(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "O'Hare Field--Chicago International Airport"



VOL.3 AIR FREIGHT FORWARDERS 

AIR CARGO AREA DEVELOPMENT REPORT 



3 5556 020 436 911 



LANDRUM AND BROWN 

309 Vine Street 

Cincinnati 2, Ohio 

February, 1961 



The Honorable William E. Dowries, Jr. 
Commissioner of Aviation 
City of Chicago 
City Hall 
Chicago, Illinois 

Dear Commissioner Dowries: 



SE P 1994 

uommTERHmmsm 



In accordance with your letter of July 5, 1960, we are transmitting a report 
concerning Air Freight Forwarder facility requirements at Chi cago-O 1 Hare International 
Airport. |t became necessary as part of the study to consider each function of the cargo 
complex, as all functions in the cargo complex are interrelated and by varying degrees 
dependent on one another. These interrelationships become quite complex in the long 
range development plan. 

You will note that this plan deals primarily with the long range area development 
of the cargo complex and does not consider in detail the international and customs 
clearance facilities for freight in the early years. The requirement for these facilities 
at the present time and to approximately 1965 can be accommodated in the international 
passenger terminal area. After 1965 the demonstrated volumes indicate that the 
international facilities will be of the magnitude to require their location in the cargo 
complex. At the time the international cargo facilities are moved to the cargo complex 
it will be necessary that Federal Inspection facilities related to cargo be located in the 
cargo complex to reduce communication distances. 

If we can provide further data, please do not hesitate to let us know. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LANDRUM AN D BROWN 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 



C 
H 
A 

P 

T 
E 
R 



INTRODUCTION 



CHAPTER 



OPERATION 



Introduction 
Domestic Operation 
International Operation 

CHAPTER II FORECASTS 

Introduction 

Related Analyses of Demonstrated Forecasts 
Related Analyses of Potential Forecasts 



3 

4 

10 



14 
18 
23 



C 
H 
A 

P 

T 
E 
R 



C 

H 
A 
P 
T 
E 
R 



CHAPTER III SPACE AND LOCATION 
Introduction 
Space Forecast 
Location and Layouts 

CHAPTER IV FINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT 
Introduction 
Considerations 



APPENDIX A INTERIM LETTER REPORT 



33 
33 

47 



56 
58 

65 



H 
A 
P 
T 
E 
R 



{ 

) 

I 
( 



INTRODUCTION 

From 1946 to 1955 the Air Freight Forwarder was somewhat controversial in 
the Air Cargo Industry. The 1955 Civil Aeronautics Board hearings established a firm 
basis for forwarder operations. Since then manufacturers and the Air Cargo Industry 
have become extremely cognizant of the Air Freight Forwarders. 

The Air Freight Forwarder operation and facilities cannot be satisfactorily 
resolved without considering the operation and facilities of the Domestic and 
International air carriers. All of these functions are related to the airport and the 
aircraft. 

Dynamic long range future technological advances in the air transportation 
field and in types of aircraft cannot be totally predicted. However, new developments 
such as the all cargo aircraft CL-44 with the swing tail loading and jet transport will 
effect wide changes in present concepts of air cargo facilities. 

The proposed operating plan and facilities for individual air carriers are not 
resolved at this time. Consequently^, all planning for the total cargo development must 
be as flexible as possible. Before plans are finalized for the cargo complex the "users" 
requirements should be established in further detail than that considered in this report. 

Preliminary discussions have been held with the "users" . A visit to each of the 
prospective Air Freight Forwarder tenants at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport was 
made by Landrum and Brown. Further background information was gained from a visit 
to the cargo complex at New York International Airport. Each of the individual airlines 
serving Chicago was interviewed to determine their preliminary cargo requirements and 
demonstrated cargo tonnage. This data is necessary to consider scope of airline operations 

- 1 - 



as the Air Freight Forwarders' operation cannot be completely divorced from the 
operation of the air carriers. 

The brief discussion of the role of the Air Freight Forwarders given above 
is followed by a more detailed explanation of their operation in Chapter I . Chapter I 
presents a general review of the Air Cargo Industry and particular data regarding how 
the freight forwarders came into existence and how they function as a part of the 
Air Cargo Industry. 

Chapter II gives the forecasts of cargo for Chicago-O'Hare International 
Airport and the past historical data. 

Chapter III includes forecasts of the space requirements anticipated to take 
care of the forecasted cargo. Different layouts that are possible for the necessary 
facilities and their expansion are shown on the exhibits in this chapter. 

Chapter IV outlines explanations of different methods of financing and 
development that can be followed for a sound program. 

Appendix A is the "Interim Letter Report" on the preliminary "Cargo Facility 
Study" . 



-2 



CHAPTER I 
OPERATION 



CHAPTER I 
OPERATION 

INTRODUCTION 

Who are the Freight Forwarders? What is their connection with the air 
carriers? How did they get started? What about Air Cargo, Inc.?, Air Express, 
Federal Inspection Service?, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Animals? 

The understanding of these functions and the relationship of each must be 
known in order to properly plan the location layout of each facility. Although each 
function does not deal directly with all the other facilities, they are all inter-related. 

In 1955 the Civil Aeronautics Board, following hearings under Docket No. 5947 
et al, gave the Air Freight Forwarders an indefinite Letter of Registration permitting them 
to continue to operate as they had prior to 1955. This hearing denied certain 
applications including that of Air Cargo, Inc. for certain controls and interlocking 
relationships. Air Cargo, Inc. was authorized to continue as an Air Freight Forwarder 
and Air Express, a division of Railway Express, was authorized to continue operation. 
The Civil Aeronautics Board report pointed out that the Air Freight Forwarders were 
improving the air freight service through healthy competition. In turn this was helping 
to improve the entire air transportation industry. 

The Air Freight Forwarders appear to be an energetic group of individuals with 

a keen eye for the air cargo business. They have solicited the manufacturers and 

have successfully developed a substantial operation. In some cases, they have convinced 

the manufacturers that shipping by air will save money even though the rates may be 

higher than rail, road or water. 

-3 - 



The entire Air Freight Forwarding field is highly competitive and the 
competition is helping to stimulate the use of air transportation for bulk cargo. 
The "Big Break Through", a pamphlet by Dr. Stanley H. Brewer of the University 
of Washington describes a tremendous advance anticipated in the near future for 
the air cargo industry. The Air Freight Forwarders are undoubtedly going to have 
a big part in this advance and they should not be overlooked in future planning. 

In 1959 the Air Freight Forwarders handled approximately 20% of the Domestic 
cargo and 70% of the International cargo in the United States. These percentages are 
expected to increase in future years. 

