CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

While certainly important, I disagree. Time and again when you hear about reasons for businesses to relocate (or remain) in the city, or why an event is held in Chicago, and the answer given is the number of destinations that can be reached from Ohare, not the number of people transferring planes there.

I am certain those businesses, when they refer to destinations, are referring to key international cities and major domestic cities - not Sheboygan, Wisconsin or Napoleon Dynamite's town. Destinations wise, O'Hare's coverage is comparable to Atlanta. When businesses cite O'hare, they're saying it's sufficient for their needs, which doesn't mean O'Hare can't be improved.

Regardless, destinations served has no bearing on aircraft size (except for Sheboygan, Wisconsin and towns in Idaho). As I said, American and United are using tiny planes from Chicago to major cities. O'Hare is the only hub where regional jets (united express, american eagle) far exceed mainline flights. I read a stat somewhere that almost 60% of all "American" airlines flights are actually subcontracted regional jet flights.

[VivaLFuego]

Can someone explain to my why the flyer geek crowd hates regional jets so much? My background is in transit, and to me, smaller vehicles at higher frequency is almost always preferred where feasible. I'd rather have 10 flight options a day on regional jets than 6 on a larger craft, both for single-leg travel and for the additional possibilities and flexibility it opens up for two-leg travel. And to top it all off, unlike with public transit, larger aircraft take even more time to load/unload when stopped at the gate. Plus, regional craft with 3/2 or even 2/2 seating in coach, and 1/2 seating in first, means fewer or even zero middle seats.

So to me, the shift to regional jets is almost entirely upside, aside from the potential for congestion at the gates or on the airfield due to the high volume of flight operations.

What am I missing?

[Ryanrule]

rj are to 200 feet kick the can towers as jumbo jets are to supertalls.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Better yet, rebuild Meigs Field and then fly everyone to O'hare.

That is what the new Vertiport near the IMD is for.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

So to me, the shift to regional jets is almost entirely upside, aside from the potential for congestion at the gates or on the airfield due to the high volume of flight operations.

What am I missing?

Well, that's the point. UAL and AAL have hobbled the overall passenger capacity of O'Hare while gobbling up gates and forcing the city to spend billions on runway expansion and reconfiguring the airfield.

It would indeed be possible to expand capacity at O'Hare without a dime in public investment if those two carriers switched to larger jets. From a passenger perspective, it is indeed more desirable to have the higher frequency of flights, but on a smaller jet you also pay a greater percentage of the fixed costs like labor and landing fees so your ticket prices are higher.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Can someone explain to my why the flyer geek crowd hates regional jets so much? My background is in transit, and to me, smaller vehicles at higher frequency is almost always preferred where feasible. I'd rather have 10 flight options a day on regional jets than 6 on a larger craft, both for single-leg travel and for the additional possibilities and flexibility it opens up for two-leg travel. And to top it all off, unlike with public transit, larger aircraft take even more time to load/unload when stopped at the gate. Plus, regional craft with 3/2 or even 2/2 seating in coach, and 1/2 seating in first, means fewer or even zero middle seats.

So to me, the shift to regional jets is almost entirely upside, aside from the potential for congestion at the gates or on the airfield due to the high volume of flight operations.

What am I missing?

By flyer geek if you mean frequent international flyers who expect something more than mass transit in the sky, yes, regional jets are hated. You have to be less than 5 feet tall to sit comfortably in one. They are industry-wide considered to be an inferior product, comfort wise, speed wise, zero in-flight amenities, and not even enough room for carry-on bags (which is fine if they're used for short flights to small towns, what they were designed for).

All frequency arguments being made here are false. There is no increase in frequency at O'Hare, just a downsizing of aircraft. United used to do 14 737's a day to D.C. (Regan airport), all on full-size 737's. Now it's 7 regional jet and 6 full-size jets-- same frequency, less capacity.

I think I've made my points. O'Hare can do better on existing infrastructure and it's woes are entirely due to United and American, clogging the skies, gates, and runways with regional jets, leading to less capacity, which in turn leads to higher prices and more delays.

[k1052]

United and American have minimal incentives to signifigantly upguage since regional operations are cheaper than mainline and it keeps capacity out of the markets which maintains ticket pricing. Consolidation has only further reinforced this regime. While the slow move to more E175s gives a few more seats than the CRJs in an arguably much more comfortable package it doesn't move the needle a lot.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that about 10 new domestic gates are needed which should be leased Virgin America/Spirit/Frontier/Jet Blue, in addition to international terminal expansion, to foster even a minimal level of competition (which is now almost entirely lacking).

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by chiphile

By flyer geek if you mean frequent international flyers who expect something more than mass transit in the sky, yes, regional jets are hated. You have to be less than 5 feet tall to sit comfortably in one.

I'm 5'10, medium build and haven't had any issues. Can you show me where the seat pitch and width on regionals is appreciably smaller than full size jets?

They are industry-wide considered to be an inferior product, comfort wise, speed wise, zero in-flight amenities, and not even enough room for carry-on bags (which is fine if they're used for short flights to small towns, what they were designed for).

Yeah, unlike the mainline 737s and A320s, most of the regional jets don't have wi-fi.... yet. Less space for carry-ons is annoying, true, but worst case they'll just check your bag on the jetway and you can get it when you de-plane, which will happen faster because it's a smaller plane anyway.

Agreed that for long flights, there is an appreciable difference in cruise speed and overall ride smoothness with larger jets. How many routes > 1000 mi are UA and AA running that many regional jets on out of ORD, though?

