UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3440 times:
I have a feeling that it would be proven non-cost effective to undo what was done. Seeing as the runway itself has been destroyed and there are no more airport facilities.... I would just say pay the price for destorying an airport that once served as a useful destination. AND.... seeing as ORD has the trouble they have, somoene could even go out as far as saying that now that Meigs is gone added traffic to ORD has been the end result... (I have an itch that i'll get flamed for that one...)
Grbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3397 times:
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 1): (I have an itch that i'll get flamed for that one...)
Oh so THAT's what's causing all the congestion at ORD
I thought they already built houses and stuff on the airport site. Besides, in today's US homeland security situation, new airports won't be built that close by Chicago downtown. In fact, a lot of airports would not have been built in the same place today as they were ages ago (disregarding the fact that many are now engulfed in residential areas).
Goaliemn From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 463 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3315 times:
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 1): I have a feeling that it would be proven non-cost effective to undo what was done.
http://www.friendsofmeigs.org actually presented a "parks and planes" idea that would've given Chicago money for a park and a small airstrip on the island where meigs used to live. They won awards for the idea from numerous groups but needless to say, the mayor wasn't interested in hearing it.
Quoting Grbld (Reply 2): Besides, in today's US homeland security situation, new airports won't be built that close by Chicago downtown.
Small airplanes arent' a threat. The government has even said that in some reports. Daley wants to open a casino down there with Trump.
Numerous cities have airports right downtown and only Daley bulldozed his like a coward in the middle of the night.
Grbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3178 times:
Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 3): Small airplanes arent' a threat. The government has even said that in some reports.
That goes for a Cessna 172, but not for the corporate jets and regional aircraft that went there.
If you're building an airport that only small piston props can use, it still won't be built there, because nowadays, most regular folks hate those little noisemakers and think that recreational flying is just a waste of their unobstructed sky view. An airport still has to has some use (ie. revenue or connections by corporate jets or as a connection to other aiports by a regional carrier). Recreational flying and flight training is not enough.
DeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 16 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 3): but needless to say, the mayor wasn't interested in hearing it.
Because Hizzoner is a peckerwood!
Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 3): Small airplanes arent' a threat. The government has even said that in some reports. Daley wants to open a casino down there with Trump.
Numerous cities have airports right downtown and only Daley bulldozed his like a coward in the middle of the night.
I've heard numerous times he wants to turn it into a park beause his wife wants it that way. Either way...see above comment.
"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
IRelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2913 times:
Daley is trying to make that whole lakefront area (Grant Park, Millenium Park, Navy Pier, all the way down the Shedd where Meigs was) into Chicago's version of central park. I have heard of a casino as well. Meigs was a one of a kind airport, no doubt about it. The actions taken by Mayor Daley and his cronies were both viciously underhanded and illegal. But I think having an airport on the lakefront in a massive city such as Chicago just isn't justifiable anymore. You have to look at the benefit to the city...how does Meigs benefit the city and its citizens as a whole? Apart from a few aviation enthusiasts, GA pilots, and FS nostalgics, there is none. That land is valuable and if it isn't serving a useful purpose for the majority of Chicago's citizens then why have it, especially with Midway close by and ORD a few minutes further. The whole homeland security thing was just a pretext, but the whole process should have been executed with a little more class. However, history has shown that the Daley's get what they want when they want it. Sad for Meigs, but probably better for the city.
Goaliemn From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 463 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2874 times:
Quoting IRelayer (Reply 8): But I think having an airport on the lakefront in a massive city such as Chicago just isn't justifiable anymore. You have to look at the benefit to the city...how does Meigs benefit the city and its citizens as a whole?
There are conventions that have moved since it closed. Being so close to downtown is an asset to people that want to fly in for the day, go to a convention,then leave without fighting traffic on the roads, then traffic at ORD.
ORD and Midway controllers are complaining about the increase in traffic at already full airports. Miegs was a great reliever airport which does help air travelers by keeping the "big airports" available for the big metal.
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 29 Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 1): AND.... seeing as ORD has the trouble they have, somoene could even go out as far as saying that now that Meigs is gone added traffic to ORD has been the end result... (I have an itch that i'll get flamed for that one...)
The closure of CGX hasn't really affected ORD much, since GA traffic is scarce there. There has however, been an increase in GA traffic at MDW, mostly due to the closure of CGX.