The Domestic and International Air Freight Forwarders are licensed to operate 
under a Letter of Registration from the Civil Aeronautics Board as indirect air carriers. 
The forwarders are authorized to publish rates and tariffs and to issue through air 
waybills for a large number of United States and Overseas cities. 

The Air Freight Forwarder came into existence through a demand for expediting 
air freight. An explanation and understanding of the Air Freight Forwarders 1 operation 
is necessary in order to forecast a reasonable estimate of space. 

Specific data regarding the function of the Air Freight Forwarders is as follows: 

DOMESTIC OPERATION 

The individual Air Freight Forwarders provide all or parts of the following 
services in the domestic cargo operation: 

1 . Pickup and delivery 

2. Cargo scheduling 

3. Routing 

-4_ 



4. Documentation 

5. Space reservation 

6. Tracing claims 

7. Rates 

8. Air waybilling 

Each of these services is described in detail as follows; 

1 . Pickup and delivery 

The pickup and delivery services for the customer has been a big 
selling point of many of the Air Freight Forwarders. A manufacturer frequently 
does not mind paying extra rates for prompt door-to-door service. In many instances, 
the Air Freight Forwarders will pickup or deliver after the normal closing hours in 
order to make a certain flight schedule. This type of operation is necessary to insure 
a next morning delivery. The Forwarder will use his own trucks or contract a local 
cartage agent for pickup and delivery. 

2. Cargo scheduling 

The flight schedules published by the individual commercial airlines 
are known to the Air Freight Forwarder. These flight schedules from all the scheduled 
airlines are quite complicated for the laymen. Many air carriers have all cargo 
aircraft which do not operate on a set routine schedule. This means that the Air Freight 
Forwarder must know or anticipate the time of departure of these cargo aircraft to best 
expedite his shipments. The Forwarder can not make good a next morning or afternoon 
delivery without using every possible means of cargo scheduling. 



3. Routing 

All of the various connecting flight schedules must be known by the 
Air Freight Forwarder for the most expeditious routing of freight to a destination. 
The routing of cargo to an out-of-the-way cosignee may require transferring the 
cargo to another aircraft or another airline . This requires a special knowledge of 
the flight schedules and routing of aircraft at stations all over the United States. 
The Air Freight Forwarders who deal with the International cargo must know the 
Domestic schedules as well as International schedules. In some cases, a special 
knowledge of the train schedules in European countries is necessary for the most 
expeditious routing. 

All of these flight schedules and the best routing becomes quite complex 
and only through experience and knowing of the individual airlines flight schedules and 
rates can the Air Freight Forwarders serve the public well and still make a profit. 

4. Documentation 

The documentation that is performed by the Air Freight Forwarders has 
saved considerable time in air cargo shipments. This satisfactory service, by the Air 
Freight Forwarders to the public, was brought into focus in the 1955 Civil Aeronautics 
Board Report. The efficient and proper documentation of the air cargo for fast delivery 
to the consignee is the major element of operation that affects the Air Freight Forwarders 
profit . 

This proper documentation includes the following: 



-6 - 



1 . Commodity description 

2. Insurance 

3. Valuation charge 

4. Routing of the shipment 

5. Pickup and delivery information 

6. Gross weight 

7. Designation of prepaid or collect. 

The routing and pickup and delivery services have been explained. 
The other items are generally self-explanatory and are not explained in detail. 

5. Space reservations 

The varied destinations of the cargo from a manufacturer requires 

that all means of scheduling and routing be exhausted to expedite the shipments. This 

means that the proper connections must be made and space reserved for the cargo on 

the proper aircraft. This is particularly important if the shipment requires transfer. 

Due to the scheduling problem many of the forwarders find it necessary 

to use certain schedules consistently. |t is highly possible that a container type of 

space reservation will be a part of the big break through in cargo handling. Thus, 

a forwarder could load a specific container which is assigned to a certain flight and 

send it directly to that aircraft. This would mean that the airline would not need as 

much cargo building space. However, the airline would still maintain the responsibility 

for loading the aircraft and for its weight and balance. The containers could probably 

be designed for passenger aircraft or all cargo aircraft. Containerization is not new 

in freight handling, however, this system or a similar one will be necessary to reduce 

cargo ground handling time. 

-7- 



6. Tracing claims 

The tracing of claims has long been a "sore thumb" with those individuals 
handling cargo. There will always be a certain amount of claims that will require 
tracing. It is conceivable that the number of claims from damage and lost cargo can be 
reduced. A number of factors which may influence the number of lost or damaged claims 
are given below: 

a. Next morning door-to-door service involving less time enroute. 

b. Fewer individuals handling the cargo. 

c. Cargo pick up and delivery by one organization™ 

A containerization loading system would greatly reduce the amount of 
cargo handling. Less handling should reduce the loss and damage claims and possibly 
reduce the rates. 

7. Rates 



The rates being charged by the air carriers and the Air Freight Forwarders 
vary with distance and weight. The current rates are not out of reason considering 
today's methods of handling. The next day delivery service for many stations is an 
important selling point to shippers and apparently justifies the rate. This is especially 
true of perishable items such as food and flowers. 

The increased efficiency of handling cargo through the future use of 
containerization by the air carriers and the Air Freight Forwarders will probably produce 
a lowering of rates. In turn, the lower rates will attract more manufacturers to use air 
transportation. 

Due to various factors such as shipping procedure and consolidation of 
shipments v the rates given by the Air Freight Forwarders to the prospective customers 

_8 - 



are sometimes lower than the airline rates but under certain conditions they may be 
higher. Although the lower rates attract the customers who are shipping in volume, the 
manufacturer who needs the next day delivery service to a customer does not mind 
paying the higher rates that are charged by some of the forwarders. AM rates and 
tariffs charged by both the Air Freight Forwarders and the airlines must be approved 
by the Civil Aeronautics Board. 

After a close evaluation of the rates that are offered by the air carriers 
and Air Freight Forwarders a manufacturer may find that air freight is cheaper than 
other means of transportation for his purposes. A few of the items that are considered 
by the manufacturer in addition to the specified rates are: 

1 . Type of commodity 

2. Routing 

3. Insurance 

4. Packaging/crating 

5. Interest charges on idle capital 
6o Inventory control 

7. Market coverage 

8. Distribution development 

9. Time 

These items are weighed differently according to the individual shipper. 

Insurance for all air cargo is required by law. These insurance rates 

must be borne by the Air Freight Forwarder or the air carrier who in turn includes these 

costs into rates given to the customer. |t is conceivable that lower insurance rates will 

be established when damage and loss claims are reduced through improved air cargo 

handling. 

„9 _ 



8. Air waybilling 

The domestic air waybill covers the carriage of the shipments from the 
airport of origin to the destination airport. The documentation of the air waybill can 
be handled by the air carriers or the Air Freight Forwarders. 

