Meigs ...

[Pilot]

The fact remains, we pilots/AC owners, are a small (less than 1% of
the general population) and have N O clout. That means, when an
airport such as Meigs is closed by Daley (or any mayor for that
matter) most of the public couldn't care less.

As a matter of fact, Daley may have more supporters in Chicago than
the combined membership of AOPA including the entire flying public.

As for the fines, any sanction short of forcing Daley to restore Meigs
Field is meaningless.

[Dave Stadt]

"Pilot" > wrote in message
m...
> The fact remains, we pilots/AC owners, are a small (less than 1% of
> the general population) and have N O clout. That means, when an
> airport such as Meigs is closed by Daley (or any mayor for that
> matter) most of the public couldn't care less.
>
> As a matter of fact, Daley may have more supporters in Chicago than
> the combined membership of AOPA including the entire flying public.

Certainly he does by a factor of 10 or more.

[Larry Dighera]

On 3 Oct 2004 08:51:55 -0700, (Pilot) wrote in
>::

>
>The fact remains, we pilots/AC owners, are a small (less than 1% of
>the general population) and have N O clout. That means, when an
>airport such as Meigs is closed by Daley (or any mayor for that
>matter) most of the public couldn't care less.


From the information contained in the news below, it seems Mr. Daley
has caused problems for O'Hare by closing Meigs field:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 45b -- November 4, 2004

-------------------------------------------------------------------

RESTRICTIONS ON GA FLIGHT START AT MEIGS, EXPAND TO O'HARE
As new capacity limits on GA flights at Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport went into effect this week, the FAA released
a new study that says O'Hare must set its limits even lower in
order to avoid gridlock. GA operations as of this week are limited
to four per hour between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. The new study says
O'Hare can handle just 190 to 200 arrivals and departures per
hour, fewer than a 2001 study that recommended a maximum of 200 to
202 flights per hour. When visibility is poor, the maximum should
go down to 136 to 144 per hour, the FAA said. The National
Business Aviation Association (NBAA) has blamed the O'Hare
problems on the closure of Meigs Field, which used to
accommodate more than 20,000 operations per year. Corporate
charter operators now must wait until 72 hours before their flight
to schedule a takeoff or landing at O'Hare.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/308-full.html#188475


But, as you noted above, his decision to close Meigs field has now
negatively impacted GA operations at O'Hare airport.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> From the information contained in the news below, it seems Mr. Daley
> has caused problems for O'Hare by closing Meigs field:

Not really. As you correctly state later on, the problems aren't O'Hare's.
They belong to the GA traffic who would like to use O'Hare but cannot.

> [...]
> But, as you noted above, his decision to close Meigs field has now
> negatively impacted GA operations at O'Hare airport.

Yes.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 11:24:12 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> From the information contained in the news below, it seems Mr. Daley
>> has caused problems for O'Hare by closing Meigs field:
>
>Not really.

The way I interpret this:

"The new study says O'Hare can handle just 190 to 200 arrivals and
departures per hour, fewer than a 2001 study that recommended a
maximum of 200 to 202 flights per hour."

it would seem that the Meigs closure has reduced ALL operations at
O'Hare by up to 5%. So it would seem that the Meigs closure has had a
negative impact on O'Hare.

>As you correctly state later on, the problems aren't O'Hare's.
>They belong to the GA traffic who would like to use O'Hare but cannot.

The latest FAA study has recommended a reduction in the TOTAL number
of operations at O'Hare, unfortunately this reduction is being
selectively applied to GA operations.

>> [...]
>> But, as you noted above, his decision to close Meigs field has now
>> negatively impacted GA operations at O'Hare airport.
>
>Yes.
>
>Pete
>

From the AvWeb article it is unclear just who is imposing this
reduction in GA operations at O'Hare. It would appear that it is the
FAA, but I thought they were not supposed to discriminate against GA
operations in favor of airline operations. On the other hand, it may
be the Chicago airport operating authority who has adopted the
discriminatory policy.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The way I interpret this:
>
> "The new study says O'Hare can handle just 190 to 200 arrivals and
> departures per hour, fewer than a 2001 study that recommended a
> maximum of 200 to 202 flights per hour."
>
> it would seem that the Meigs closure has reduced ALL operations at
> O'Hare by up to 5%. So it would seem that the Meigs closure has had a
> negative impact on O'Hare.

I don't read it that way. I read it as saying that the 2001 study was
simply incorrect. Not that the closure of Meigs somehow reduced the
capacity of O'Hare. I don't even see how it could have.

> The latest FAA study has recommended a reduction in the TOTAL number
> of operations at O'Hare, unfortunately this reduction is being
> selectively applied to GA operations.

