forest,
Thank you for addressing the issue. If you require clarification of my positions, just ask. The use of straw man arguments does not promote discussion or help to discern someone's position (except the user's.)
forest ave. gump wrote:
nwi wrote:
Enough of the straw men, does anyone care to address the points I have made?
Maybe that is the problem nwi, your point you HAVE made was that there were previous failures. We can discuss
why each of those airlines failed. Initially you seemed to indicate that those airlines failed at Gary, or because of Gary when other information proves other wise
All I stated was that the airlines failed. Why should the reasons matter, unless you think they were unique to the airlines? Even then, do you think the fact that no other (non-charter) airlines have attempted to fill the void at Gary might have something to do with their belief that they can't make money here,
for whatever reasons?
forest ave. gump wrote:
Another time you wrote:
nwi wrote:
The point is the viability of passenger air travel at Gary. You are arguing with your own straw man. If you would like to put the above into the context of the viability of passenger air travel at Gary, we might get somewhere.
You keep bringing up the 'viability' of Gary-Chi. (And the reference to “straw men,†which I find amusing given Peotone’s proposed location in farm fields, but that is neither here nor there... but I am tiring of the ‘straw man’ reference I think the others as well as myself are addressing you. I think you point is not as clear to us as it is in your head..) To me, Gary-Chi’s 'viability' is clear given Illinois is looking for and consider farm land as ‘viable’ for expanded air travel, or shipping. So the viability, [i.e. practical, feasible, usable, adaptable] is, in my opinion, clear and I would consider Gary-Chi far more viable than the Peotone location. The Gary-Chi is already an airport, and there are federal dollars to expand the runways. [Doesn’t Peotone still need to acquire 4200 acres, at minimum to start the project?] I believe that Gary-Chi is by far the most viable location with in the Chicagoland metropolitan service area, and is years ahead of anyone else being able to produce a viable location. I doubt that you are arguing that a third airport in general is not viable, are you? I think you need to clarify what you are attempting to state, otherwise we will be arguing with straw men until we find the one that dances.
I am arguing that a third airport is not viable without the support of the City of Chicago. That goes for Peotone or Gary. O'Hare expansion is advancing due to the desire of Chicago. That is why Peotone is not advancing, and why Gary hasn't as well,
despite the obvious points that you note. Chicago might believe that O'Hare expansion, the introduction of larger, more economical aircraft, and other technological advances might negate the supposed need for a third airport. Airlines are merging, reducing flights and eliminating destinations, none of which will help Gary. Chicago's power to control gates and flights at ORD and MDW is the lever necessary to move any flights to a third airport. Notice how no major airlines will commit to Peotone or Gary? Politics will play a major role in deciding this issue, and we have drastically less political influence than Chicago.
An airport by itself will not
make money, it is the economy it generates that we seek. We should offer to give up Gary airport to Chicago's control. That would seem the most probable course for viability.