Proper preparation of the air waybill is necessary for expeditious handling 
of the shipment. The Air Freight Forwarders who are familiar with all of the air carriers 
and their flight schedules can in some cases fill out the waybill easier than the air 
carriers. 

INTERNATIONAL OPERATION 

|t has been estimated that in 1959 the Air Freight Forwarders handled 
approximately 70% of the international freight in the United States. 

The processing and handling of shipments for an international operation is 
parallel to the domestic operation except for the brokerage and custom clearances 
required for the exports and imports. The formal import entries also require clearance by the 
United States Customs Appraisers. 

As the international operation parallels the domestic operation, only a 
description of the variances of processing are explained. An understanding of the 
export and import operation from the airline and shipper viewpoint presents a basis for 
better understanding of how and why the Air Freight Forwarders are handling a 
substantial volume of the international air freight in the United States. 

Export 

There is considerable documentation required for the export of air cargo. In 
addition to the shipping documentation under the domestic type operation the export 

- 10- 



operation requires a licensed exporter and the preparation of a shippers export 
declaration. 

The licensed exporter must be closely acquainted with foreign government 
requirements . These requirements include consulate paper work in the language of the 
country, fees, et al. Accurate and complete documentation is absolutely essential 
for clearance of the shipment. 

After the airline receives a shipment of cargo for export its prime responsibility 
is making sure the shipment is on the right aircraft with the proper waybill attached. 
A Letter of Instruction is also required. In most cases this letter is completed by the 
licensed exporter as a part of the authorization of the waybill. A commercial invoice 
goes with all shipments for clarification and checking. The airlines handling the 
international freight normally hold the export shipments an average of six hours before 
aircraft loading. 

Many of the international Air Freight Forwarders do not have trucks and do 
not need warehouse space. In this case, they are only brokerage agents requiring office 
space for handling the paper work and expediting the air freight. Seldom do these Air 
Freight Forwarders need to store cargo. When storage is needed the packages are normally 
small and can be placed in a large office. 

Import 



The import operation is more complicated than the export and requires much 
more paper work from the air carriers and forwarders than for the domestic operation 

The import operation for the Air Freight Forwarder includes the same basic 
responsibilities as for the domestic operation plus certain activities described below. 

- 11 - 



As a shipment arrives from outside the United States the consignee is notified 
by the airline. In most cases the consignee or broker already knows by teletype of the 
arrival. The Air Freight Forwarders have their own brokerage agents who have previously 
prepared the proper documents for United States Custom's clearance. 

The informal entries ( valuation under $250 ) are cleared by the United States 
Custom's Officers located at the Federal Inspection area or in the individual airline 
cargo terminals. These entries are usually cleared as soon as the cargo has been; ( 1 ) 
checked by health officials if necessary, ( 2 ) unloaded from the aircraft, ( 3 ) checked 
for proper shipment, and ( 4 ) the consignee notified that the entry is ready for 
clearance. 

The forma! entries ( valuation over $250 ) requires inspection by the United States 
Custom's Appraiser. These entries are set aside in a separate appraiser's room which is 
furnished by the airlines. The formal entries are inspected twice a day and then released 
to the warehouse or the consignee. 

The large amount of paper work that is required for Custom clearance, etc. is 
handled primarily by the Air Freight Forwarders. The frequent changes in government 
regulations must be considered in preparing the proper documentation. The consulate 
paper work from foreign countries is handled in the language of that country. This 
requires that the Air Freight Forwarders have access to individuals who are fluent in 
the language of the countries to which they are forwarding air cargo or from which 
they receive air cargo. 

All of the documentation must be letter perfect before the clearing agencies 
will accept the forms. The Air Freight Forwarders are professionals in this field and 

- 12- 



probably will continue in this capacity due, in part, to the complexity of the paper 
work. 

There are numerous ancillary factors in the processing of International cargo, 
Such factors as government bonding, splitting shipments for entry advantages, et al 
have little if any, effect on the basic operation or faci I Ity requirement. 



13- 



c 

H 
A 

P 

T 
E 
R 



C 

CHAPTER II H 

A 
FORECASTS P 

T 

E 

R 

III 



C 
H 
A 

P 

T 
E 
R 



) 

I 
< 



CHAPTER II 
FORECASTS 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter presents the estimated future volumes of international and 
overseas air cargo and domestic air cargo for Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. 

Certain limiting factors evolved from the investigation of Chicago's historic 
international and overseas air cargo. Namely: 

1 . The complete lack of and/or limited number of direct airline schedules 
between Chicago and international and overseas communities which is, 
in part, a result of the historic concept of the "coastal gateways". 
2. The lack of comparative or comprehensive reporting practices of the air 
carriers, the Civil Aeronautics Board and other governmental agencies. 
So that the relative possible magnitudes of the volumes involved could be seen, 
the following bases were used to describe the future international and overseas air 
cargo volumes. They are; 

1 . Demonstrated - a continuation on the basis of historic growth pattern and 

levels. 
2. Potential - a reasonable estimation of the traffic if greatly expanded 
services were authorized and provided^ that is, service that would be 
more commensurate with Chicago's domestic airline service. 
The definition of international and overseas air cargo for the purpose of this 
report is as follows: 



- 14- 



AFT6568 AFT6568 PAGE 862 

AFT6568 
STAT na E/L 9 DCF ? D/S D REC/SRC L8PX C8U 
CODE ? DT/1 1961 DT/2 ???? 



elopment report 



eport --. 



ited 



ut 



15- 



A F T 6 5 6 8 08/28/92 L8PX AFT6568 AFT6568 AFT6568 

PROC TR REQ WB TERM L8PX REQ/DT 08/27/92 REQ/TM 16:01 OPR C8U RECD AFT6568 
**TR# AFT6568 FMT B RT a BL m DT 08/27/92 R/DT -NONE- R/TM STAT na E/L 9 DCF ? D/S D REC/SRC L8PX C8U 

SRC/DT 08/27/92 SRC d PLACE ??? LANG ??? MOD ? I /LEV ? REPRO ? D/CODE ? DT/1 1961 DT/2 ???? 

CONT ???? ILLUS ???? GOVT ? BIOG ? FEST ? CONF ? FICT ? INDX ? 



PAGE 



862 



924 

940/1 

940/2 

971/1 



10 



$a Chicago-O'Hare International Airport/', 
ta "February, 1961." 

