4 ms·
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,
by duped 3y ago
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.
- nradov 3y agoWhat'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.
- duped 3y agoTell that to the people who lived in the heart of Bensenville that's now a runway.
- nradov 3y agoWhat'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.
- duped 3y agoYou 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.
- bilbo0s 3y agoWe 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.
- bilbo0s 3y agoI think you're being willfully argumentative. 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.
- duped 3y agoYour 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.
- bilbo0s 3y agoNo, 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.
- duped 3y ago
- samtho 3y agoWhy 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.
- duped 3y agoI think you misunderstand my comment. 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. The airlines don't even want it anymore.
- mst 3y agoI 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.
- fasthands9 3y agoAirports are one thing that the government has to be involved in either way. You can't just tell airlines to pay for things themselves but then also give every suburb the ability to veto construction on land in other cities.