Quoting IRelayer (Reply 8): But I think having an airport on the lakefront in a massive city such as Chicago just isn't justifiable anymore. You have to look at the benefit to the city...how does Meigs benefit the city and its citizens as a whole? Apart from a few aviation enthusiasts, GA pilots, and FS nostalgics, there is none.
That's what it boils down to. How much money could be made having the airport there, versus redeveloping that prime piece of lakefront real estate for something else that will benefit a lot more Chicago citizens, not to mention line some pockets (it is Chicago after all). It's no secret Daley wanted Northerly Island to complete his Chicago lakefront vision. Right now there is an ampitheater built on the old CGX grounds that hosts a variety of concerts during the summer. I'm not sure what the long term plans for that piece of land are as of yet.
IRelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2710 times:
Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 9): There are conventions that have moved since it closed. Being so close to downtown is an asset to people that want to fly in for the day, go to a convention,then leave without fighting traffic on the roads, then traffic at ORD.
I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out. I know the home and garden expo moved to Vegas but I can't believe it did so just b/c Meigs closed.
The question is whether Meigs was an economic asset or an economic liability. I prefer to think of it as an asset but who knows what that area will turn into?
OttoPylit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2550 times:
The FAA was supposed to fine the city of Chicago a buttload of money because they were not happy with Daley's actions. They were going to throw out a lot of reasons for the fines. Failure to notify the FAA of closing an airport 30 days in advance, damaging runway and facilities on a still active airport, etc., etc.
What ever happened with that stuff? And if they were fined, did Daley do what everyone figured, and pay it with taxpayer money. It should come from his own pockets.
Just to piss Daley off, I think AOPA ought to organize annual Meig's fly-ins. Hear me out for a second. At any time during flight that a GA aircraft is not landing or taking off, the minimum altitude is 1000 feet, right? Well, every year, an organizing of pilots and planes at a nearby airport(Midway or other close GA airport) and for the rest of the day, everyone just continuously shoots approaches over the airport, but never descending below 1000 feet. Or the airplanes just fly over the park all day long as much as they want, free to leave and go home when they are ready. Because let's be honest, a shitload of Cessna's and Piper's in formation 1000 feet above you will get your attention and create a lot of noise. All those people taking in the quieteness of the "park" will surely be pissed off because all those airplanes are making that racket, and seeing all these airplanes buzzing above Meig's will surely be reminiscent of the attack on Pearl Harbor when seen from the city's downtown high-rises.
If you make enough racket and even schedule it often enough, anything Daley will have wanted to do with the park will be pointless, because developers, etc. will not want to deal with the trouble caused by all those airplanes so often.
We may not be able to bring Meig's back, but we can surely make it so hard for Daley that, at the end of the day, he realizes his intentions for Meig's were not worth destroying the airport.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 54 Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2513 times:
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
AeroTycoon From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 101 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2415 times:
Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 12): What ever happened with that stuff? And if they were fined, did Daley do what everyone figured, and pay it with taxpayer money. It should come from his own pockets.
That was the original question... did he (and/or the city of Chicago) get fined or not?
Quoting IRelayer (Reply 8): The actions taken by Mayor Daley and his cronies were both viciously underhanded and illegal. But I think having an airport on the lakefront in a massive city such as Chicago just isn't justifiable anymore. You have to look at the benefit to the city...how does Meigs benefit the city and its citizens as a whole? Apart from a few aviation enthusiasts, GA pilots, and FS nostalgics, there is none. That land is valuable and if it isn't serving a useful purpose for the majority of Chicago's citizens then why have it, especially with Midway close by and ORD a few minutes further.
It doesn't matter WHY they did it, the point, which you made yourself, was that it was illegal. Bottom line. The problem isn't that they closed it; the problem is how they went about the closure. There is legal protocol for closing an airport, they should have followed it. They chose to ignore it and they should pay the penalty. End of story.
Goaliemn From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 463 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2288 times:
Quoting IRelayer (Reply 11): The question is whether Meigs was an economic asset or an economic liability. I prefer to think of it as an asset but who knows what that area will turn into?
The airport never paid for itself, but it did help lighten the load at MDW. Now, with it gone, controllers are complaining about the increased load at MDW. Is it enough to impact the big boys? I don't know.
Quoting OttoPylit (Reply 12): The FAA was supposed to fine the city of Chicago a buttload of money because they were not happy with Daley's actions.
He did get fined. It was a slap on the wrist, since all federal obligations had run out on the airport. If I remember correctly, it was $1000/day fine. A bill was introduced after that increasing the fines significantly (I believe $100000/day) and it did pass.