$a "Vol. 3: Air freight forwarders ; air cargo area deve^opmentjreport . 
20: |a Landrum & Brown. 
97 3/ 1 ;-&&-^ |a A«— freight forwarder-^-air cargo area development repor-fe-. 
**DT 08/27/92 R/DT 08/27/92 R/TM 16:00 CCN 000 
STAT a DT 08/27/92 AD -NONE- 
NOTES |a p,he 
001 11 CN ta tran fb r29;Fisher $d 08/27/92 



A F T 6 5 6 8 08/28/92 L8PX AFT6568 

PROC TR REQ WB TERM L8PX REQ/DT 08/27/92 REQ/TM 16:01 OPR C8U RE 
**TR# AFT6568 FMT B RT a BL m DT 08/27/92 R/DT -NONE- R/TM 

SRC/DT 08/27/92 SRC d PLACE ??? LANG ??? MOD ? I /LEV ? REPRO ? 

CONT ???? ILLUS ???? GOVT ? BIOG ? FEST ? CONF ? FICT ? INDX ? 



924 
940/1 
940/2 
971/1 



10: $a Chicago-O' Hare International Airport/', 
: $a "February, 1961." 

: $a "Vol. 3: Air freight forwarders : air cargo area d 

20: $a Landrum & Brown. 

9*73/1 ~:00: $a Air freight forwarder : air cargo area development 

**DT 08/27/92 R/DT 08/27/92 R/TM 16:00 CCN 000 

STAT a DT 08/27/92 AD -NONE- 

NOTES $a p,he 

001 11 CN $a tran $b r29;Fisher $d 08/27/92 



All air cargo ( Air Freight and Air Express ) which originated in or had 
as its destination a foreign country or overseas territorial possession of 
the United States. 
The forecast of domestic air cargo as drawn from Volume II "Chicago-O 1 Hare 

International Airport Master Plan Report" is presented in Tables 2 through 14 of this 

chapter. 

The following Tables 2-1 and 2-2 are the forecasts on the bases of demonstrated 

and potential. These forecasts provide for a "break through" in air cargo volumes 

during 1960 - 1965; consequently, any individual year by itself may appear high, but 

the trend is believed to be realistic. 



15- 



TABLE 2 - 1 



The Forecast" of DEMONSTRATED International and Overseas Air Cargo 
at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport for 1962, 1965 and 1980 are: 



Forecast Period 
(1) 


Enplaned 
( Tons ) 

(2) 


Deplaned 
( Tons ) 
(3) 


Total 
( Tons ) 
(4) 


1959 (actual ) 


1,878 


522 


2,400 


1962 


3,800 


1,300 


5,100 


1965 


5,600 


2,500 


8,100 


1980 


9,400 


8,500 


17,900 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Forecast periods 
( 2) - Table 2-4 
(3) -Table 2-6 
( 4 ) - Sums of Columns ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) 



16 



TABLE 2-2 



The Forecast of POTENTIAL International and Overseas Air Cargo at 
Chicago-O'Hare International Airport for 1962, 1965 and 1980 are: 



Forecast Period 
(1) 


Enplaned 
( Tons ) 

(2) 


Deplaned 
( Tons ) 

' (3) 


Total 
( Tons ) 
(4) 


1962 


27,400 


20,600 


48,000 


1965 


33,500 


25,100 


58,600 


1980 


58,600 


52,700 


111,300 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Forecast periods 
( 2) - Table 2-12 
(3) - Table 2-13 
( 4 ) - Sums of Columns ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) 



-17- 



Related Analyses and Pertinent Notes Regarding the Demonstrated Forecasts 

A. "Enplaned" Air Cargo 

This study investigated the total Chicago cargo market - as with 
studies for other cities, it was found that there was a consistent relationship between 
domestic and international and overseas air cargo. Since the domestic air cargo 
market for Chicago was forecasted in previous studies ( reference: O'Hare Field - 
Chicago International Airport, Volume !, Air and Surface Traffic Report, October 21, 
1958 ) the demonstrated relationship ( Table 2-3 ) was utilized in forecasting the 
international and overseas "enplaned" air cargo. ( Table 2-4 ). 

B. "Deplaned" Air Cargo 

The relationship of "deplaned" to "enplaned" international and overseas 
air cargo has steadily increased from 9% in 1955 to 27% in 1959. ( Table 2-5 ). Studies 
of international and overseas air cargo at other cities indicated that the ratio between 
"deplaned" and "enplaned" is approximately 1 :1 . On the basis of that found at other 
cities, and the demonstrated growth at Chicago the ratio of "deplaned" to "enplaned" 
international and overseas air cargo at Chicago has been forecasted to become 
approximately equal. ( Table 2-6 ). 



18 



TABLE 2-3 



There has been a consistent relationship between Domestic and International 



and Overseas 


"Enplaned" Air 


Cargo for the Years 


1955- 1959 at Chi 


cago. 










Ratio of 






International 




International 


Year 


Domestic 


and Overseas 


Total 


to Domestic 


0) 


(2) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


1955 


53,555.6 


1,549.9 


55,105.5 


.029% 


1956 


56,946.9 


1,778.3 


58,725.2 


.031 


1957 


56,782.6 


1,505.1 


58,287.7 


.027 


1958 


59,977.2 


1,622.1 


61,639.3 


.028 


1959 


70,799.3 


1,878.4 


72,677.7 


.027 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Years 1955 - 1959 

( 2 ) - Air Commerce Traffic Pattern, 1956 - 1960 

( 3 ) - Records of respective air carriers - Chicago, Illinois 

( 4 ) - Sum of Columns ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) 

( 5 ) - Column ( 3 ) divided by Column ( 2 ) 



-19- 



TABLE 2-4 



DEMONSTRATED "Enplaned" International and Overseas Air Cargo is expected 
to continue its relationship to Domestic throughout the forecast periods 
1962, 1965 and 1980. 



Enplaned Air Cargo 

Ratio of International 

Domestic International and Overseas 

Year ( Tons ) to Domestic ( Tons ) 

"TH " (2) (3) — JT) 



1962 135,900 2.8% 3,800 

1965 201,000 2.8 5,600 

1980 335,600 2.8 9,400 



Source: Column ( 1 ) -Years 1962, 1965 and 1980 

( 2 ) - 1962 - Interpolated between 1959 and 1965 

1965 and 1980- O'Hare Field, Chicago International 
Airport, Volume I of Air and Surface Traffic Report, 
October 21, 1958 
( 3 ) - Median of historic years 1955 - 1959, Table 2-3 
( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) multiplied by Column ( 3 ) 



20- 



TABLE 2-5 



The relationship of "Deplaned" to "Enplaned" International and Overseas 
Air Cargo at Chicago has steadily increased from 1955 - 1959. 



