Gary International--Chicago's 12th airport

[jpIllInoIs]

Some interesting and revealing numbers on the market place function of Chicago/Gary Int'l Airport. I will post a few graphs of rankings to demonstrate where Gary airport ranks in the Chicagoland aviation world. I have included Valparaiso Municipal and Purdue Lafayette since these airports are "in competition" with Gary in the NW Indiana market. I also have included Janesville-So.WI since it competes with Rockford. Lets see how Gary does.

All figures derived from http://www.acukwik.com/default.aspx

First in the "What airports do" category; that is provide landings and takeoffs for planes:

Airport	             Annual flights - includes General Aviation
O'Hare Int'l	                  881,566
Chicago Midway	                  253,901
Milwaukee Mitchell	          183,278
Purdue Lafayette	          115,000
Chicago Executive	          108,429
Lewis University-Joliet	          104,000
Dupage	                           99,802
Chicago Rockford	           77,558
Valparaiso Municipal	           69,888
Aurora Municipal	           66,582
Kenosha Regional	           65,722
Waukegan Regional	           54,365
Lansing,IL Airfield	           54,000
So. WI, Janesville	           49,204
Kankakee Valley	                   49,000
South Bend 	                   40,515
Chicago Gary	                   36,109
SSA (currently operates       
as Bult Field)	              N/A

Second in the "Home sweet Home category?" Number of aircraft stored on site.

Airport	Total # Aircraft based 
O'Hare Int'l	        no report
Dupage	                365
Chicago Executive	265
Aurora Municipal	259
Lansing,IL Airfield	186
Lewis University-Joliet	169
Kenosha Regional	164
Waukegan Regional	162
Valparaiso Municipal	147
Chicago Rockford	114
Purdue Lafayette	104
Kankakee	         99
Chicago Gary	         88
So. WI, Janesville	 69
Milwaukee Mitchell	 61
Chicago Midway	         48
South Bend 	         46
SSA              	 30

Next up. "Its quality not quantity" category. Number of Jet craft based: Presumes Corporate and/or wealthy. Top 10 only.

Airport	             Jets 
Dupage	                58
Chicago Executive	50
Waukegan Regional	43
Chicago Midway	        29
Chicago Gary	        24
Milwaukee Mitchell	23
Aurora Municipal	16
Chicago Rockford	15
Kenosha Regional	12
Lansing,IL Airfield	10

Of course were guys so we have to measure.. "The mines bigger than yours" category. AKA longest runway.

Airport	       Longest Runway

O'Hare Int'l	        13,001
Milwaukee Mitchell	10,690
Chicago Rockford	10,004
South Bend 	        8,414
Dupage	                7,571
So. WI, Janesville	7,301
Chicago Gary	        7,003
Valparaiso Municipal	7,001
Purdue Lafayette	6,600
Chicago Midway	        6,522
Aurora Municipal	6,501
Lewis University-Joliet	6,500
Waukegan Regional	6,000
Kankakee	        5,980
Kenosha Regional	5,499
SSA 	                5,001
Chicago Executive	5,000
Lansing,IL Airfield	4,002

And now for the" Heavy Lifting" category. Cargo tonnage;

Airport	               Cargo (1,000lbs)
O'Hare Int'l	        4,206,916,900
Chicago Rockford	1,419,957,532
Milwaukee Mitchell	  147,390,528
Chicago Midway	           25,002,200
South Bend 	           21,210,060
Chicago Executive	   1
Dupage	                not listed
Waukegan Regional	not listed
Chicago Gary	        not listed

Oh yes, and what about the people? "The passenger tax is worthless without passengers" category.

Airport	           Passenger Volume (Commercial passengers only)
O'Hare Int'l	            64,397,782
Chicago Midway	            17,340,497
Milwaukee Mitchell	     7,956,968
South Bend 	               625,077
Chicago Rockford	       217,009
Chicago Gary	                  8706

And finally the "Room to Grow" category. Airport footprint in acres.