Right. Again, it's GA's problem, not O'Hare's.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:39:16 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> The way I interpret this:
>>
>> "The new study says O'Hare can handle just 190 to 200 arrivals and
>> departures per hour, fewer than a 2001 study that recommended a
>> maximum of 200 to 202 flights per hour."
>>
>> it would seem that the Meigs closure has reduced ALL operations at
>> O'Hare by up to 5%. So it would seem that the Meigs closure has had a
>> negative impact on O'Hare.
>
>I don't read it that way. I read it as saying that the 2001 study was
>simply incorrect. Not that the closure of Meigs somehow reduced the
>capacity of O'Hare. I don't even see how it [the demolition of Meigs] could have.

Meigs used to support 20,000 operations a year. Some of that traffic
surely now uses O'Hare. So while the demolition of Meigs field may
not have reduced the capacity of O'Hare, it has exacerbated congestion
there.

Without the text of the two FAA studies, it not possible to
definitively understand the exact cause of the revised O'Hare capacity
limits. The AvWeb article alludes to "gridlock" as the cause, but it
is unclear if that would air, surface, or automobile gridlock.

>> The latest FAA study has recommended a reduction in the TOTAL number
>> of operations at O'Hare, unfortunately this reduction is being
>> selectively applied to GA operations.
>
>Right. Again, it's GA's problem, not O'Hare's.

It's an O'Hare problem that has be addressed by selectively reducing
the number of GA operations there.

The question is, what authority has implemented the reduction in GA
operations? If it's the FAA, presumably it's consistent with their
guidelines. If the reduction imposed on GA operations at O'Hare is
the result of the city of Chicago's fiat, it may be inconsistent with
their Airport Improvement funding agreement with the FAA.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Meigs used to support 20,000 operations a year.

Yes.

> Some of that traffic surely now uses O'Hare.

Yes.

> So while the demolition of Meigs field may not have
> reduced the capacity of O'Hare,

That's exactly what I said.

> it has exacerbated congestion there.

I never said it didn't.

>>Right. Again, it's GA's problem, not O'Hare's.
>
> It's an O'Hare problem that has be addressed by selectively reducing
> the number of GA operations there.

I doubt that O'Hare management really gives a crap *who* is using its
capacity. It's at maximum capacity, and if anything O'Hare probably gets
more money from airline flights than from GA flights (even business jets).

If anything, O'Hare is probably relieved (sorry, no pun intended) to have GA
reduced while allowing as much airline traffic as it can.

> The question is, what authority has implemented the reduction in GA
> operations? If it's the FAA, presumably it's consistent with their
> guidelines. If the reduction imposed on GA operations at O'Hare is
> the result of the city of Chicago's fiat, it may be inconsistent with
> their Airport Improvement funding agreement with the FAA.

Those are good questions, and not questions I have answers to.

Pete

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On 3 Oct 2004 08:51:55 -0700, (Pilot) wrote in
> >::
>
> >
> >The fact remains, we pilots/AC owners, are a small (less than 1% of
> >the general population) and have N O clout. That means, when an
> >airport such as Meigs is closed by Daley (or any mayor for that
> >matter) most of the public couldn't care less.
>
>
> From the information contained in the news below, it seems Mr. Daley
> has caused problems for O'Hare by closing Meigs field:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 10, Number 45b -- November 4, 2004
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> RESTRICTIONS ON GA FLIGHT START AT MEIGS, EXPAND TO O'HARE
> As new capacity limits on GA flights at Chicago's O'Hare
> International Airport went into effect this week, the FAA released
> a new study that says O'Hare must set its limits even lower in
> order to avoid gridlock. GA operations as of this week are limited
> to four per hour between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. The new study says
> O'Hare can handle just 190 to 200 arrivals and departures per
> hour, fewer than a 2001 study that recommended a maximum of 200 to
> 202 flights per hour. When visibility is poor, the maximum should
> go down to 136 to 144 per hour, the FAA said. The National
> Business Aviation Association (NBAA) has blamed the O'Hare
> problems on the closure of Meigs Field, which used to
> accommodate more than 20,000 operations per year. Corporate
> charter operators now must wait until 72 hours before their flight
> to schedule a takeoff or landing at O'Hare.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/308-full.html#188475
>
>
> But, as you noted above, his decision to close Meigs field has now
> negatively impacted GA operations at O'Hare airport.

With Bush re-elected, and if he appoints an aggressive, junkyard
dog-type US Attorney for the Chicago area, we MAY see Mr. Daley indicted
on RICO, since Daley misappropriated Federal funds in the demolition of
Meigs. It would be sort of like going after Al Capone on income tax
evasion, but it would stick, and Daley COULD go to prison!

[John Smith]

And yet the prior poster was correct in stating that "most of the public
couldn't care less" because GA will be impacted, not the general public
flying commercial.