Year 

TTT 



1955 
1956 
1957 
1958 
1959 



Deplaned 
( Tons ) 

(2) 


Enplaned 
( Tons ) 
(3) 


Ratio-Deplaned 
to Enplaned 
(4) 


138.4 


1,549.9 


.09% 


209.1 


1,778.3 


.12 


220.1 


1,505.1 


.15 


294.4 


1,662.1 


.18 


522.2 


1,878.4 


.27 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Years 1955 - 1959 

( 2 ) and ( 3 ) - Records of respective carriers serving Chicago 
( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) divided by Column ( 3 ) 



21 - 



TABLE 2-6 



DEMONSTRATED International and Overseas "Deplaned" Air Cargo is expected 
to increase at its historic rate of growth throughout the forecast years 1962, 
1965 and 1980 . 



Enplaned Deplaned 

Forecast Ratio of Deplaned Forecast 

Period ( Tons ) to Enplaned ( Tons ) 

TH (2) (3) (4) 

1962 3,800 .35 1,300 

1965 5,600 .45 2,500 

1980 9,400 .90 8,500 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Years - Forecast period 
(2) -Table 2-4 
( 3 ) - Demonstrated Ratio, Years 1955 - 1959 at Chicago 

and projected - straight-line method Table 2-5 
( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) multiplied by Column ( 3 ) 



- 22 



Related Analyses and Pertinent Notes Regarding the Potential Forecasts 

As stated previously, the definition of Potential international and overseas 
air cargo is: a reasonable estimation of the air cargo traffic should greatly expanded 
services be authorized and provided at Chicago. This could be characterized as air 
services equal to the population, trade and commerce of the Chicago air service area, 
relative to the air service received by New York with its population, trade and commerce 

A. "Enplaned" Air Cargo 

The Potential "enplaned" air cargo volumes for Chicago were determined 

on the basis of three independent studies and estimates. Since the forecasts we r e very 

similar in amount the median of the three bases were used. ( Table 2-12 ). The selected 

bases are described below: 

Basis "A" 

The historic enplaned international and overseas air cargo per international 

and overseas aircraft departure at Miami, Florida were investigated and found to 

be approximately 1 .7 tons per departure. ( Table 2-7 ). The 1 .7 tons per 

departure at Miami was then applied to the forecast of Chicago's Potential 

international and overseas aircraft departures ( forecasted in previous studies 

for the City of Chicago ) to determine an estimate of Chicago's Potential 

"enplaned" international and overseas air cargo. ( Table 2-8 ). Miami was 

selected for study because of its significant volumes historically of enplaned 

international and overseas air cargo. 

Basis "B" 

Another forecast basis studied, was to determine what Chicago's 

international and overseas Potential "enplaned" air cargo would be if it were 

at least as large a percentage of total United States as Chicago's domestic 

-23- 



"enplaned" air cargo is of total United States. 

Approximately 14% of the total United States domestic enplaned air 
cargo is enplaned in Chicago „ This percentage was then applied to the forecast 
by Landrum and Brown, of total United States international and overseas 
"enplaned" air cargo expected to be carried by United States Flag carriers. 
Volumes carried by Foreign Flag carriers at Chicago are estimated to equal 
those carried by United States Flag carriers. The Foreign Flag carriers partici- 
pation is based upon the fact that at New York and Miami the volumes carried 
by both flag carrier groups tends to be equal. The estimates of air cargo on 
this basis are found on Table 2-9. 
Basis "C" 

New York's enplaned international and overseas air cargo activity 
was investigated as a third forecast basis. 

The volume of "enplaned" air cargo per international and overseas 
aircraft departures were determined ( Table 2-10 ) and found to be steadily 
increasing at a rate of 14% per year over the historic period 1956 - 1959. The 
volume of cargo per departure at New York was increased at the historic rate for 
the forecast period to 1 .2 tons in 1962 and 1 „8 in 1965. There were then applied 
to Chicago's forecast of Potential international and overseas aircraft departures 
(Table 2-11 ). 

An independent rough and general forecast of New York's international 
and overseas air cargo for 1965 ( 229,300 tons ) and aircraft departures ( 52,000 ) 
approximated the 1965 estimate of 1 .8 tons of cargo per aircraft departure 
previously determined, 

-24- 



Table 2-12 is a consolidation of the three bases used to estimate Chicago's 
Potential "enplaned" international and overseas air cargo; the median of which is 
the forecast. 

B. "Deplaned" Air Cargo 

New York's relationship of "deplaned" to "enplaned" international and 
overseas air cargo was investigated and found to be at a ratio of .75:1 . This was sub- 
stantiated and believed to be reasonable on the basis of Chicago's trend of "deplaned" 
air cargo to increase its relationship to "enplaned" . ( Table 2-5 ). 

New York's ratio ( .75:1 ) was then applied to the forecast of Potential 
"enplaned" air cargo at Chicago for the years 1962 and 1965. The Potential ratio of 
"deplaned" to "enplaned" for 1980 ( .90 ) can reasonably be expected to increase on 
the basis of Chicago's Demonstrated trend of deplaned air cargo to increase at a more 
rapid rate than that of enplaned. 

The forecast of Potential "deplaned" international and overseas air 
cargo for Chicago is shown on Table 2-13. 



-25 



TABLE 2-7 



Miami's "enplaned" air cargo per International and Overseas aircraft 
departure has remained relatively constant. 



Year 



1952 
1953 
1954 
1955 
1956 



Enplaned 
Air Cargo 
( Tons ) 
(2) 


Aircraft 
Departures 
( Number ) 

(3) 


Cargo 

Aircraft 

Departure ( Tons ) 

(A) 


20,470 


13,532 


1.5 


25,100 


14,577 


1.7 


29,597 


16,601 


1.7 


30,299 


18,444 


1.6 


34,447 


19,074 


1.8 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Years 1952 - 1956 

( 2 ) and ( 3 ) - Landrurn and Brown Report, "Study of the Aviation 
Potential and Facility Requirements of the Miami 
Air Service Area" November, 1958 
( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) divided by Column ( 3 ) 



26- 



TABLE 2-8 



Chicago's POTENTIAL "Enplaned" International and Overseas Air Cargo 
for 1962, 1965 and 1980 as determined by Basis "A" . 



Year 

Try 



Chicago 


Miami 


Chicago 


Potential 


Cargo Per 


International 


Aircraft 


Departure 


and Overseas Air 


Departure 


( Tons ) 

(3) 


Cargo ( Tons ) 

(4) 



1962 



17,600 



1.7 



29,900 



965 



1980 



18,600 
34,400 



1.7 



1.7 



31,600 
58,500 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Forecast periods 

( 2) - "O'Hare Field, Chicago International Airport, International 

and Overseas Facilities Study" Report by Landrum and Brown, 

November, 1960 
( 3 ) - Table 2-7 
( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) multiplied by Column ( 3 ) 



27 



TABLE 2-9 



Chicago's POTENTIAL "Enplaned" International and Overseas Air Cargo for 
1962, 1965 and 1980 as Determined by Basis "B". 



