Nobody Official Would Look at it, Anyway...

For five months, the Chicago-area controllers were trying to have their idea for the O'Hare expansion plan heard, and nobody was listening. The ATC-ers were concerned, specifically, about the proposed new east-west runway, planned for the south end of the airport. They maintained that its orientation was suboptimal; reporters call that condition, 'dangerous.'

Northwest-southeast, they said, would be better, considering traffic patterns and most-common wind direction.

The controllers were part of an FAA team to look at O'Hare proposals, but it said their ideas were systematically ignored by the city's Department of Aviation. So, the controllers went to the media earlier this week, with their concerns, and their plan. The Department of Aviation is now, reportedly, quite interested.

The controllers' plan addresses more than just prevailing winds, and promises a reduction in the occasion for runway incursions, potentially deadly at the high-traffic hub, notorious for having all four seasons of weather -- sometimes separated by mere hours. Runway crossings, according to a Tribune article, "would be cut by up to 480 a day." Additional good news would be a reduction in taxi time by an average of at least five minutes, for each of the giant jet-A guzzlers that used the proposed route.

ANN Interviews ATC Association President

ANN called Craig Burzych, President of ATC association at O'Hare.

He brought us up to speed: "The Daley departure runway (10R, at 7500 feet) wouldn't be something we'd assign too many airplanes to; the alternative, 12-30, could be a minimum of 9000 feet, probably 10,000; and these airplanes wouldn't have to cross the other runways."

Controllers looked at the current airport layout, and noticed that "...when the wind was out of the west, the airport was efficient; it was safer -- there were fewer runway crossings involved. When the wind was out of the East, we couldn't depart as many aircraft as we could land. We couldn't keep up, on the departure side."

Drawing on experience, and looking at traffic patterns on the ground, Bill Spencer (18 years as a controller at O'Hare alone) and Kevin Markwell (ops manager and former controller, who, we're told, is still current) thought through what was going on. Craig continued, "This proposed runway (12-30) is a near-mirror-image of the existing 22R. It allows us to get a better departure issue during east winds -- and it's so much safer."

Safety and efficiency; and another, unplanned benefit.

Mr. Burzych continued, applauding the work of Spencer and Markwell, "They liked what they had done: safety and efficiency -- and a longer runway. Only after that, we looked at the political issues, with 120 businesses and 500 homes. We said, 'Look where our runway goes -- maybe they won't have to destroy all those businesses and homes;' but our issues were safety and efficiency -- the politics will have to sort itself out." (A lot of the local opposition to the expansion is directly linked to the condemnation of some 120 businesses and 500 homes.)

City had it a long time...

"We gave the idea to the City November 26, when Sen. Durbin's [O'Hare expansion] bill was in limbo," Burzych said. Durbin's bill was specific: it even named the actual orientations of the runways. "We were concerned, because they told us we'd have input, but here the runways were, already written in the federal bill," said the ATC president. "We sent letters to Mayor Daley, Sen. Durbin, Governor Ryan, governor-elect Blagojevich. We got nothing back. We sent them a basic diagram [like the one above]. About ten days later, the city people called and asked, 'Why are you holding out on us? We want the information NOW!' We agreed -- hey, why not? They looked at it. We never heard anything from then on. We've repeatedly asked what the status was... but they always sidestepped the questions."

Then on Monday, Burzych met with some of the construction bigwigs, and he was told, in effect, that 'It's too late; the plan is done.' Nobody had asked the controllers a thing -- and the controllers, of all people, should be able to help!

Safety doesn't matter, when you've got to pay for it.

Craig explained that the powers were worried they might have to relocate the post office. "Everybody's concerned about safety, until they find out how much it costs," he said. "I couldn't believe they were talking about the Post Office, and the cost of its relocation. They'll save so much money on fuel and delays..."

There was more politicking, expensive, 'who cares, it's tax money'- type politicking. Mr. Burzych told us, "Then the FAA was afraid to tell them not to build 10R-28L -- 'if they want to build yours, that's fine -- but they'll build theirs, anyway.' 10-28 would have been a total waste -- too short. Plus, if 12-30 were built, nobody would use 10-28."

Not invented here, by our people.

Craig was angry with the attitude of the powers that be. They didn't want a more-efficient, safer design. They were going to control things, regardless whether it made sense. "Going back to when they started this plan, they never asked us -- they just hired a construction designer. We do this 24/7 -- we could have told them what they needed, but they wouldn't ask." After the story hit the local-media fan, the City has a different tune, but Craig says, "Now, they're denying everything, they say they're going to model it... right. They're the same people that said Meigs would stay open for 25 years."

He doesn't want ATC to take the flack again.

Craig gave us a little background: "Three years ago, when the 'delay' issue exploded, we took all kinds of flack. The City stood on the sidelines, the airlines overbooked time slots," but the controllers took the heat. "It's hard when you're a controller, getting beat up all day -- now we're finally getting expansion, but their plan won't help --  10-15 years from now when it doesn't relieve the delays, they'll come back and attack us again -- but we have a pretty good solution, and they don't want to hear about it!"

FMI: www.faa.gov; www.natca.org