grown into a viable alternative, now handling in excess of 20M passengers annually." You're funny!If you happen to be interested in actual data...

You're silly  .
.
My assertion was that ORD anchors a stagnant region (the Midwest), and you attempt to counter it with data from 1985   . Of course, from 2000-2014, ORD saw a drop in passenger traffic whereas its southern counterparts (ATL, DFW, IAH & CLT) saw phenomenal growth. No doubt ORD will see a short-term boost as AA and UA continue to re-allocate network capacity but long-term there's no reason to doubt them when they say their focus will be elsewhere.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 42):

ORD in 2000 was around 70 million, and MDW about 10, so growth has occurred. And actually, Summer 2015 was surprising in that UA's mainline operations at ORD actually passed IAH, something like 245 to 225 flights per day, shifting a lot into ORD from other hubs, meaning that growth isn't being funneled elsewhere. With F9 and NK looking to grow, only constrained by gates, and China Eastern, EVA, and Icelandair launching this year, moderate growth will continue.

Also, now that ORD's annual passenger numbers will pass 77 million this year, and the annualization of 2015s growth this year, they could pass 80 million for 2016. AA and UA can't make the 'no growth' argument anymore. Fingers crossed for some new gates by 2020.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 10):

This would be awesome. Unrealistic, but it would finally give more carriers the opportunity to grow. No way UA and AA would agree to that unfortunately.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 40): AA & UA are opposed to further expansion because their current facilities warrant sufficient opportunity into the distant future and they don't want to take on the lion's share of billions it'd cost to construct a new terminal, which would be passed onto them indirectly.

Haven't read quite the whole thread, but has nobody pointed out that airport capacity limitations are directly in line with the US4's emphasis on capacity discipline? Delta, at least, specifically opposes modernization of even the traffic control system now - all reasonable observers have to conclude that this is rational monopolist/oligopolist behavior.

Hopefully the pols will reverse course on seeing the airlines as uncomplicated partners in an efficient air transportation. Capacity expansions and attendant fees should just be forced on the airlines if it's the right thing to do from a policy perspective. If they don't like it they can leave ORD. The obvious implausibility of that happening demonstrates that we should pretty much ignore UA/AA's objections.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 42): ORD anchors a stagnant region (the Midwest),

Population will not be quite stagnant per Census Bureau and planning projections, though it will certainly trail the rest of the U.S.

GDP growth will be far from stagnant, and GDP predicts flight demand more than population.

Plus if you break out the components of Chicago region's expected growth, you'll see that it will represent a far higher share of international newcomers per capita, as well as of domestic outmigrants. Both of these populations will create demand for travel to/from the region to visit friends/relatives.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 42): My assertion was that ORD anchors a stagnant region (the Midwest), and you attempt to counter it with data from 1985   . Of course, from 2000-2014, ORD saw a drop in passenger traffic whereas its southern counterparts (ATL, DFW, IAH & CLT) saw phenomenal growth.

I'm sure you must realize that when you're talking about growth, you have to have two points of reference. I'm not countering with "data from 1985," I'm countering it with data from the DIFFERENCE between 2015 and 1985. I chose to use growth over the past 30 years because population has been pretty stagnant in the midwest and has been explosive in the regions you mention during that period. So I'm not sure why using traffic change from 1985 is irrelevant in your eyes. It is actually perfectly valid data based on your assertion. Though I have seen you get into arguments in other threads where you refute strawman arguments that no one actually made. So perhaps that's what's happening here as well.

If you want me to use data for your all-of-a-sudden-clear timeframe of 2000-2014, fine. Here it is.

IAH 2000 - 35 million
HOU 2000 - 9 million
Total - 44 million

IAH 2015 - 43 million
HOU 2000 - 12 million
Total - 55 million

ORD 2000 - 72 million
MDW 2000 - 15.5 million
Total - 87.5 million

ORD in 2015: 76 million
MDW in 2015: 21.5 million
Total in 2015: 97.5 million

So there you go. Houston is up 11 million and Chicago is up 10 million. Where's your phenomenal growth? Shouldn't we actually expect cities like Houston to be wildly outperforming Chicago since their population growth is so much stronger??

Do you have another set of years you'd like to swap to try and prove your point?

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 44): GDP growth will be far from stagnant, and GDP predicts flight demand more than population.

Exactly! Of course Texas is creating tons of jobs and people are moving there but the question is "what kinds of jobs are they?" They are mostly jobs that don't yield large growth in air travel.

As I was writing this, just saw GE Healthcare is moving headquarters from UK to Chicago. Even though it may only be 100 executives, the amount of travel in RPM's this would generate is probably more than 10,000 low wage jobs in Houston.

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 46): Of course Texas is creating tons of jobs and people are moving there but the question is "what kinds of jobs are they?" They are mostly jobs that don't yield large growth in air travel.

I wouldn't go that far... Houston and Chicago will probably have similar levels of per capita GDP growth - I don't see Houston falling far behind the rest of USA or Chicago shooting far ahead. It's just that every regional economy will be expanding, even were we to assume population stagnation, so every regional economy should expect higher air travel demand.

[Edited 2016-01-11 15:29:34]

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 47): I wouldn't go that far... Houston and Chicago will probably have similar levels of per capita GDP growth - I don't see Houston falling far behind the rest of USA or Chicago shooting far ahead. It's just that every regional economy will be expanding, even were we to assume population stagnation, so every regional economy should expect higher air travel demand.

I think we're saying the same thing. I was just using a hyperbolic analogy explaining that big job and population growth doesn't necessarily equal air travel growth. If Chicago and Houston have similar levels of GDP growth as you say... But Chicago lags in population growth, then that proves that GDP growth has much more of an impact on air traffic growth; which I think is what you're saying.

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 48): If Chicago and Houston have similar levels of GDP growth as you say... But Chicago lags in population growth, then that proves that GDP growth has much more of an impact on air traffic growth; which I think is what you're saying.

Just to give this point a little bit of color. Corporate offices are moving to Chicago at a record pace. This has been going on for the last few year - Like Rahm or not - he has brought a record number of high paying jobs to the city.

And those are the "kind" of people that are premium fliers.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee...rate-hq-relocation-to-chicago.html

http://abc7chicago.com/news/chicago-...orate-relocation-expansion/541859/

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ed-or-moved-to-chicago-in-2014.php