Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm the only one boasting O'Hare's capture per the FAA. No one else .... Nothing is out of reach. Apparently you boast Hartsfield is untouchable ....
Chicago or any city's boasters .... cannot move the FAA's goalpost. Kinda ridiculous. I only used current links again RELEASED Data TO THE MEDIA by the FAA and Title.
Fight with the FAA criteria. Again, if O'Hare completes its expansion nearing finalizing choosing 5-finalist designs for it. Then construction can begin. But years to complete. But it proves a older smaller limited to expansions airport.... can compete still. It's still even adding direct routes even around the world as I noted.
No one should see Hartsfield as untouchable by any other airport ... not merely O'Hare. Delta s the 3rd carrier at O'Hare too. They also get additional gates in the new plan by getting another existing terminal. UNITED, AMERICAN and DELTA had to approve this expansion for O'Hare and ALL AGREE. Delta held out at first. It felt The other two got unfair advantage. But was convinced to agree. They after are paying for much of it in fees.
But O'Hare could loose the title next year? Has nothing to do with boasting on C-D or a common poster or even a city moving a government agency's goalpost. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Chicago's expansion Plans call for a "International GLOBAL Terminal that only a handful of cities in the World like Dubai and Hong Kong. currently have,
As it is going to compete. Either way ..... both airports are successful. O'Hare was just held beck for decades by neighborhood residents around it.
I must respond to a couple of things that you wrote in reply to my post.
Firstoff, you have made the assumption that I was only speaking to you & your pro-O'Hare posts. I was not. What you are unaware of is that this same Hartsfield-Jackson vs. Chicago O'Hare topic has been discussed here on Atlanta, and may I point out, Chicago forum threads before given that the previous data comparison releases have provoked similar discussions. I've not only seen those discussions before but I've also taken part in them before. So no, you are not the single person to whom my points are addressed.
Secondly, you've broadened a specific statement I made on Chicago O'Hare's passenger numbers to mean things that I did not say or intend. I wrote, "Now that the passenger title is out of reach for O'Hare,...". And you responded with, "No one should see Hartsfield as untouchable by any other airport ." The 2 statements say very different things. I've never said that Hartsfield's numbers are out of reach by all other airports &, in fact, I do believe that they will eventually be surpassed by other airports. I just do not believe that O'Hare will ever manage to do so in terms of passenger volume. In addition, I believe that there are other airports that O'Hare will also fail to ever surpass in that volume number.
Lastly, you wrote: "But O'Hare could loose the title next year? Has nothing to do with boasting on C-D or a common poster or even a city moving a government agency's goalpost. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
When I wrote about the goalposts being moved it was made in a very specific context & one that you did not refute & apparently ignored.
I wrote that for decades the commonly used data metric to measure the POPULAR CONCEPTION of the "world's busiest airport" was ALWAYS for PASSENGER VOLUME, and not for flight operations volume. It's just a historical fact which I recall from way back in my youth as I carefully explained earlier. And in that sense, the sudden overwhelming interest by O'Hare boosters in playing up the flight operations volume number is indeed a moving of the goal posts from past historical precedent.
I must respond to a couple of things that you wrote in reply to my post.
Firstoff, you have made the assumption that I was only speaking to you & your pro-O'Hare posts. I was not. What you are unaware of is that this same Hartsfield-Jackson vs. Chicago O'Hare topic has been discussed here on Atlanta, and may I point out, Chicago forum threads before given that the previous data comparison releases have provoked similar discussions. I've not only seen those discussions before but I've also taken part in them before. So no, you are not the single person to whom my points are addressed.
Secondly, you've broadened a specific statement I made on Chicago O'Hare's passenger numbers to mean things that I did not say or intend. I wrote, "Now that the passenger title is out of reach for O'Hare,...". And you responded with, "No one should see Hartsfield as untouchable by any other airport ." The 2 statements say very different things. I've never said that Hartsfield's numbers are out of reach by all other airports &, in fact, I do believe that they will eventually be surpassed by other airports. I just do not believe that O'Hare will ever manage to do so in terms of passenger volume. In addition, I believe that there are other airports that O'Hare will also fail to ever surpass in that volume number.
Lastly, you wrote: "But O'Hare could loose the title next year? Has nothing to do with boasting on C-D or a common poster or even a city moving a government agency's goalpost. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
When I wrote about the goalposts being moved it was made in a very specific context & one that you did not refute & apparently ignored.
I wrote that for decades the commonly used data metric to measure the POPULAR CONCEPTION of the "world's busiest airport" was ALWAYS for PASSENGER VOLUME, and not for flight operations volume. It's just a historical fact which I recall from way back in my youth as I carefully explained earlier. And in that sense, the sudden overwhelming interest by O'Hare boosters in playing up the flight operations volume number is indeed a moving of the goal posts from past historical precedent.
