"Runway to Nowhere"

K

KennyFlys

Guest
Georgia Legislature Blasts O'Hare Modernization Program as Wasteful Project

ATLANTA, March 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A resolution has been introduced in the Georgia Legislature calling Chicago's O'Hare Modernization Program, or OMP, a "Runway to Nowhere" and describing the project as "ill-conceived and premature." House Resolution 535 was introduced by Representative Joe Wilkinson, Chairman of the House Ethics Committee. It calls on Georgia Congressional delegation to stop all wasteful federal spending in relation to President Obama's recently approved stimulus package. The cost of OMP, which would add a third terminal to Chicago's O'Hare Airport, is currently estimated at approximately $20 billion.
Click to expand...
And, he want to charge user fees to everyone? Does Chicago really need this kind of expansion? Apparently, not so by those who use the facility.

Work on the next phase of the O'Hare expansion has not begun and funding for the $20 billion Program has not been secured. FAA studies show that the expansion will not provide any significant improvement of airline delays or alleviate congestion at O'Hare. Aviation experts say that OMP will instead produce massive delays and increase costs for both consumers and airlines during and after initial construction. In addition, the airlines, including United Airlines and American Airlines, have also called the OMP plan "ill-conceived" and "premature."
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.
 
KennyFlys said:
Georgia Legislature Blasts O'Hare Modernization Program as Wasteful Project


And, he want to charge user fees to everyone? Does Chicago really need this kind of expansion? Apparently, not so by those who use the facility.


Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...

What an altruistic group, that Georgia Legislature! I'm sure they have no concern at all about losing the title of "World's Busiest Airport" back to O'Hare. And I'm sure they're not looking for any improvement funding for Hartsfeld either...


Trapper John
 
So...

By my quick reading of a few Trib articles, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. DAL and Georgia, of course, come out swinging against this to prevent competition with ATL, which is a major tax base for GA (and revenue for DAL). AA/UA come against this because they have significant investments in other, more modern, airports, and the City wants to cram the operating expense from this elephant up the proverbial bottoms of AA/UA, since they are the largest users. ANA is just toeing the line with UA.

This is a critical part of Chicago going after the 2016 Olympics, which is the key driver in White Elephant infrastructure spending. (T5, anyone?)

All of that said, O'Hare really could use some sprucing up. It's a mess. The sheer volume of traffic and the antiquated terminal and runway layout challenges efficiency operations, a la DFW or (dare I say it) ATL. The terminals, especially, are a mess.

But, Daley may finally have bit off more than he can chew.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Seems Chicago had a really nice airport that they decided they really didn't need. If they didn't need it, why would they need improvements to an extant airport?
 
astanley said:
So...

By my quick reading of a few Trib articles, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. DAL and Georgia, of course, come out swinging against this to prevent competition with ATL, which is a major tax base for GA (and revenue for DAL). AA/UA come against this because they have significant investments in other, more modern, airports, and the City wants to cram the operating expense from this elephant up the proverbial bottoms of AA/UA, since they are the largest users. ANA is just toeing the line with UA.

This is a critical part of Chicago going after the 2016 Olympics, which is the key driver in White Elephant infrastructure spending. (T5, anyone?)

All of that said, O'Hare really could use some sprucing up. It's a mess. The sheer volume of traffic and the antiquated terminal and runway layout challenges efficiency operations, a la DFW or (dare I say it) ATL. The terminals, especially, are a mess.

But, Daley may finally have bit off more than he can chew.

Cheers,

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Not a bad analysis, and may be spot on, but something in that link stuck out.

How can the International Terminal at KATL cost 500 million and the one at Chicago cost 20 BILLION? Sorry but something does not compute.
 
astanley said:
All of that said, O'Hare really could use some sprucing up. It's a mess. The sheer volume of traffic and the antiquated terminal and runway layout challenges efficiency operations, a la DFW or (dare I say it) ATL. The terminals, especially, are a mess.
Click to expand...

Mmmmm, I dunno. A few weeks ago I went on an Atlanta TRACON tour. We received a nice presentation and were told when things are smooth (i.e. no weather), they went from 90 or so arr/deps per hour to about 120/hr with the 5th runway. Tour guide also told us they use 2 rws for TO, 2 for landings, and often alternate on the 5th runway. At first, captains used to ***** about the long taxi to the southernmost runway, but they soon realized that time was actually shorter than waiting in the conga line for one of the closer runways.

tdager said:
How can the International Terminal at KATL cost 500 million and the one at Chicago cost 20 BILLION? Sorry but something does not compute.
Click to expand...
Woof. And I thought the Atlanta airport was corrupt. (where's the rimshot smiley?)
 
There are lots of problems here.


  1. That "article" isn't by any stretch a news article. It is, in fact, a press release from a vehemently anti-airport activist group (if it were any other airport, y'all would appropriately be calling them NIMBYs.)
  2. People keep tossing that $20 billion figure around, but I've never been able to find a source for it -- the only place I keep seeing it is from the stop-omp.org people who are, shall we say, less than objective. The official estimate for the entire program is $6.1 $6.6* billion (that's 2001 dollars, it's more like $8bn in today dollars) over 20 years, I believe, and the rwy 10/28 piece of the the project came in under budget. If somebody can tell me where that $19.5bn or whatever it is number came from, I'd like to see it.
  3. The airlines are -- overall -- in favor of the project. There's been some squabbling over some of the costs, but the fact of the matter is that the airlines consider it to be a beneficial thing, long-term.
I'm no Daley apologist, but to pass off a decidedly partisan press release as a news article and perpetuate what is likely a cooked number just isn't an honest exercise.

*Sorry. My number was initially wrong too.

Edit: Actually, the nearest I can find about that $20bn is exactly what I suspected. A study commissioned by the NIMBY opponents of the plan said the cost would be $16bn (scroll to the bottom.) I'm sure you're all as shocked as I am that their number came out to be so dramatically higher.

So all told, what we've got here is a couple of Georgia legislators (who have their own competing local agenda) who have seized on a less-than-objective, probably fully-cooked dollar figure to try to beat some kind of drum in introducing some basically meaningless legislation that may or may not pass anyway.

And we're talking about this why, exactly?
 
Last edited:
ReverendSlappy said:
I'm no Daley apologist, but to pass off a decidedly partisan press release as a news article and perpetuate what is likely a cooked number just isn't an honest exercise.
Click to expand...

Common sense strikes again...
 
Maybe, but they still totaled a perfectly good reliever for no good reason.
 
tdager said:
How can the International Terminal at KATL cost 500 million and the one at Chicago cost 20 BILLION? Sorry but something does not compute.
Click to expand...

As Matt references below, that $20B may be out to lunch, but it bears mentioning that T5 at Heathrow was a £4.3B initiative, or about $6B in 2008 US dollars.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top