Tunnel linking United’s concourses at Chicago O’Hare. (Image: Wikimedia Commons)
Chicago’s O’Hare Airport this month finished its latest new runway project — the latest step in a multi-billion-dollar, years-long capital improvements program — but runway construction may not be enough to erase the airport’s reputation as a delay-prone bottleneck in the nation’s air transportation system.
Reporters at The Chicago Tribune dug into the O’Hare situation, and they concluded that several other problems must be dealt with if the airport is to function more efficiently for airlines and passengers.
Among their recommendations:
The number of gates at O’Hare is not keeping pace with airfield improvements. The number of flights arriving late to the gate at O’Hare more than tripled in the past five years, the newspaper said, and part of the problem is simply that there are not enough gates to accommodate the arriving aircraft after they land. It quoted the city’s aviation commissioner as saying that if 24 new gates suddenly materialized at O’Hare, they would instantly be fully utilized. The airport is currently working on plans to add 12 new gates by 2018.
Taxi times — the time between landing and arrival at the gate — have to be reduced. As new runways are built farther away from the terminals, this has become a problem, the newspaper said. The average taxi-in time increased from 8.5 minutes in 2007 to 13 minutes this year, but the FAA says it expects that to be cut to 11 minutes per plane now that the new runway is operational.
The Federal Aviation Administration needs to speed up its long-promised NextGen air traffic system, which will allow a larger number of flights to operate safely in the air corridors in and out of O’Hare — and airlines need to be more realistic in the number of arrivals they schedule at the airport. O’Hare is the largest U.S. airport that serves as a major hub for two giant carriers — United and American — both of which funnel hundreds of flights into the airport to maximize possible connections. Officials said they hope the next two runways on the construction schedule will help reduce air traffic control-related delays.
NOTE: Be sure to click here to see all recent TravelSkills posts about: Global Entry gets more global + New York’s lowest ranked hotels +Best/worst hotel programs for awards + More flat seats
Do you follow us on Twitter? It’s a great way to keep up with the latest news!
Please join the 100,000+ people who read TravelSkills every month! Sign up here for one email-per-day updates!
John R. Grout says
October 30, 2015 at 8:34 amWhenever the SFO BART station is open, there is some way to get to Millbrae… either north to San Bruno and back south to Millbrae, or directly to Millbrae. What I am talking about is the last 90 or so minutes of each “day” of BART service when trains that left Pittsburg-Bay Point for Millbrae pass through a closed SFO BART station. They are on the schedule as being valid, available trips… but if your flight home is late and you haven’t gotten onto BART before the station closed, you are screwed.
Chris McGinnis says
October 28, 2015 at 5:55 pmThanks for all the interesting and enlightening comments, folks! Keep em coming! Ed, oh how I despise those gate buses!
Tom McNamara says
October 28, 2015 at 5:51 pmSounds like you are well aware of the long standing battle over SFO between BART and SamTrans. I’m not taking sides on that one, but you can ride to San Bruno and turn around, no?
I know it’s a pain in the rear, but there hasn’t been a good alternative since United Airlines refused to pay for the in airport station and thus BART had to slap a big surcharge for using the SFIA stop as they call it. Direct access from Milbrae would allow people to take CalTrain and BART would have to ask for a bailout from taxpayers.
EdFLondon says
October 28, 2015 at 12:25 pmUnless I’ve missed it, one of the options never mentioned for O’Hare is to have a large, multi-flight gate carved out of one of the large seating areas such as I see in Terminal A at UA and to bus passengers to stands on the tarmac. LHR uses them; London Gatwick uses them; Frankfurt uses them; CDG uses them. Do I like them? Do I like to be bused to and from the plane? No. And especially no after I’ve flown a red-eye from the US to LHR (yes, I’m talking to you, Virgin Atlantic). However, the construction and infrastructure costs must be a pittance compared to brick-and-mortar for regular gates. I would think the time-to-occupancy would be a fraction as well. Why not?