Sure I get your point. Just changes nothing on the FAA's criteria today. That was my point.
I wouldn't call it as the FAA moved goalpost though? More my point. You just conform to the new criteria for a supposed title. Like in the workplace or a religions cult. You conform to the new requirement.
I thought I did read Chicago changing the goalpost? So I posted a city cannot change the rules. Consider I did say O'Hare could lose it next year or further too? I clearly note that. But again, it clearly is competing and even one could say the city wants it.
So when the FAA sends out the memo of the change .... I noted it in the thread for a quick awakening. Next year if it changes? Sure.... reawaken the thread. I do note O'Hare probably will never match purely passenger volume alone. It is still limited and the city has its original airport in Midway. Also getting more upgrades.
Gives others a reason to post too. As long as things remain civil. Even on a possible chance today and especially the previous plans of a second Atlanta airport I read. That never happened. All make for a interesting read.
The reason why O'hare is the busiest for aircraft movements and not passengers is because United Airline flies a significant amount of regional jets from O'hare. Despite the cutbacks from Southwest Airlines after the Air-tran merger. Atlanta would have still being the busiest for aircraft movement; if Delta were still to fly all those small regional jets like United does out of O'hare. However Delta decided to cut the number of regional jets flights out of Atlanta and decided to fly larger aircraft on those routes. With Atlanta being the first single airport to break the 100 million passenger mark and Delta have an 84% on time arrival rate at ATL -is quite astonishing. Go ATL!
The reason why O'hare is the busiest for aircraft movements and not passengers is because United Airline flies a significant amount of regional jets from O'hare. Despite the cutbacks from Southwest Airlines after the Air-tran merger. Atlanta would have still being the busiest for aircraft movement; if Delta were still to fly all those small regional jets like United does out of O'hare. However Delta decided to cut the number of regional jets flights out of Atlanta and decided to fly larger aircraft on those routes. With Atlanta being the first single airport to break the 100 million passenger mark and Delta have an 84% on time arrival rate at ATL -is quite astonishing. Go ATL!
Interesting in choices the Big airlines make that effect airports. I'm sure it made a difference. But alone I doubt it.
Irony is O'Hare's issues thwarted expansions like runways. Was surrounded by residential areas who did not want more jet noise in take-offs and landings. I lived on the Chicago side once and a suburb surrounded by the city city-proper. I knew take-off noise when that a certain runway in my path was used. Especially a 747. That was long ago. Luckily runways were rotated for take-offs or landings and landings far less noisy. But fumes to in thicker low hanging air too sometimes. Still loved the area. That was like 10-miles from the core and lakefront. The Airport is 12-14 miles.
But still more take-offs and landings only add more. Luckily Hartsfield will have few of them holdbacks in size too. Being young then.... I also enjoyed taking the train to the airport and seeing people from all walks of life and the world going by on occasions. But especially to the city core and some of the same. Much more though in my yearly visits today. Can't beat a vibrant core and neighborhoods that you can just walk and walk. Yet the openness to Lake Michigan always near to calm the soul in its majesty.
Hartsfield has few obstacles. The sky is the limit to its reach (pun intended). Atlanta metro itself as still making its mark in the world not yet completed. But then no city stops evolving. Just some sadly had to endure their major declines of past decades.
Though cities and airports somewhat compete. They just strive to be their best despite issues or holdbacks. But billions keep them relevant as they are a life-blood to their regions and the Nation too...... keeping them relevant. Especially as newer airports also seem to need it. Then you have the limited Big city airports like NYC's. That endure operating at and past designed limits. Even O'Hare basically did for decades and still aspects that a new expansion will help further alleviate. Clearly Hartsfield wants to maintain its top relevance continuing.
One thing to bear in mind is that Delta has been actively replacing their fleet of smaller planes with jumbo hjets that can carry more passengers in recent years.
So the result from this will be a modest reduction in aircraft operations at its hubs (particularly ATL).
and the new 220s Delta is receiving are supposedly whisper quiet on takeoff, a problem (noise) used to oppose a 2nd airport.
You can always do the steep takeoffs like they do in super-wealthy Orange County, CA to mitigate the noise.
I hope Paulding or Gwinnett will get commercial service.
Interesting in choices the Big airlines make that effect airports. I'm sure it made a difference. But alone I doubt it.
Irony is O'Hare's issues thwarted expansions like runways. Was surrounded by residential areas who did not want more jet noise in take-offs and landings. I lived on the Chicago side once and a suburb surrounded by the city city-proper. I knew take-off noise when that a certain runway in my path was used. Especially a 747. That was long ago. Luckily runways were rotated for take-offs or landings and landings far less noisy. But fumes to in thicker low hanging air too sometimes. Still loved the area. That was like 10-miles from the core and lakefront. The Airport is 12-14 miles.
