Back to Squawk list
  • 19

O'Hare on pace to take back 'world's busiest airport' title

Enviado
 
O’Hare International Airport is on pace to again be the world’s busiest airport, a designation it lost a decade ago, Chicago city officials said Wednesday. (www.chicagotribune.com) Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 5
Bigger or busiest is not always better. While newer and super busy, ATL and DFW are laid out for people moving through them. A concourse or terminal change at ATL is a walk in the par with that train. They move people.
LGM118
LGM118 1
ORD, ATL, and DFW are very different animals - ATL is designed with connecting traffic in mind while DFW was originally designed with the "car to plane" concept and little thought to transfer passengers. O'Hare is a somewhat earlier design that's been retrofitted over the years and that the OMP work is now further modifying.

O'Hare is pretty capable of moving quite a lot of people, though. Not to mention that unlike Atlanta or Dallas, O'Hare has two airline hub operations rather than just one is also a mark in its favor because the airport maintains pretty good efficiency in operations despite the added complexity of its operations.
preacher1
preacher1 1
DFW is coming around to the terminal to terminal concept. I can attest to the fact that it is a long ways from one end of that thing to the other. They try not to but gate changes are inevitable. With their new people mover, it is gaining on ATL in that regard. O'Hare is from another era and having to play catchup. I know UAL is up there but who has 2nd hub?
LGM118
LGM118 1
American runs a hub out of O'Hare, albeit they've been shrinking it over the years.
waterman15
Dave Nosek 3
One of those airports I avoid if at all possible. It's actually to big for it's own good
MultiComm
MultiComm 2
This article is using the number of arrivals/departures as the metric for ORD when ATL is based on number of total passengers. It has always been a battle of the metrics. An airport can have more flights but less passengers ... just a matter of which statistic you wish to follow.
pilot62
Scott Campbell 1
You can't fly that much and avoid Ohare
n914wa
Mike Boote 1
You really can avoid O'Hare. I flew every week for ten years - including clients in Illinois, and successfully avoided O'Hare. Of course, it helped that I rarely flew American or United.
awhitmor
awhitmor 0
While it sounds cool to have 'World's Busiest' tagged to something, I'd much rather get from/to Chicago via the nearest airport to my actual origin/destination. Even if that means KGYY! http://www.garychicagoairport.com
RRKen
I cannot imagine anyone outside of the South Side feels Gary is convenient (or safe for that matter).

We are finally getting local air service again, this time direct to ORD instead of MSP. Exciting to me since I would rather connect to an airport with 60+ airlines instead of one that has only 5.
awhitmor
awhitmor 1
I figure, if it's good enough for the executives of Boeing, it's not all that bad. http://bcove.me/g8o1ydpg
genethemarine
Gene spanos 0
" O'Hare is very dangerous with it's non-intersecting runways, especially when you need to get to the gates and have to cross those runways too ". Former USAF pilot.
LGM118
LGM118 1
Safe is dangerous and dangerous is safe. If a pilot thinks that O'Hare "seems" dangerous, that's a good thing, because they'll act accordingly. This is just like how people will feel safe going 50 on some of those wide suburban arterial roads even if the posted speed limit is 25 - the road "feels" safe at 50. Conversely, "dangerous" road intersections often cause people to slow down and think, making them much safer precisely because of the appearance of danger. The "safe" airports like DFW and ATL are actually insidiously dangerous because controllers and pilots are more likely to be careless.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Is it DFW or ATL that has some "Go around taxiways" under construction, that will prevent AC from having to cross runways or was I just dreaming?
LGM118
LGM118 1
They're an incredibly inefficient use of airport property, not to mention the fuel that's wasted due to taxiing all the way around a runway is pretty significant.
MultiComm
MultiComm 1
ATL and DTW have them ... as for a waste of fuel...which is better 1) carry a little speed of the high speed exits and practically coast at idle power all the while getting closer to your gate OR 2) sitting in a money line for 2-3 minutes (or longer) waiting for a break in departing/arriving traffic to allow the crossing of runways. In my opinion the "taxi around" routes are of great benefit to busy ground operations.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I guess that is one of those good ideas in theory but not in practicality. Besides the fuel burn, it just looks like it would be an incredulous amount of taxi time to subject the pax to as well. Austin says below though, that ATL already has some in operation.
abc123ucm
ATL already has some in operation. they are great to watch
MultiComm
MultiComm 1
During Westbound operations, the Victor route on the West side (North Rwys) and then while not officially a go around taxiway , they use the Papa on the West side (South Rwys) while clearing intersection departures off M2 which is also very effective.

Entrar

¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos, y más!
Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Al usar y seguir navegando por este sitio, estás aceptando su uso.
Descartar
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de FlightAware.com. Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Descartar