Line 1962 1965 1980 



A. Forecast of United States 98,000 125,000 209,000* 
International and Overseas 

Air Cargo - U.S. Flag Carriers 

B. Chicago's share of U.S. - 14% 14% 14% 
Domestic Enplaned Air Cargo 

C. Forecast - International and 13,700 17,500 29,300 
Overseas Enplaned Air Cargo 

by U.S. Flag Carriers - Chicago 

D. Ratio of International and 1:1 1:1 1:1 
Overseas Enplaned Air Caigo 

carried by Foreign Flag Carriers 

to U.S. Flag Carriers (at Chicago ) 

E. Forecast - International and 13,700 17,500 29,300 
Overseas Enplaned Air Cargo 

carried by Foreign Flag 
Carriers - Chicago 

F. Forecast of Total International 27,400 35,000 58,600 
and Overseas Enplaned Air 

Cargo - Chicago 

* Interpolated between 1965 and 1980 on the basis of Chicago domestic forecast 
between 1965 and 1980 as determined in Landrum and Brown Report "Traffic 
Forecasts, O'Hare Field Chicago International Airport, Volume II Master Plan 
Report, November, 1960 

Source: Line A - Landrum and Brown Forecast of International and Overseas 
Enplaned Air Cargo carried by U.S. Flag Carriers 
B - Air Commerce Traffic Pattern for Calendar year 1959 
C - Line A multiplied by Line B 
D - Indicated trend of historic data and estimated to level off at 

a 1:1 ratio U.S. Flag to Foreign Flag 
E - Line C multiplied by Line D 
F - Sum of Line C and Line E 

-28- 



TABLE 2-10 



New York's "Enplaned" Air Cargo per International and Overseas Aircraft 



Departure has been steadily increasing. 



Year 



1956 



1957 



1958 



1959 



Cargo 
( Tons ) 

(2) 


Aircraft 
Departures 

(3) 


Cargo Per 
Departure ( Tons ) 

(4) 


15,730 


27,849 


.56 


19,340 


30,440 


.64 


23,585 


35,432 


.67 


29,256 


36,423 


.80 



Percentage Increase 
Per Year over Period 



14% 



Source: Column ( 1 ) - Years 1956 - 1959 

( 2 ) and ( 3 ) - Port of New York Authority Records and 

International Civil Aviation Organization - 
Digest of Statistics - Respective Years 

( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) divided by Column ( 3 ) 



29 



TABLE 2-11 



Chicago's POTENTIAL "Enplaned" International and Overseas Air Cargo 
for 1962, 1965 and 1980 as Determined by Basis "C" . 



Year 



1962 





New York 


Chicago 


Potential 


Cargo Per 


International 


Departures 


Departure 


Air Cargo 
(4) 


17,600 


1.2 


21,100 



1965 



18,600 



33,500 



1980 



34,400 



1.8 



61,900 



Source; Column ( 1 ) - Forecast periods 

( 2 ) - Report "Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, 
International and Overseas Facilities Study", 
Landrum and Brown, November, 1960 

( 3 ) - Table 2-10, projected on the basis of 14% per year 
as shown historically 

( 4 ) - Column ( 2 ) multiplied by Column ( 3 ) 



-30 



TABLE 2-12 



The Median of Bases "A", "B" and "C" was used as the forecast of Chicago's 
International and Overseas "Enplaned" Air Cargo for 1962, 1965 and 1980. 



Line 1962 1965 1980 



Source: Line A - Table 2-8 
B - Table 2-9 
C - Table 2-11 
D - Median of Bases "A", "B" and "C 



Enplaned 

A. Basis "A" ( Tons ) 29,900 31,600 58,500 

B. Basis "B" (Tons ) 27,400 35,000 58,600 

C. Basis "C" ( Tons ) 21,100 33,500 61,900 

D. Forecast ( Median of Bases ) 

( Tons ) 27,400 33,500 58,600 



31 - 



TABLE 2-13 



Chicago's POTENTIAL "Deplaned" International and Overseas Air Cargo based on 
Chicago's DEMONSTRATED trend and New York's historic relationship of "Deplaned 1 
to "Enplaned" for the forecast periods of 1962, 1965 and 1980. 



Line 1962 1965 1980 



A. Forecast of Total Enplaned 27,400 33,500 58,600 
International and Overseas 

Air Cargo - Chicago ( Tons ) 

B. Ratio of Deplaned to Enplaned 75:1 .75:1 .90:1 
International and Overseas Air 

Cargo - Chicago 

C. Forecast of Total Deplaned 20,600 25,100 52,700 
International and Overseas 

Air Cargo ( Tons ) 



Source: Line A - Table 2-12 

B - New York's historic relationship and Chicago's Demonstrated 

trend of deplaned to enplaned air cargo 
C - Line A multiplied by Line B 



32- 



CHAPTER 



SPACE AND LOCATION LAYOUTS 



C 

H 
A 
P 
T 
E 
R 



C 
H 
A 
P 

T 
E 
R 

IV 

A 
P 

P 
E 
N 
D 



X 
A 



CHAPTER III 

SPACE AND LOCATION LAYOUTS 

INTRODUCTION 

The amount of building space and other areas necessary to properly take care 
of the forecasts given in Chapter II depends upon two main factors: 

1 . The ground handling of air cargo in the next few years, and 

2. the type of aircraft. 

This report will summarize all information and data to this date on the Chicago- 
O'Hare International Airport Cargo Facilities. The forecasts for 1965 are of primary 
concern to the immediate construction program. The ultimate forecasts are based upon an 
airfield aircraft capacity and greatly expanded services. The year of this ultimate capacity 
has been estimated at 1980. 

The problems of ground handling and aircraft type can not be answered at this 
time; however, by using space -volume ratios experienced in the past and considering 
what could happen in the near future a reasonable estimate of space has been forecasted. 

It is important to caution that the space estimates are based on Potential volumes. 
This tends to maximize space requirements. Use of this principle is recommended for master 
planning. 

SPACE FORECASTS AND CRITERIA 

A complete containerization program has been suggested by many experts in the 
field of air transportation for a speed-up in cargo ground handling. The idea of contain- 
erization is not new and one individual all cargo air carrier at Chicago-O'Hare 
International Airport is designing its entire program around a new swing tail aircraft 
and containerization. Just how many of the other air carriers will go into this operation 

-33- 



is not known, however, airlines are nor going to discard all of their present aircraft 
and buy new equipment in one or even three years time. 

Will the concept of containerization lower the amount of building space needed 
and how much? 