AOPA is still suing the city, but I haven't heard any updates in awhile.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Grbld (Reply 2): Besides, in today's US homeland security situation, new airports won't be built that close by Chicago downtown.
True. Pity this is based on misguided fear, rather than logic.
Quoting Grbld (Reply 4): Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 3):
Small airplanes arent' a threat. The government has even said that in some reports.
That goes for a Cessna 172, but not for the corporate jets and regional aircraft that went there.
Wrong, Grbld. Corporate jets aren't a threat, either. Furthermore, with Meigs closed, the downtown area is much more vulnerable to the threat you describe.
Goaliemn From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 463 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 16): Furthermore, with Meigs closed, the downtown area is much more vulnerable to the threat you describe.
Downtown used to be controlled airspace. It isn't anymore, so yes. More vulnerable.
I saw an article that they want to build acouple of helipads down at McCormick place now. Apparently enough people miss being able to chopper into Meigs that they need to replace part of it.
Well that may be what the government says, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. While for corporations it is certainly much safer to fly corporate than airline (security wise), anyone could rent a corporate jet (and the folks behind 9/11 had plenty of money) and drive it into the Sears tower. Heck, they could even buy a used Gulfstream or Challenger.
Size-wise, there are plenty big corporate jets out there. And if you get the opportunity to load 'em up with whatever kind of junk you want, you'll get plenty of effect! A GV has the same length and width as a 737-600 (but is lighter though).
Quoting Goaliemn (Reply 17): Downtown used to be controlled airspace. It isn't anymore, so yes. More vulnerable.
Can you explain the logic there? Just because it's uncontrolled, doesn't mean that they are off the radar. And flying through controlled airspace with your transponder off will also make sure you're not very visible.
Even at the biggest controlled airports, there's nothing standing any pilot in the way of yanking the control column to the right and flying the plane into whatever target.
Not very pretty thoughts, but possibilities nonetheless.
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3312 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Why isn't Daley in jail (besides the obvious answer that he and the entire Chicago city government are completely corrupt)?
If you or I took a bulldozer to a random airport and started tearing out concrete, I am sure that we would be behind bars. Daley makes me sick, and the fact he is not in jail is a crime in itself.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2052 times:
He should unite with Wowereit of Berlin, who is trying to do the same with a functioning airport called Tempelhof. At least the authorities in Berlin respect the law, so that they didn't manage to close THF yet...
If a politician acts unlawfully like in Chicago, he must be thrown out of his job immediately!
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2010 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Grbld (Reply 18): anyone could rent a corporate jet (and the folks behind 9/11 had plenty of money) and drive it into the Sears tower. Heck, they could even buy a used Gulfstream or Challenger.
Heck, for $19.99, they could even rent a U-Haul, fill IT with explosives, and park it in front of a skyscraper. We'd better ban trucks from operating in the downtown Chicago area!
Seriously, though...the terrorist threat cannot be completely eliminated. It can only be minimized. Effort needs to be focused on the threats that are most likely to occur. Spending money and effort on a threat that is, at most, hardly a threat, and realistically, not a threat at all, is shortsighted and dangerous.
Quoting Grbld (Reply 18): Can you explain the logic there?
Sure. The airspace immediately surrounding the skyscrapers downtown is now noncontrolled. Logic will tell you that airspace under positive control monitors and regulates aircraft within it more efficiently than noncontrolled airspace. This means a pilot can now plan and fly a flight path that places him/her seconds away from a collision with the buildings...without talking to anyone.
With an operating control tower, and active class D airspace, aircraft in the area are monitored via:
1) Radar contact
2) Visual contact
3) Radio contact
In addition, the tower controllers at Meigs were familiar with day-to-day aircraft operations into and out of the airport, and thus, were very receptive to and able to spot/sense unusual activity.
Potential terrorist activity aside, class D airspace (and the controllers that go along with it) is actually able to handle the VFR flight following requests from the heavy amounts of GA and VFR traffic transitioning the area. You see, separation is a good thing, and if you for a second think that the Chicago center controllers have workloads that permit such close observation and careful VFR flight following, you're sorely mistaken. Oh, and if you think those Chicago center controllers are going to vector VFR traffic through their airspace, go admit yourself into a mental health clinic immediately.
Quoting Grbld (Reply 18): Well that may be what the government says, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Csturdiv From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1351 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
Quoting Grbld (Reply 4): That goes for a Cessna 172, but not for the corporate jets and regional aircraft that went there.