Airport	              Acres
SSA 	              2428 of  10,000
O'Hare Int'l	        8000
Chicago Rockford	2900
Dupage	                2800
Milwaukee Mitchell	2180
So. WI, Janesville	1343
Aurora Municipal	1100
South Bend 	        1000
Kenosha Regional	959
Kankakee	        950
Lewis University-Joliet	732
Valparaiso Municipal	718
Chicago Gary	        675
Lansing,IL Airfield	650
Waukegan Regional	600
Purdue Lafayette	527
Chicago Executive	411
Chicago Midway	        320

[simulcra]

i can't believe gary is so low on the list, despite the fact that it at least seems much closer to Chicago than say Aurora municipal.

[Steely Dan]

forgive my ignorance, but which airport is "SSA"? i'm not familair with any airport of that name.

i'm also surprised to see purdue lafayette as busy as it is. in terms of annual flights, it's busier than chicago executive and dupage, which i would have never guessed. though including it as a "chicago airport" is a bit dubious. if you're gonna reach that far, then you might as well include central illinois airport in bloomington, willard airport in champagne, and peoria regional airport as "chicago airports"

[jpIllInoIs]

SSA refers to South Suburban Airport. It currently operates as Bult Field or Sanger Airport. Mostly operates as an agricultural, hobby airport. But the land bank holdings are for the SSA.

I also do not consider Lafayette as a Chicago airport. But for NW Indiana residents/corporate/charters and general aviation users, it is an option, as is South Bend Regional. And for that reason it is a competitor to Gary.

[PrintersRowBoiler]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

forgive my ignorance, but which airport is "SSA"? i'm not familair with any airport of that name.

i'm also surprised to see purdue lafayette as busy as it is. in terms of annual flights, it's busier than chicago executive and dupage, which i would have never guessed. though including it as a "chicago airport" is a bit dubious. if you're gonna reach that far, then you might as well include central illinois airport in bloomington, willard airport in champagne, and peoria regional airport as "chicago airports"

Purdue has a rather large aviation program (one of the best in the country) which is throwing off the numbers, especially the number of flights. Major airlines have tried to run regular flights out of there, but it never seems to work out. I do not believe they fly any major commercial flights out of there now. The only Boeings landing there now I believe are for the school itself for intercollegiate athletics and some administrative trips.

[chicagogeorge]

Wow. Interesting information. I always avoid flying out of O'Hare if I can help it. I prefer Midway. Many people in the northern suburbs fly out of Milwaukee over the nightmare that is O'Hare too....

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I also do not consider Lafayette as a Chicago airport. But for NW Indiana residents/corporate/charters and general aviation users, it is an option, as is South Bend Regional. And for that reason it is a competitor to Gary.

but by that logic, champaign, bloomington, and peoria would be competitors in the exact same way for a south suburban airport.

chicago gary to purdue lafaytte airport: 87 miles

SSA to central illinois airport in bloomington: 89 miles

[jpIllInoIs]

AHH Just back from vaca in Berrien County, MI. Beaches, Dunes, Lakeshore towns. Fantastic.

Steely, my inclusion of Purdue was to illuminate factors influencing the potential growth at Gary. But I certainly do not consider Lafayette part of the Chicago metro or aviation world.

If we strike purdue/lafayette from these flight activity lists, it doesn't help the case for Gary at all. It still remains the lowest use Commercial airport-(currently has zero scheduled comm flights and zero passenger activity), the lowest use cargo airport-(no regularly scheduled cargo reported), and one of the lowest use General Aviation airports, only the airports with genuine commercial activity have lower g/a than Gary.

And we cannot eliminate South Bend Regional from the list of Gary competitors. SB has a busy commercial and cargo and charter flight operation. And it is one of the very few airports in the US that has direct passenger rail INTO the airport terminal. The fact that the South Shore rail runs right thru the heart of Gary's potential commercial market and delivers passengers to SB regional will further erode Gary's chances of making any impact in the Chicago commercial aviation market.

All in all it is time to examine weather or not Gary can legitimately continue to claim to be Chicago's 3rd airport, even for marketing purposes. By looking at these facts it cannot.

The areas that Gary does serve a purpose are in Private Jet and Helicopters storage. Those numbers indicate that it has usefulness to the corporate community of the Loop. That is great and I am a fan of feeding the Loop business community. But the question is what resources are needed to feed that market? Pretending that gary will be a commercial port involves some very costly infrastructure investment. But determining that Gary will serve the Loop private jet community requires a different strategy.