It is almost impossible at this time to answer these questions on containerization. 
It is conceivable that the building space shown in Table 3-3 will be reduced considerably 
through new ground handling methods. However, the new ground handling methods may 
increase the cargo volumes beyond those forecast in Chapter II. The increased use of air 
transportation coupled with new ground handling methods could conceivably still require 
the amount of space that is shown in Table 3-3. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 show this Potential 
space applied to various solutions. 

Domestic 



Two cargo buildings are presently under construction for the domestic carriers. 

There is approximately 91,500 square feet in these two buildings. One is 750 
feet long by 50 feet wide ( 37,000 square feet ) and the other is 750 feet long by 72 feet 
wide ( 54,000 square feet ), These two buildings are being constructed for the domestic 
carriers. This space does not include space for all cargo earners such as Flying Tiger, 
Zantop, Riddle, Etc. 

Flying Tiger has leased approximately nine acres of land for a new building of 
approximately 34,000 square feet. Flying Tiger is experimenting with a new concept in 
cargo handling and expect to increase its carrying capacity substantially in the next 
few years. 

This new concept is based upon the principle of an overhead crane that will 

pick up a pallet and move it to a storage dock. Each pallet will be packed for an 

individual station which will eliminate loading and unloading of small packages to and from 

-34- 



the aircraft. The turn around time of each aircraft is expected to be reduced to 
approximately 45 minutes. 

United and American Airlines have tentatively requested a greater amount of 
space than originally anticipated which is further indication that the 91 ,500 square feet for 
all domestic carriers will not be sufficient. This factor plus the indication that the Potential 



volumes will require 355,000 square feet of space in 1965 leads to the necessity for the 
careful analysis of future facilities. Table 3-4 illustrates what the domestic carriers have 
leased compared to building space necessary if the Potential volumes are ever realized. 

The overall master plan must be considered for each stage of construction. The 
existing cargo buildings and the Flying Tiger lease are established. These areas are to be in 
operation by the end of 1961 . Any additional cargo buildings must be functional with these 
areas. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 indicate different layouts with different functional relationship which 
will accommodate the Potential space requirements shown on Tables 3-6 through 3-8 

International 

The cargo buildings presently under construction are planned to handle domestic 
cargo only. The previous planning assumed that international cargo facilities would be in the 
international terminal until such time as the volume of international cargo requires relocation 
to the cargo complex. 

The timing and magnitude of such relocation will depend on the development of 
the Potential volumes. However, the estimated "Demonstrated" volumes would indicate 
such relocation as wise by 1965. 

The international carriers should be separated from the domestic operation. 

However, the domestic carriers who also handle international cargo should remain with 

the domestic carriers. A location adjacent to the Federal Inspection services is advantageous 

for both the mixed operation and the pure international operation. 

-35- 



The forecast for the international facilities shown on Table 3-2 is based on 
additional international carriers commencing operation with greatly expanded service. 

Exhibit 3 illustrates a typical international cargo building. The individual 
carriers who lease the ground may build something entirely different. However, the typical 
plan shown on Exhibit 3 has most of the points that were suggested by a number of the 
international carriers. 

Federal Inspection Services 

The Federal Inspection Services for cargo are presently being handled at the 
international terminal building. 

With an increase in international cargo a separate area will be necessary for 
the Federal Inspection to handle processing, brokerage fees,et al . The international air 
carriers will furnish space for their own clearance of formal and informal entries. The 
Federal Services handling inspection, fees,etc, should be near the international carriers 
and the brokerage agents. Since the Air Freight Forwarders are handling approximately 
70% of the international cargo, the Federal Services are shown as located with the Air 
Freight Forwarders. An alternate location between or adjacent to both the international 
and Air Freight Forwarder areas would be compatible. 

The space allotted for the Federal Inspection activities is based on the New York 
International Airport facilities and a direct ratio of square feet to international cargo being 
handled. This ratio and the forecasted Potential cargo tonnage was used for the estimate of 
Federal Inspection space required at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. 

Air Freight Forwarders 

The AEr Freight Forwarders have demonstrated their importance to the air cargo 

industry and especially to the international operation. The forwarder operation does not 

require them to have access to the taxiways but they should be as close as possible to the 

center of operation. 

-36- 



The 1965 building space for the Air Freight Forwarders shown in Table 3-3 
is from the returned questionnaires ( Table 3-5 ) of the organizations who requested space 
at Chicago International Airport. Many of the Air Freight Forwarders need space 
immediately and may find other facilities if a building program is not arranged in the near 
future. 

After reviewing the questionnaire results of September, I960, certain discrepancies 
were noted. A careful field survey of existing Forwarder facilities was made and a revised 
estimate prepared. The September estimate indicated a 1965 requirement of 67,000 square 
feet as compared to the estimate of 48,800 square feet shown in Table 3-5. 

As a part of this study a field trip was made to New York International Airport to 
study their cargo operation. All the Air Freight Forwarders at New York International 
Airport are located in Building 80. Thirty-eight tenants use Building 80 at present. However, 
not all of the 38 tenants are freight forwarders and only 13 of the 38 have dock or warehouse 
space. 

The two story building for the Air Freight Forwarders in New York seems to be 
working out quite well and is a very practical type building. The organizations who do 
have dock space would like to have the building open on both sides. This was the general 
opinion of all of the freight forwarders who physically handle the freight. 

The basic design of the building is something that should have as many of the 
"users" ideas worked in as possible. The typical plan "A" that was shown in the "Cargo 
Facility Study, Interim Letter Report", Appendix A, illustrated a layout that was generally 
acceptable to the Air Freight Forwarders. However, all of the forwarders were in agreement 
that the 80 foot width shown in this plan should be reduced. There were varied opinions 
on the exact dimensions of a new building but the three points listed below and shown on 

-37- 



Exhibits 1 and 2 illustrate what has been tentatively agreed upon by the Air Freight 
Forwarders: 

1 . Sixty foot wide building with dock space on both sides. 

2. Two floors or mezzanine . 

3. Fourteen foot high warehouse clearance . 

A one story building was also mentioned at the August, 1960 meeting in Chicago 
and is shown on Exhibit 2. 

No effort is made to estimate which forwarders, if any, would or would not 
move their operation to a site selected on the airport. However, the planning assures that 
all forwarders eventually desiring an "on" airport operation can be accommodated. 

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

The area set aside for the ASPCA facilities should be sufficient for the 1980 
forecasts. The ASPCA facilities are primarily needed for the international carriers and 
the United States customs inspection with quarantine when necessary. The growth and 
expansion of the ASPCA building depends upon the growth of the international cargo 
carriers. 



38- 



TABLE 3 - 1 



Forecast of DEMONSTRATED* Internationa I and Overseas 
Air Cargo Space Requirements for 
Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. 



Year Square Feet 

1965 16,800 

1980 28,200 



* Based on Demonstrated forecast shown in Table 2-1 of this report, 



39- 



TABLE 3-2 



Forecast of POTENTIAL* International and Domestic** 



Air Cargo Space Requirements for 
Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. 