Train tracks are just as much of a threat that planes are. So I guess we should also get rid of the "L" here in Chicago?
SLUAviator From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 357 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
Quoting Grbld (Reply 2): I thought they already built houses and stuff on the airport site. Besides, in today's US homeland security situation, new airports won't be built that close by Chicago downtown.
No houses on site. There is the Charter One Bank amphitheatre, and the terminal and tower buildings were still there the last time I was downtown which was a couple of months ago.
Homeland security situation? That excuse has been just that since the beginning of the whole Meigs argument. It was a joke the day Daley used it as his excuse for pushing in Meigs, and it is a joke today.
Quoting Grbld (Reply 4): but not for the corporate jets and regional aircraft that went there.
The biggest corporate jet I ever saw there were early Citations. The biggest regional was Great Lakes' B-1900s that flew to SPI. Neither of which would seriously hurt any buildings downtown.
If you wanted to start trouble, you could take off from ORD or MDW and be over downtown so fast that nobody would have time to react. Proximity is not the issue!
Quoting CactusA319 (Reply 10): The closure of CGX hasn't really affected ORD much, since GA traffic is scarce there.
There are lots of light business/private planes that could use CGX that are now stuck going elsewhere. They come and go all the time. I saw a Navajo following a LH 747 out for a 32L-T10 departure one day last summer. In Feb. 05, I saw a Tomahawk land on 9L. These are not typical ORD airplanes, but they have to go somewhere! Might as well be ORD!!!
Quoting Grbld (Reply 18): Can you explain the logic there? Just because it's uncontrolled, doesn't mean that they are off the radar. And flying through controlled airspace with your transponder off will also make sure you're not very visible.
Ummm.... the airspace over downtown is not uncontrolled. If you look at a terminal chart of the area, class E airspace comes down to 700ft AGL. That means as soon as you are above about 1300 ft you are in controlled airspace. Doesn't mean you have to talk to anyone to legally be there, but there is a distinction.
Air traffic radar operates in both mode 1 and 2 or whatever the proper term is. I would have to dig up my air traffic control book from college to check. It can operate on a transponder interrogation or a skin paint. That is why you often hear the guy in the tower asking if your transponder is on when you take off. He looks down at his screen and notices you as a skin paint, not a Mode-C reply and clicks the mike.
Regardless, anyone floating around downtown without a transponder on is going to draw attention. Not because they are in class E or G airspace, but because of the volume of planes out there and the importance the Mode C plays in TCAS. That is primarily why class B airports have the 30 nm Mode C veil. If you want to start trouble, you might as well have your transponder turned on. A lot of the guys in the centers and approaches have their screens filtered so that it does not show the 1200 beacon code. A skin paint shows up no matter what.
CactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 29 Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
Quoting SLUAviator (Reply 23): There are lots of light business/private planes that could use CGX that are now stuck going elsewhere. They come and go all the time. I saw a Navajo following a LH 747 out for a 32L-T10 departure one day last summer. In Feb. 05, I saw a Tomahawk land on 9L. These are not typical ORD airplanes, but they have to go somewhere! Might as well be ORD!!!
I never said there wasn't any GA traffic at ORD at all, but there isn't a whole lot when compared to other airports. GA traffic makes up less than 1% of annual ops at ORD right now, which is about where it was while CGX was still open. There hasn't exactly been a surge in traffic after the closure. MDW is another story.
25 SLUAviator: I am not disagreeing with you either! The point I was trying to make--and maybe I did a bad job of it-- was the closure of CGX has forced smaller pla
26 AeroTycoon: I would argue that Meigs field is more of a terrorist threat now that it is a park or whatever it is now. We know the "general aviation threat" from M
27 Grbld: You're completely right, but it's not MY reasoning, but the government's. I'd place Meigs back as a GA airport right now if I could. Why not? I'm jus
28 Ckfred: King Richard II (as opposed to his father, King Richard I) wanted to get rid of Meigs long before September 11th. As someone has pointed out, Queen Ma
29 DeltaGator: Welcome to Chicago politics. Where ethics are optional and doing as you say and actually following the law is not required. Perhaps, but I still thin
30 OttoPylit: Hell yea, I'm all for that!! AOPA has a large following of people with a lot of money that would love to do anything right now to piss Daley off, and
31 QQflyboy: From Chicago Business.com http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=14110&rel=1 "WASHINGTON—The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is see
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 101 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2233 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