And even in the private jet/helo market gary is only one of several fields that have found favor in those markets. Gary ranks fifth in corporate jets based on site-it also ranks second in helicopters based on site. Note that little Lansing airfield ranks number 1 in helos.

Airport	             Jets           Helo
Dupage	                58             5
Chicago Executive	50             1
Waukegan Regional	43             3
Chicago Midway	        29             1
Chicago Gary	        24            10
Milwaukee Mitchell	23             9 (all military)
Aurora Municipal	16             1
Chicago Rockford	15             3
Kenosha Regional	12             4
Lansing,IL Airfield	10            13

I can infer that those private jets are located at airfields that are near the homes of the executives or at least near the HQ operations. That is why Dupage, Waukegan and Chi Exec rank so highly. Midway's rank is probably due to its proximity to the Loop and to the OakBrook-Hinsdale lux resi market. Gary's ranking is no doubt related to the Loop market-we know it was a factor in Boeing's decision to relocate here. (A sweetheart deal at that).

But Gary is not going to get Abbott Labs, Grainger or Brunswick to relocate their jets form Waukegan. It is dependent upon Chicago getting more HQ's located in the Loop. That is a limited market dependent on the growth of a specific economic sector.

I'm just taking a realistic view of the current market for Gary-Chicago.

I don't think anyone can make a case that putting Federal money into Gary Chicago with an intention of developing a passenger oriented market is money well spent. Not unless you use infinity dollars.

What is its market potential?

How and where do we invest our Federal dollars to maximize Gary's fullest potential?

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I'm just taking a realistic view of the current market for Gary-Chicago.

I don't think anyone can make a case that putting Federal money into Gary Chicago with an intention of developing a passenger oriented market is money well spent. Not unless you use infinity dollars.

What is its market potential?

How and where do we invest our Federal dollars to maximize Gary's fullest potential?

But when you have people proposing a brand-new airport in Peotone, a non-existing airport with no market share at all, isn't that the same thing as proposing more investment for GYY (Gary-Chicago Airport) to make an already-existing airport more viable?

Or even when you have Milwaukee and Rockford trying to attract Chicago-bound or Chicago-originating passengers...how messed up is that? It speaks to the dysfunctional regional policy that's plagued greater Chicago for decades. Instead of Chicago -the country's 3rd largest city, and the only global city in the Midwest- taking on a role of regional hub, with people from Milwaukee and Rockford taking a train to Chicago in order to fly out of ORD/MDW, it's the other way around: people going to provincial Milwaukee/Rockford from metro Chicago. That's messed up. I mean Milwaukee even opened up an airport Amtrak station for this very reason, yet we're still bickering about a proper Metra connection for O'Hare, or at least express CTA Blue Line trains (how hard is it to build bypass tracks for a line that's mostly above ground??).

When people criticize that GYY has no market appeal, it begs the question: which comes first, investment, or appeal? Perhaps if it was a proper airport, with proper runways, at least one proper terminal (the current terminal is a joke), proper parking, proper road access, and proper rail transit to central Chicago, then perhaps it would be a viable, busy airport.

As I posted here in the O'Hare expansion thread, the FAA predicts that Chicago will still need a 3rd airport, even after O'Hare expansion is complete. And -I'm sorry- but Rockford, Milwaukee, South Bend, etc, are not "Chicago airports". Might was well include Peoria and Indianapolis for crying out loud.

Perhaps the need for a 3rd airport doesn't seem imminent at the moment, with the recession going on. But when we reach that point, when a 3rd airport will -once again- start to seem necessary, and the debate comes up again, it would make sense to renovate GYY into a proper airport, rather than building an airport in Peotone. Aside from the fact that it's much closer to central Chicago than the Peotone site, you already have Metra/South Shore lines passing nearby, it wouldn't take much additional infrastructure and money to connect the airport to the region's transit grid. And aside from all the much-needed revenue it would bring Gary. In contrast, Peotone is in the middle of depopulated nowhere, and building an expressway and rail line specifically for this airport would be economically nonsensical, as they wouldn't serve any daily commuters, at least not for a long time. Sometimes cities are forced to build an airport on a greenfield site, but the Chicago region is lucky in that GYY is there, and it's perfect real estate for an airport.