John R. Grout says
October 28, 2015 at 10:12 amSouthwest is doing something of the sort… they don’t have hubs, but they are adding quite a few flights to and from STL.
John R. Grout says
October 28, 2015 at 10:00 amIt has access to and from The City on BART. The moment the last train leaves for The City, they padlock the BART station, leaving San Mateo County residents locked out, unable to get to Millbrae on trains LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE.
This petty malice has been left uncorrected for years… and no one will back down, so trains that can’t be taken are listed on the BART schedule… and SamTrans doesn’t have any comparable service to Millbrae until after the BART schedule is _SUPPOSED_ to continue.
That’s the sign of a management team that belongs in a stable… that’s where there are people to shovel what they are full of.
Tom McNamara says
October 28, 2015 at 7:39 amThere’s a political solution to this or a technical one…but simply expanding the airport isn’t going to matter unless the economy nosedives and buys them time to catch up.
The sort of obvious solution is to use bigger plans on certain routes. However the risk on that is higher than the current strategy of imitating Southwest and using only 737s. And because O’Hare is a duopoly, both airlines are scared to move first on this. It also doesn’t help that our trade policy has encouraged Boeing to gear larger plane sales to what our export partners want in Asia, not domestic needs. The other option would be to hand over some gates to Southwest, which would make sustaining the duopoly much harder and promote competition. Given that LUV demands lower landing fees however, the City Council would be unlikely to swallow the price of this option when it only benefits someone else.
The political solution would be more radical. One would a cap on the number of flights, another would be voting which airline can use it as a hub. From there, the next option to rollback deregulation on short flights so that there’s less hoarding of gates. The final solution would be a major revision to deregulation that would turn over all control of flights in the Midwest to only one airline.
Tom McNamara says
October 28, 2015 at 7:27 amSFO, at least though, has had a stable management team for a long time, direct access via BART (and some day High Speed Rail), and a great selection of international flights. It too needs capital upgrades to fix delays, but spend time at LAX and you will see things could be way worse.
John R. Grout says
October 27, 2015 at 9:05 pmThe State of Illinois’ government is in such terrible shape financially these days that gouge fees are found at all the state’s airports… and many of the overcharges you mention are also imposed on local rentals within Cook County, not just at the airport… that is to prevent tourists from jumping on the Blue Line and renting their car somewhere else in town.
John R. Grout says
October 27, 2015 at 8:55 pmThe City of Chicago and its aldermen use O’Hare as their personal cash cow. Since the city narrows to the width of the Kennedy Expressway, the annexation of the airport to the city was a direct violation of Illinois state law… but in the most corrupt state, bar none, in the United States, no one cares about such minor details.
All the “collar counties” (around Cook, which contains Chicago) want O’Hare taken away from the city by the state and handed to a regional authority that serves interests beyond lining Chicago aldermens’ pockets. I wouldn’t mind the same thing happening to SFO, though in my case it’d be to free the airport from The City’s arcane dietary taboos _AND_ its corrupt Stupervisors.
Dan Leifker says
October 27, 2015 at 4:15 pmToo late, I stopped using O’Hare a long time ago. It’s a total disaster. Even if they speed things up, it’s just a terrible airport for so many things. The worst, in my opinion: they have slapped so many taxes and fees and charges on rental cars that if I’m going anywhere north or west of Chicago I will fly into Milwaukee instead now. I just checked on car rental rates to see if O’Hare was still charging an arm and a leg. They are, plus the other arm and most of the other leg:
1 week rental at Chicago O’Hare ORD (Chevrolet Spark, not prepaid):
Base rate: $280.35
Fees, charges, surcharges, and taxes: $165.60
Total: $445.95
1 week rental at Milwaukee MKE (Ford Focus, not prepaid):
Base rate: $186.90
Fees, charges, surcharges, and taxes: $53.02
Total: $239.92
I’ll change planes at ORD if the connection time is generous, but otherwise… Fuhgeddaboutit!