FAA extends restrictions on O'Hare flights to April

[question everything]

October 14, 2005

FAA extends restrictions on O'Hare flights to April
By Trebor Banstetter
Knight Ridder Newspapers

FORT WORTH, Texas — American Airlines and United Airlines will have to keep a lid on flights at Chicago O'Hare Airport, at least for the time being. The Federal Aviation Administration extended restrictions on American and United flights from the airport until April 1. Those restrictions had been scheduled to expire this month.

(snip)

Last year, the government ordered American and United to cut their O'Hare flights by 6 percent, citing heavy traffic and flight delays. Both airlines operate hubs at O'Hare.

(snip)

Federal and local officials are contemplating a more permanent solution to the traffic problem, which could include expanding the airport.

Delays have declined under the restrictions. In August, 79 percent of the airport's flights were on time, up from 75 percent a year ago. The airport was ranked 10th among large airports in August in on-time performance, compared with 23rd in August 2004.

You can find this story online at:
http://www.dailyitem.com/archive/2005/1014/biz/stories/02biz.htm

[amandabeech]

1. Approaching Peak Oil and continued demand will push prices of

aviation fuel higher permanently. That will result in higher-priced tickets, fewer customers and fewer flights.

Under those conditions, it would be ridiculous to expand O'Hare.

There are three under-used airports in the vicinity of Chicago's sprawl: Gary-Calumet in the southeast, Rockford in the northwest and Milwaukee (two hours north of O'Hare, if that) to the north. Both Gary and Milwaukee are accessible by public transit from Chicago now.

Some officials want to pave more farm fields south of Chicago for another large airport. If they do this, it will be difficult to turn those runways and parking lots into farmland again.

[Deja Q]

2. If peak oil is for real...

It could be an excuse by the oil companies to rake up huge profits.

And they've lied before.

[amandabeech]

3. I think that it's for real.

Too many retired petroleum geologists are in general agreement for me to think otherwise, and the denials are coming mostly from economists. Add that to the fact that many, many producing countries have seen their wells pull up less and less, and especially less and less of the easy-to-refine stuff.

I was alive and aware during the '70s, and I think that this one is for real. Check around the net. I personally like the ASPO site for their reports of actual, long-term production declines.