It's such a no-brainer, but there's too many interests that prevent such an obvious solution. You have property owners in the Peotone area that would benefit immensely from a Peotone airport, even though it would not benefit the Chicago region as a whole; you have vested interests that want to keep the airport revenue inside the State of Illinois, which is demented and sad that Illinois and Indiana don't cooperate the way that New York and New Jersey do, for a metropolitan area that overlaps two states (all the more reason for metro Chicago to perhaps secede from Illinois/Indiana and form a new state, perhaps?) I mean, come on. It's like there's far too many short-sighted interests that work against the interests of Chicago, both the city itself and the Chicago region as a whole.

[Chicago103]

I agree with everything that skyduster said.

Milwaukee, Rockford and South Bend would only serve people on the very fringes of the metro region as would Peotone. I mean as someone from the southwest side of the city near Midway Airport those places are very much outside of my radar. Milwaukee only makes sense if you live in Kenosha or northern Lake County, Rockford only makes sense if you live in McHenry County and South Bend only makes sense to those already living in Nortwest Indiana. Similarly Peotone would mostly only serve those in the southern suburbs. Thats the problem with decentralization, a large project like a third airport would disproportionatly serve people only in a certain vector of the region.

You need a third airport closer to the city which is the heart of the region and Gary is close enough that it could serve people all over the metro region. It matters less what the passenger usage is right now (which really only tells us how popular Gary is for people with private planes) and it matters more what the potential is for the airport and in my opinion Gary has tons of potential.

[nomarandlee]

I third skydusters sentiments.

[Steely Dan]

and i'll 4th skysduster's comments.

building gary up into the region's 3rd major airport makes a ton of sense, but it's probably too much sense for chicagoland to handle.

[Kngkyle]

I don't see any need for a 3rd airport if they can fix O'Hare properly. But they are having trouble finding money for even that. Fix what you already got first.

I'd rather see the city spend money fixing O'Hare to add more international destinations instead of building another domestic airport so that Spirit can add a 14th daily flight to Atlanta.

[ChitownCity]

^ I agree

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I don't see any need for a 3rd airport if they can fix O'Hare properly. But they are having trouble finding money for even that. Fix what you already got first.

I'd rather see the city spend money fixing O'Hare to add more international destinations instead of building another domestic airport so that Spirit can add a 14th daily flight to Atlanta.

Good Point

[jpIllInoIs]

Well at least we have an interesting discussion here. My purpose is to parse through the facts and examine some assumptions that are being made about the Chicago air marketplace and Gary's place in Chicago as well as Rockford and Milwaukee.

Originally Posted by skyduster

But when you have people proposing a brand-new airport in Peotone, a non-existing airport with no market share at all, isn't that the same thing as proposing more investment for GYY (Gary-Chicago Airport) to make an already-existing airport more viable?

To be very clear..I am not a proponent of the SSA in Peotone. Quite the opposite.. As an environmentalist.. I think the SSA will be a disaster for the Kankakee River Valley.

Or even when you have Milwaukee and Rockford trying to attract Chicago-bound or Chicago-originating passengers...how messed up is that?

That is a free market economy.

It speaks to the dysfunctional regional policy that's plagued greater Chicago for decades. Instead of Chicago -the country's 3rd largest city, and the only global city in the Midwest- taking on a role of regional hub, with people from Milwaukee and Rockford taking a train to Chicago in order to fly out of ORD/MDW,

Now we are arguing against the existence of Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee while at the same time saying Gary should be built up, But Mitchell is already successful. You forget that Mitchell draws people from the Fox Valley Cities, Racine, Dane County, Waukesha and Green Bay, but these people instead are supposed to go to O'Hare, MDW and presumably Gary since you are in favor of its build up. That is crazy. First of all they already go to O'Hare. Mitchell does offer a substantial number of international flights, but only the Canada/Mexico/Caribbean variety. But no doubt O'Hare dominates the Milwaukee market for international and even some coastal destinations. Mitchell does what a good reliever airport should do! Relieve some flights so that the main hub airport-O'Hare- can handle more traffic. This one happens to be North of the Main city in the Megaplex. But guess what-it is close to the SECOND biggest city in the Megaplex. Talk about making too much sense. AND it is already drawing 30% of its customers from the northern "fringes" of the Alpha city.