If Daley (and other mayors) have their way, GA won't be cluttering/slowing
operations at any airports.

Terry

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Oct 2004 08:51:55 -0700, (Pilot) wrote in
> >::
>
>>
>>The fact remains, we pilots/AC owners, are a small (less than 1% of
>>the general population) and have N O clout. That means, when an
>>airport such as Meigs is closed by Daley (or any mayor for that
>>matter) most of the public couldn't care less.
>
>
> From the information contained in the news below, it seems Mr. Daley
> has caused problems for O'Hare by closing Meigs field:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 10, Number 45b -- November 4, 2004
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> RESTRICTIONS ON GA FLIGHT START AT MEIGS, EXPAND TO O'HARE
> As new capacity limits on GA flights at Chicago's O'Hare
> International Airport went into effect this week, the FAA released
> a new study that says O'Hare must set its limits even lower in
> order to avoid gridlock. GA operations as of this week are limited
> to four per hour between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. The new study says
> O'Hare can handle just 190 to 200 arrivals and departures per
> hour, fewer than a 2001 study that recommended a maximum of 200 to
> 202 flights per hour. When visibility is poor, the maximum should
> go down to 136 to 144 per hour, the FAA said. The National
> Business Aviation Association (NBAA) has blamed the O'Hare
> problems on the closure of Meigs Field, which used to
> accommodate more than 20,000 operations per year. Corporate
> charter operators now must wait until 72 hours before their flight
> to schedule a takeoff or landing at O'Hare.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/308-full.html#188475
>
>
> But, as you noted above, his decision to close Meigs field has now
> negatively impacted GA operations at O'Hare airport.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 01:15:52 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>::

>we MAY see Mr. Daley indicted
>on RICO, since Daley misappropriated Federal funds in the demolition of
>Meigs. It would be sort of like going after Al Capone on income tax
>evasion, but it would stick, and Daley COULD go to prison!


Oh, just like Kenneth Lay. :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:42:43 -0700, "John Smith"
> wrote in
>::

>And yet the prior poster was correct in stating that "most of the public
>couldn't care less" because GA will be impacted, not the general public
>flying commercial.

The flying public has no authority over airport operations of which
I'm aware.

>If Daley (and other mayors) have their way, GA won't be cluttering/slowing
>operations at any airports.

If I recall correctly, the FAA agreement required for AIP funds
requires all flights to be treated equally.

[BillC85]

> It would be sort of like going after Al Capone on income tax
> evasion, but it would stick, and Daley COULD go to prison!

Fat chance there.

Never in a million years.

When pigs fly.

Daley will never, ever, ever be held personally accountable for Meigs, ever.
The city, maybe.

There is a greater chance of peace in the Middle East which of course will
never, ever, ever happen either.

BillC

[John Galban]

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
>
> >If Daley (and other mayors) have their way, GA won't be cluttering/slowing
> >operations at any airports.
>
> If I recall correctly, the FAA agreement required for AIP funds
> requires all flights to be treated equally.

I'm not sure if the restriction comes from the FAA or Chicago, but
they probably can get away with it. Since the number of commercial
airline operations were restricted at ORD earlier this year, it would
not necessarily be discriminatory to restrict GA as well. Whether or
not the levels of restriction are equal is open to debate.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:


> I'm not sure if the restriction comes from the FAA or Chicago,

It comes from FAA because Chicago wouldn't fix it.


but
> they probably can get away with it. Since the number of commercial
> airline operations were restricted at ORD earlier this year, it would
> not necessarily be discriminatory to restrict GA as well. Whether or
> not the levels of restriction are equal is open to debate.

GA has many other places to go in or near Chicago.

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Galban wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure if the restriction comes from the FAA or Chicago,
>
> It comes from FAA because Chicago wouldn't fix it.

Actually it was left to the airlines which did nothing forcing the FAA to
step in.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:38:22 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>GA has many other places to go in or near Chicago.

That is beside the point. If the city of Chicago is in violation of
their AIP agreement, they are subject to fine. If the FAA is not
enforcing the terms of the agreement, they are also subject to legal
action.

[John Smith]

I gotta digest that one. Let's see, "The flying public has no authority over
airport operations of which I'm aware."

And the tooth fairy will be by tomorrow, Santa in tow, with the Easter
Bunny.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:42:43 -0700, "John Smith"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>And yet the prior poster was correct in stating that "most of the public
>>couldn't care less" because GA will be impacted, not the general public
>>flying commercial.
>
> The flying public has no authority over airport operations of which
> I'm aware.
>
>>If Daley (and other mayors) have their way, GA won't be cluttering/slowing
>>operations at any airports.
>
> If I recall correctly, the FAA agreement required for AIP funds
> requires all flights to be treated equally.