But still more take-offs and landings only add more. Luckily Hartsfield will have few of them holdbacks in size too. Being young then.... I also enjoyed taking the train to the airport and seeing people from all walks of life and the world going by on occasions. But especially to the city core and some of the same. Much more though in my yearly visits today. Can't beat a vibrant core and neighborhoods that you can just walk and walk. Yet the openness to Lake Michigan always near to calm the soul in its majesty.
Hartsfield has few obstacles. The sky is the limit to its reach (pun intended). Atlanta metro itself as still making its mark in the world not yet completed. But then no city stops evolving. Just some sadly had to endure their major declines of past decades.
Though cities and airports somewhat compete. They just strive to be their best despite issues or holdbacks. But billions keep them relevant as they are a life-blood to their regions and the Nation too...... keeping them relevant. Especially as newer airports also seem to need it. Then you have the limited Big city airports like NYC's. That endure operating at and past designed limits. Even O'Hare basically did for decades and still aspects that a new expansion will help further alleviate. Clearly Hartsfield wants to maintain its top relevance continuing.
It would be interesting to know other aspects of O'Hare such as:
ATL airport has over 60,000 employees, and interestingly every knife used in the eateries is supposedly tethered down and must be accounted for nightly or weekly.
I don't think ATL airport officials are keeping up with other airports' numbers to make sure ATL stays on top.
It's a nice statistic but I'd rather see a 2nd airport on the North Side of Atlanta.
ATL is pretty well run, especially in a city that is loathe to doing basic maintenance like cleaning windows, picking up trash, or maintaining exteriors of businesses.
Atlanta is constrained as far as runways go too, and it was quite a feat in getting the 5th runway which ended planes having to circle over North Georgia for up to an hour to get a landing slot.
A sixth runway for Atlanta is planned but will be sandwiched into the exsiting airfield.
My first assignment as a Freshman (1987) in NC State's School of Design was an analysis of Helmut Jahn's United Terminal at O'Hare (the one with the steel beams, columns with cut-out circles) and I loved the modern white simplicity of the design with lots of skylights.
In reality, that isn't the right design for such a cold city. It reinforces the weather outside.
I would warm it up and focus on creature comfort for an O'Hare terminal today.
With all due respect, the bolded sounds like a personal problem and minor inconvenience.
If you have to fly out of the airport frequently, you shouldn't live so far away from it.
And those developments are good for Dallas and Phoenix. But Atlanta's circumstances are different.
I don't see how Atlanta's circumstances are different. Imagine opening up an airport on the northside that an airline like Southwest would migrate to. Maybe they setup a new hub there and some low-cost carriers follow them. Now you probably have a net gain in jobs and economic output in the metro with a second international airport. Cramming it all into one airport just feels like a bragging rights thing.
It would be interesting to know other aspects of O'Hare such as:
ATL airport has over 60,000 employees, and interestingly every knife used in the eateries is supposedly tethered down and must be accounted for nightly or weekly.
I don't think ATL airport officials are keeping up with other airports' numbers to make sure ATL stays on top.
It's a nice statistic but I'd rather see a 2nd airport on the North Side of Atlanta.
ATL is pretty well run, especially in a city that is loathe to doing basic maintenance like cleaning windows, picking up trash, or maintaining exteriors of businesses.
Atlanta is constrained as far as runways go too, and it was quite a feat in getting the 5th runway which ended planes having to circle over North Georgia for up to an hour to get a landing slot.
A sixth runway for Atlanta is planned but will be sandwiched into the exsiting airfield.
My first assignment as a Freshman (1987) in NC State's School of Design was an analysis of Helmut Jahn's United Terminal at O'Hare (the one with the steel beams, columns with cut-out circles) and I loved the modern white simplicity of the design with lots of skylights.
In reality, that isn't the right design for such a cold city. It reinforces the weather outside.
I would warm it up and focus on creature comfort for an O'Hare terminal today.
You might find this interesting. A swanky new employee parking lot at O'Hare till the new runway at O'Hare is completed in 2020. Supposedly just temporary. Has unisex restrooms.
From city's link:
- Nearly 50 New Routes Added in 2018 in both O'Hare and Midway
- Chicago became one of only six cities globally to have nonstop passenger air service to all six major inhabited regions of the world – Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America
- in September 2018. O’Hare was recognized by OAG (a leading air travel intelligence company) as the most connected airport in the nation for domestic air service and second-most connected in the world after London-Heathrow. O’Hare has been acknowledged as the most connected U.S. airport for three consecutive years.
From link:
- The three-dimensional roofline— was influenced by the seashell appearing at the top of the Chicago corporate seal—is designed specifically for ease of maintenance and to shed snow and ice, added the designer.
I don't see how Atlanta's circumstances are different.
I literally just posted why they are earlier in the thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kinda ridiculous. I only used current links again RELEASED Data TO THE MEDIA by the FAA and Title.
It's still even adding direct routes even around the world as I noted. 