When people criticize that GYY has no market appeal, it begs the question: which comes first, investment, or appeal? Perhaps if it was a proper airport, with proper runways, at least one proper terminal (the current terminal is a joke), proper parking, proper road access, and proper rail transit to central Chicago, then perhaps it would be a viable, busy airport.

I just look at the facts;;; Gary has no commercial service right now. It has a longer runway than MDW and Chic Exec. as the Gary promotional materials always point out. It has the capability of landing large jets now. 6-7 commercial services have tried and failed. The commercial airline that is finding success in Rockford-Allegiant-is doing it by dialing into very select, targeted markets. Cancun, Orlando, Las Vega, Phoenix and Branson,Mo & Niagra Falls and a seasonal charter to Mackinaw Island. Just doing smart business. When this was tried in Gary it failed!

As I posted here in the O'Hare expansion thread, the FAA predicts that Chicago will still need a 3rd airport, even after O'Hare expansion is complete. And -I'm sorry- but Rockford, Milwaukee, South Bend, etc, are not "Chicago airports". Might was well include Peoria and Indianapolis for crying out loud.

I'm sorry but Rckfrd and Milw ARE Chicago market airports. Saying otherwise is magical thinking and doesn't make it a fact. The MARKEPLACE supports Milwaukee as the reliever airport. Fact: is that 30% of Mitchells business is from Illinois. Fact: Mitchell enplanements/deplanements already have exceeded their 2020 targets in the master plan executed in 2002. And Mitchell has an expansion plan of their own, which includes a new 7,000 ft runway, Giving it 6 runways. Fact; Mitchell's average fare is now lower than MDW average fare. Now discount airlines are competing to get into Mitchell and participate in the year-to year exponential growth.

And the market supports Rockford as Chicago's cargo reliever port. Fact: Rckfrd is the second busiest cargo airport in the Chicago area and the 18-20 busiest air cargo port in the nation. Fact; UPS has designated Rckfrd as its primary Chicago market terminal. RFD is home to the second largest air hub sorting facility in United Parcel Service's system. DB Schenker has a smaller facility at RFD.

I too support Gary over SSA Peotone, if that is the only option. But that is not looking at the whole picture. This market is large and fractured. To say that Mitchell doesn't answer the needs of So, Siders or Oak Lawn or Hyde Park.... well no kidding. But Gary doesn't answer the needs of Northbrook, or Lake County, IL. And Midway is not a good answer for Racine or Waukegan. And when Landrum & Brown studied Gary's marketplace they did include South Bend in their competitive marketplace study of Gary and NW Indiana.

Landrum & Brown concluded that the outlook of standard, scheduled passenger service from Gary is very limited and that even Charter flight business will require expensive expansions and STILL require marketplace rebates from the State of Indiana and/or Gary/or Chicago.

[skyduster]

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

To be very clear..I am not a proponent of the SSA in Peotone.

I wasn't pointing my finger at you. My point was, that we often hear about "GYY not being able to attract customers" or "GYY not having a market", which are complete straw-man arguments. Well, Peotone airport doesn't have a market either. If Peotone were to exist, it may very well have a market. Same with GYY. If it were converted into a proper airport, it may very well have a market.

Whether or not a 3rd airport is needed is a valid argument. But for Peotone-proponents (who are pushing for a 3rd airport), there's certainly a complete lack of rationale here because if there is a need for a 3rd airport, GYY is the obvious solution.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

That is a free market economy.

No, we are not an orthodox free market economy. We have a decent balance between capitalism and [gasp] socialism (public schools, public libraries, publicly-funded roads, FDA, FAA, etc). Anyone that thinks it's a good idea to stick strictly to one end of the spectrum is a delusional ideologue stuck in the 20th century, and this goes just as much for the economic far-right/neo-libs/libertarians as it goes for communists.

Especially since we're on the topic of airports, which are completely public-owned infrastructure here in the United States (in some other countries, they may be partly public and partly private).

