Airlines should go build their hubs in a better geographical location than major cities, like O'hare. And pay for it with their own money.
At ORD for example, something like half of all the air traffic are connecting flights. There's a bit of money to be made by gate fees, but the pressure on the surrounding suburbs (I don't even know if the neighbors even get those fees, since the airport is technically within Chicago's city limits) to allow whatever expansion is necessary for American and United to make more money ferrying people over our homes is untenable.
Why would an airline have any business in acquiring, getting approved/zoned, and constructing an bespoke airport close to a major metro that would presumably only benefit that airline? Airlines already operate at razor thin margins, specialize in only the transporting aspect, and would not be the best party to oversee the development of airfields and airports. Additionally, companies other than the major airlines use an airport, from cargo carriers (large jetliners to “FedEx feeder”-type routes), private operations like NetJets, and even privately owned and operated aircraft all use it.
This is solidly the domain of a local company, collective, or a local municipality that understands this business and every aspect of it. Airlines are happy to pay usage fees (landing fees, gate fees, leasing) to specifically not deal with airport operations unrelated to their own fleet and operations.
We need to find ways to improve the process from initial concept, terminal layout, retail spaces, and public ground transport that connects to the city center.
Also, usually the airport is there before homes were built so every owner in the flight path made the decision to live there.
Airlines should not be building a "bespoke airport close to a major metro" that only benefits that airline. They should be building their hubs in the middle of nowhere and serve only connecting flights out of them, because it's the fact that the hubs are in the metros that cause problems.
When half of the traffic through the airport isn't destined for the metro, then half the traffic doesn't need to be going through it.
> Also, usually the airport is there before homes were built so every owner in the flight path made the decision to live there.
I don't want to respond to this because I think it misses that opposition to airport expansion isn't just "planes loud." There is not a place in west suburban Chicagoland unaffected by the expansion of O'hare. It is not just about the flight paths.
Airlines make an airport a hub because half the people are going there, not because of the half that aren't.
If they could sell their gate slots and use another hub at a reasonable profit, they would.
Of course, we're past when everyone wanted 747s and giant Airbuses so perhaps the hub and spoke system will slowly melt away into smaller more direct flights.
I quite like the idea of dedicated hubs a decent distance away from anything else, but you'd still need to staff and supply it so "the middle of nowhere" probably isn't feasible.
What's untenable about it? The busy airport has been there longer than most people have been alive. People who live in the suburbs knew what they were getting into.
ORD is critical not only to travel and commercial interests in the region and nationally, but also to military and national interests globally. I'm not even going to sit here and try to explain to you the geographically strategic nature of Chicago's location to the US because you clearly aren't here to listen to reason. I'll just say that you asserting that suburbanites don't like ORD is not even close to a good enough reason for the rest of us to abrogate the societal contract with military and commercial sense.
If you are displeased with the nature of Chicago's suburbs, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in another metro area? ORD is not going anywhere, but you can go elsewhere if it pleases you to do so.
Your reply is quite rude. I didn't say we should tear up ORD, I was pointing out the flaws with expansion. And every government except Chicago seems to be in agreement with that, which is why the Peotene project exists.
No, every suburban politician is in agreement with it and have demanded a study for a boondoggle go forward to placate entitled suburbanites like yourself. This exact plan has been tried, and failed, in many cities around the world. The only places it worked are places with high-speed rail. Does Chicago have high-speed rail?
The problem in this country is that we coddle lefties and righties even when they have ideas deleterious to our own good. But I get it, politicians have to play to their crowds. No matter how ill-informed and uneducated those crowds may be. So we spend billions on billions doing things like moving water from Colorado to the middle of the desert for Scottsdale Arizona. Building airports to nowhere like COU so people can attend college football games I guess? And replacing bridges in Minneapolis that never would have fallen if we had put the infrastructure dollars into maintenance where they belong in the first place, instead of pork barrel projects for entitled special interest groups demanding things that make literally no sense at all.
It's not "entitled" to be against things that negatively impact oneself and don't provide any benefit. I think skepticism of expansion in the name of progress or to make it easier for companies to make profits without contributing back to the communities they negatively affect with their growth is reasonable. Particularly in Chicago, where capital investment in infrastructure at the expense of the communities they displace has a history of entrenching social and political problems (for example, Lake Shore Drive cutting off the lakefront, the Eisenhower, Edens, and Kennedy expressways demolishing communities and segregating what's left). Building things up is not always a net good.
Twenty years ago, they decided to bulldoze a community to relieve ORD's growing traffic instead of investing in the Peotene airport. And now, there is nowhere left for ORD to grow. There's nowhere for Midway to grow. If we've accepted that Chicago is a hub for air traffic, it needs to go somewhere that can handle it - and the choices are the south suburban project (for which the land is already secured, and there's political support from the state, feds, and local government), or the Dupage airport. There's less money and interest involved in the latter. The other choices are Rockford, Gary, and Milwaukee - all of which have stagnated as passenger and cargo destinations.
Expanding ORD is a political fight between DuPage and Cook county, and the only city that's truly in favor of it is Chicago and Cook County - because they're not impacted by it, and they get the gate fees and sales taxes at the terminals. Meanwhile, Will County is inviting the development, and they need it! The south suburbs have stagnated for decades, and could use the investment. The western suburbs and near west side don't need more air traffic. Particularly when the growth the airlines want is not to ferry more passengers into the area, but to move them through to other destinations, and to handle more cargo.
And it's not just "entitled" suburbanites that are against expansion at O'Hare. United and American have said they want the expansion of Terminal 2 and the O'Hare 21 project halted because the increased gate fees that fund it are making it uneconomical to use ORD as a hub. When even the market rejects expansion, we need to look to alternatives - and the south suburban airport is the best candidate, particularly for cargo.
What I'm saying is that this isn't rampant pork barrel spending, or "coddling" people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's our elected government listening to what their constituents want without caving to industry demands, or the tax priorities of a singular community. Keep in mind, half of the population of metroland Chicago isn't in the city. They have voices that should be heard too.
What's your point? You could say the same thing about almost any major infrastructure project. We can't allow a handful of residents somewhere to veto everything. This is exactly what eminent domain was intended for: as long as they received fair compensation then it's fine.
You can't say "they know what they were getting into" when the state shows up and demolishes half a community that had been there for 130 years. I don't think anyone expects the state to force them off their land or their town demolished.
> We can't allow a handful of residents somewhere to veto everything.
We also shouldn't allow non-residents to profit off the pain of people who actually live where the infrastructure is.
My point is that the surrounding suburbs are suffering the pain of being adjacent to an airport while deriving very little benefit, and those do benefit want to expand to increase traffic. Chicago gets quite a lot out of the increasing traffic through O'hare while the people that actually live nearby don't.
We also shouldn't allow non-residents to profit off the pain of people who actually live where the infrastructure is.
Sir, this is the entire point of a suburb. Suburbs exist so their residents can take advantage of the infrastructural, entertainment and commercial benefits of a city without having to contribute to said municipality. Do you really lack that much self-awareness? By virtue of living in the suburb in the first place, you, yourself, are engaging in the very activity that you are decrying.
At ORD for example, something like half of all the air traffic are connecting flights. There's a bit of money to be made by gate fees, but the pressure on the surrounding suburbs (I don't even know if the neighbors even get those fees, since the airport is technically within Chicago's city limits) to allow whatever expansion is necessary for American and United to make more money ferrying people over our homes is untenable.