All frequency arguments being made here are false. There is no increase in frequency at O'Hare, just a downsizing of aircraft. United used to do 14 737's a day to D.C. (Regan airport), all on full-size 737's. Now it's 7 regional jet and 6 full-size jets-- same frequency, less capacity.

I've flown ORD-DCA probably 20-30 times in the past year. The total flight time is between 1h10m and 1h35m. If that's not conducive for "mass transit in the sky" then I'm not sure what is. And how is the frequency argument false? Assuming they had to increase or maintain their load factors (answering to their board and shareholders, after all), I'll take maintaining frequency rather than maintaining plane size. They don't just arbitrarily run capacity for the hell of it.

I think I've made my points. O'Hare can do better on existing infrastructure and it's woes are entirely due to United and American, clogging the skies, gates, and runways with regional jets, leading to less capacity, which in turn leads to higher prices and more delays.

Is there any evidence for higher fares as a result of capacity constraints at ORD? The only way I'd buy that argument is if UA and AA are actively colluding, which would be a much bigger issue than equipment scheduling.

[chiphile]

As a fellow frequent flyer I've enjoyed this exchange with you; you've made valid points but I believe they are only valid from your perspective as an individual traveler, and not from the perspective of what's good for Chicago.

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

...They don't just arbitrarily run capacity for the hell of it....

...Is there any evidence for higher fares as a result of capacity constraints at ORD? The only way I'd buy that argument is if UA and AA are actively colluding, which would be a much bigger issue than equipment scheduling.

The capacity argument isn't for just origin/destination Chicagoans. Capacity is crucial for an increase in connecting travelers. This lack of capacity has sent connecting travelers and their $$$ away from Chicago to other hubs like Denver, Dallas, and Atlanta.

Connecting travelers might not mean much to us Chicagoans, but the incoming feed they provide helps with increased international flights--many which could not be supported by local Chicago passengers alone. Cathay Pacific for example is not shuttling 300 Chicagoans between Hong Kong and Chicago daily, it's probably a 50/50 split between locals and connectors via the American Airlines feed. More connectors would enable the UA and AA allied airlines to fill jumbo jets to key missing international destinations, like Taipei, Osaka, Singapore, Latin America, and many more.

Back to Atlanta, how else do you think Delta sends a jumbo jet to Lagos-Nigeria or Mumbai-India or Johannesburg-S.Africa (all destinations missing from Chicago) , or how Korean Air sends a daily A380 from Seoul? You think it's full of Georgians? Because of connecting passengers, Georgia now gets a direct flight to Mumbai, etc., something Georgians on their own couldn't support. Thus, capacity breeds more and more routes, which feed more and more international flights.

Not to belabor the point, but more connecting passengers is more facility charges and taxes and fees to support further infrastructure upgrades. And maybe Rahm could figure out a way to plug some budget holes from these airport taxes.

Oh and this:

Airlines Under Justice Dept. Investigation Over Possible Collusion

By CHRISTOPHER DREW | JULY 1, 2015
THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/bu...sion.html?_r=0

"Federal prosecutors on Wednesday said they had begun an investigation into possible collusion among the airlines to limit seating..."

[N830MH]

Hi All,

Chicago-Midway announced to build more new parking garage, new concessions, and expanded TSA checkpoints, as well.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...806-story.html

Those annoyingly long airport security lines at Midway International Airport could be helped by a major $240 million remodeling of the airport over the next several years that will also include expanded parking and new restaurants and retail, according to a plan announced by city officials Thursday.

Let the speculation begin.

[ardecila]

Looks like they will double the parking garage by expanding over the Orange Line yard. Good use of space.

One article said they plan to improve the Orange Line pedestrian connection here as well. I don't see how you could avoid redesigning that walkway, but hopefully the replacement includes moving sidewalks and is a little more attractive...

They will also widen the concourse bridge over Cicero to alleviate bottleneck delays at security.

[bbeliko]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

rj are to 200 feet kick the can towers as jumbo jets are to supertalls.

Also RJ's are to congested airports what cars are to congested roads.

If you fly frequently, or at least semi-frequently out of NYC airports you'll see what I mean.

[N830MH]

No new runway expansion? Only they have 4 runways at MDW, but it was too short. Why they can't have extend a longer runway? I think it's time to build extend a new longest runway and it will reduce the congestion.

[Mr Downtown]

The congestion isn't so much on the air side; it's getting through security.

The runways are surrounded by residential neighborhoods. It would be costly and politically difficult to buy out 6000 single-family houses—and would just put a new neighborhood a half-mile away right at the end of a runway.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The congestion isn't so much on the air side; it's getting through security.

Yeah, you may be right. TSA checkpoints is so extremely overcrowded. They needs expanding more TSA checkpoints. It will helps and they will reduce wait time at security. Don't they have TSA Pre-Check?

[denizen467]

14L/32R, RIP.

But I think the asphalt hasn't been torn up (apparently they just removed markings/signalling - it's not a Meigs bulldozer job) so under political pressure they theoretically could revive it.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by denizen467

14L/32R, RIP.

But I think the asphalt hasn't been torn up (apparently they just removed markings/signalling - it's not a Meigs bulldozer job) so under political pressure they theoretically could revive it.

They had already pulled the ILS back in May for use on 10R/28L. It was still being used (pretty infrequently) for departures IIRC.

[ardecila]

Also, noticed a few days ago that the Remote Lot F has now been emptied of cars. I was driving by pretty fast but I think I saw boring equipment for the CONRAC.

[aquablue]

How many runways? Looks like it has 10

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by aquablue

How many runways? Looks like it has 10

Actually, it was 4 or 6 runways.