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to go to Milwaukee or Rockford if they so choose, so I'm not sure why you're invoking the "free market" clause.

However, these are not all equal options, for several reasons: geography, transportation grids, availability of flights, etc. It's not like you're at Best Buy making a decision between a Samsung and a Panasonic TV. We're talking about which airport is closest to home (or to where you'll be staying in Chicago), if there's a way of getting to and from the airport, and if the city-pair flight that you need is served by that airport (and if there is no proper terminal, then no flight will originate/terminate at this airport, plain and simple). The public -or what you call "the market"- doesn't just choose whatever airport it likes. The "market" is actually forced to make a decision by these criteria. Not exactly the "free market" scenario you seem to think it is.

In my previous post, I was just stating my frustration with our overall dysfunctional regional policy, on matters ranging from transportation to commercial zoning. The reasons that many people leave the Chicago area to fly out of Milwaukee, Rockford, South Bend, could very well be addressed right here in Chicago through better regional cooperation between city and suburbs, suburb to suburb, Cook County to collar counties, northeast Illinois to northwest Indiana, etc. If there was a better transit grid, and perhaps even if there was a 3rd airport, perhaps fewer people would leave metro Chicago.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Now we are arguing against the existence of Mitchell Airport in Milwaukee while at the same time saying Gary should be built up, But Mitchell is already successful. You forget that Mitchell draws people from the Fox Valley Cities, Racine, Dane County, Waukesha and Green Bay, but these people instead are supposed to go to O'Hare, MDW and presumably Gary since you are in favor of its build up. That is crazy. First of all they already go to O'Hare. Mitchell does offer a substantial number of international flights, but only the Canada/Mexico/Caribbean variety. But no doubt O'Hare dominates the Milwaukee market for international and even some coastal destinations. Mitchell does what a good reliever airport should do! Relieve some flights so that the main hub airport-O'Hare- can handle more traffic. This one happens to be North of the Main city in the Megaplex. But guess what-it is close to the SECOND biggest city in the Megaplex. Talk about making too much sense. AND it is already drawing 30% of its customers from the northern "fringes" of the Alpha city.

I'm very happy for Mitchell. Yay for Mitchell!

This doesn't change any of the criticisms I have for Chicagoland regional policy, and the need to improve our transit grid. Nor does it change the fact that GYY is an obvious solution, if the need for a 3rd Chicago airport arises. So I want to make it clear, that I'm not talking about an imminent need here, but I am talking about something that does in fact make into prime public discourse every now and then in the Chicago area.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I just look at the facts;;;

Yes, let's do that:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

Gary has no commercial service right now. It has a longer runway than MDW and Chic Exec. as the Gary promotional materials always point out. It has the capability of landing large jets now. 6-7 commercial services have tried and failed. The commercial airline that is finding success in Rockford-Allegiant-is doing it by dialing into very select, targeted markets. Cancun, Orlando, Las Vega, Phoenix and Branson,Mo & Niagra Falls and a seasonal charter to Mackinaw Island. Just doing smart business. When this was tried in Gary it failed!

And why do you think GYY failed?

You're being totally unfair to GYY, and this is exactly what I was talking about. Just go to the airport's website: www.garychicagoairport.com and take a look at the picture of the terminal, and then tell me that this is a proper terminal that can adequately serve tenant carriers.

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs

I too support Gary over SSA Peotone, if that is the only option. But that is not looking at the whole picture. This market is large and fractured. To say that Mitchell doesn't answer the needs of So, Siders or Oak Lawn or Hyde Park.... well no kidding. But Gary doesn't answer the needs of Northbrook, or Lake County, IL. And Midway is not a good answer for Racine or Waukegan. And when Landrum & Brown studied Gary's marketplace they did include South Bend in their competitive marketplace study of Gary and NW Indiana.

Landrum & Brown concluded that the outlook of standard, scheduled passenger service from Gary is very limited and that even Charter flight business will require expensive expansions and STILL require marketplace rebates from the State of Indiana and/or Gary/or Chicago.

I'm sorry but Rckfrd and Milw ARE Chicago market airports. Saying otherwise is magical thinking and doesn't make it a fact. The MARKEPLACE supports Milwaukee as the reliever airport. Fact: is that 30% of Mitchells business is from Illinois. Fact: Mitchell enplanements/deplanements already have exceeded their 2020 targets in the master plan executed in 2002. And Mitchell has an expansion plan of their own, which includes a new 7,000 ft runway, Giving it 6 runways. Fact; Mitchell's average fare is now lower than MDW average fare. Now discount airlines are competing to get into Mitchell and participate in the year-to year exponential growth.

Again, completely disingenuous argument.

The "market" will choose from the limited options it is given, and GYY was never given a fair chance at being one of these options. The need for a 3rd airport is also a factor here, but you are the one suggesting that Chicago area-bound or Chicago area-originating passengers (as well as cargo) do in fact need additional airport service to what ORD and MDW already provide.

I'm sure the optimal thing that the "market" would prefer would personal airports at everyone's front doorstep, with a personal airplane taking them wherever they want, for free. But this is not an option, and nor was GYY ever a proper option. So I'm afraid the "market" argument has no weight here.

And while Milwaukee may be a "Chicago market airport", it's not a Chicago airport.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by skyduster

And why do you think GYY failed?

Its called ROI
And just to keep the record straight I didn't say GYY failed. I only pointed out that the commercial service offerings 'failed' and there are currently no commercial flights offered. And I will point out again that the runway length is sufficient to land anything that can land at MDW. And the terminal has functional capacity. There are no physical impediments to offering service.

You're being totally unfair to GYY, and this is exactly what I was talking about. Just go to the airport's website: www.garychicagoairport.com and take a look at the picture of the terminal, and then tell me that this is a proper terminal that can adequately serve tenant carriers.

Do you really think that I started a thread and did not go to the website? I know this is a controversial issues on this forum. I fully expected to get push-back and I am prepared to support my statements and I am also open to reasoned and informed data that is contrary to my stance. BTW, nowhere in GYY marketing materials or airport documents or the Landrum & Brown report is the current terminal mentioned as a deterrent to attracting commercial service right now. In fact the selling point of GYY would be that you can be dropped off or park (you have to since there is no public transit to the terminal) and go through baggage check and ticketing and be on your flight. How much time would you spend in the terminal?

Quote from Landrum and Brown Pg 76..The passenger terminal, has been renovated and though somewhat dated, remains functional.

I'm sure the optimal thing that the "market" would prefer would personal airports at everyone's front doorstep, with a personal airplane taking them wherever they want, for free.

This is a ridiculous statement.

But this is not an option, and nor was GYY ever a proper option. So I'm afraid the "market" argument has no weight here.

I started this thread using market statistics that questioned the market viability of Gary and the "market" will remain the fundamental issue in this thread.

And while Milwaukee may be a "Chicago market airport", it's not a Chicago airport.

Thank you for acknowledging my point that Mitchell is a Chicago market airport-which serves a portion of the Chicago market.

I still stand by my thesis which is that GYY has a limited future in the Chicago market place. And it is losing ground month by month to Milwaukee and Rockford as "reliever" airports to O'Hare and Midway. And South Bend will continue to be stiff competition within the NW Ind market. The commercial passenger market demand for GYY is non-existent. The cargo demand is immeasurable. The general aviation demand puts GYY in 12th place among all Chicago GA airports. Only the corporate jet demand has a pulse and that is tepid but could improve. And GYY will someday have competition in the helicopter air taxi business when the Illinois Medical District builds the Verti-port on South Wood St. for which RFP's have been issued.

[globill]

Here's a recent BEZ interview regarding the airport.

http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=44275

I am confident G-C will eventually emerge as the viable 3 rd Chicago airport. It is perfectly located with highways, freight rail, passenger rail (South Shore Line/Amtrak) and plenty of land to expand.

And for those of you unfamiliar with "the Region"...the historic changes happening there are in the form of regional cooperation. And increasingly, the State of Indiana is burying its long-held prejudice against the Region, seeing it increasingly as an integral piece in the economic development of the state.

[Steely Dan]

let's please leave political rantings out of this thread.

if you have an axe to grind against "conservatives" or "liberals", there are thousands of outlets on the world wide web to vent your anger.

however, this thread isn't on of those outlets.