International 



Domestic 



1965 


1980 


Sq. Ft. 


Sq. Ft. 


105,000* 


178,000** 


355,000** 


594,000** 



* Based on Potential forecast given in Table 2-2 of this report. 

** Based on Potential domestic forecast of 118,600 enplaned tons in 1965 

and 198,000 enplaned tons ultimate, Master Plan Report, Volume 2, Page 1 1 



-40- 



TABLE 3-3 



Cargo Space Forecast for 
Chicago-O'Hare International Airport 







1965 
Building 
Sq. Ft. 


1965 
Acreage* 


1980 
Building 
Sq. Ft. 


1980 
Acreage* 


Domestic 




355,000 


52.0 


594,000 


81.0 


International 




1 05,000 


11.5 


178,000 


20.2 


Freight Forwarders 
( includes Federal 
Inspection ) 


59,185** 


4.75 


120,000** 


9.65 



AS PC A 



Total 



5,000 



524,185 



1.0 



69,25 



10,000 2.0 



902,000 112.85*** 



* Leased Acreage 

** Two Floor Building 

*** Additional 50-60 acres needed for Roadways and Taxiways depending on layout 
design. Connecting taxiways to the runways are not included in the 50-60 acres. 
See Tables 3-6, 3-7 and 3-8. 



-41 - 













TABLE 3-4 








Domestic Airline Space Foreca: 


;t Projected F 


rom Demonstrated Air 


Cargo 








During 1958 for 


Chicago, Illinois. 












Percent of 


















Cargo 
Handled 


1965 




1980 












1958 


Building 


1965 


Building 


1980 


Requested 








Domestic 
(1) 


Sq. Ft. 

(2) ■ 


Acreage 
(3) 


Sq. Ft. 

(4) 


Acrecge 


or Leased 








(*>) 






United 


33 


117,200 


17.2 


192,000 


26.7 


25-28 acres* 




American 


22 


78,100 


11.45 


132,000 


17.8 


48-75,000 sq. 


ft.* 


Delta 


8 


28,400 


4.16 


47 , 500 


6.5 


2,016 sq. 


ft. 




Capita! 


6 


21,500 


3.22 


35,700 


4.8 


2,592 sq. 


ft. 




Northwest 


6 


21,500 


3.22 


35,700 


4.8 


5,184 sq. 


ft. 




TWA 


6 


21,500 


3.22 


35,700 


4.8 


6,048 sq. 


ft. 




Eastern 


4 


14,200 


2.08 


23,800 


3.2 


6,048 sq. 


ft. 




Braniff 


4 


14,200 


2.08 


23,800 


3.2 


3,168 sq. 


ft. 




Northwest Orie 


nt 2 


7,100 


1.04 


11,900 


1.6 








Ozark 


1 


3,550 


.52 


5,940 


.8 


1,152 sq. 


ft. 




Continental 


1 


3,550 


.52 


5,940 


.8 


2,880 sq. 


ft. 




Flying Tiger 


4 


14,200 


2.08 


23,800 


3.2 


9.0 acres 




Riddle 


3 


10,650 


1.56 


17,800 


2.4 








Slick 


100,0% 








80.6 








Total 


344,650 


52.35 


591,580 







Source: Column ( 1 ) - Civil Aeronautics Board Report 1958 

( 2 ) - Based on 355,650 square feet shown in Table 3-2 

( 3 ) - Based on 52.0 acres shown in Table 3-3 

( 4 ) - Based on 594,000 square feet shown in Table 3-2 

( 5 ) - Based on 81.0 acres shown in Table 3-3 

( 6 ) - Leased in present cargo buildings 

* Preliminary reports 



TABLE 3-5 



D 






U 


p 




u- 
O 


rs 




CN 


LO 


• 


■ — 


^f 


o 






Z 






— 






CO 






r 






15 


LO 

•o 




i_ 


Os 


o 


u 


1 — 


CO 


O 






-i— 






D 






< 






to 






<1) 






(D 






>* 


-+— 




_o 






o_ 


i/) 


r-N 


E 


1_, 


■ — 


lu| 


Q- 











* 




* 






* 






lo 


o 


in 


LO 


LO 


to 


LO 


LO 


md 


<o 


CM 


CN 


CO 


CO 


1 — 




CM 


I\ 


1 — 






O 
CM 



LO 



o 

CM 



LO 

CM 



LO 



CO 



LO 

CM 



O O 

LO — 



-O 



CO 
CM 



LO 



LO 



O 
CM 



00 



CM 



LO 



LO 
CM 



CO 



CO 



r> 



o 

u_ 
Q 

LU 
I— 
CO 

D 

— > 

< 
co 

LU 

< 
Z 

z 
o 



o 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 

M) 



O 
O 



o 
o 



o 
o 

IN. 



o 
o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 
o 

CM 



* 

o 
o 

CM 



o 
o 



* 

o 
o 
o 

CM 



o 


o 


o 


p 


o 


o 


o 


o 


LO 


LO 


o 


o 



o 


LO 


o 


o 


CM 


o 


CM 


CM 


o 



00 — 



CM 



* 










* 




* 






o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


IN. 


MD 


1 — 


•*- 


^ 




■*. 




CM 


•— 




~ 


— 

CM 


* 










* 










o 


o 


o 


o 


LO 


o 


o 


o 


o 


00 


LO 


o 


l\ 


00 


NO 


<*, 


^ 






m 



o 
o 

■sr 



o 

CM 



CO 


I— 


LU 


at 


3 


O 


o 


Q_ 


on 


c— 


LU 


< 


Q 


_J 


t 


< 

z 
o 


o 


h- 


U_ 


< 


1— 


7 


JL 


o£ 


O 


LU 

S— 


LU 


V 


££ 




u. 






LU 


Oi 


C£ 


< 


< 

X 


o 


b 


> 


o 




< 
y 


~) 


j_ 


CO 


u 



o-K} 



o 

LO 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

U0 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 

o 

CO 



o 


LO 


O 


LO 


CM 


O 


CM 


CM 


CM 



LO 

o 



o 

o 

CM 



o 
o 

CO 



* 




* 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


00 


1 — 


LO 



o — 



— I CO 



8 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 


o 


o 


"Si" 


CO 


00 



2E w 



3 
O 

_c c 

a> a> 



O 

o 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


LO 


o 


o 


LO 


■— 


o 


N. 



CO 



o 
o 

CO 

S 

CO 



o 

LO 



O 
O 



o 
o 



CM 



o 
o 

LO 

CM 



O 

o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

oC 



o 
o 
o 

MD 



o 
o 
o 

LO 



o 

o 
o 

CO 



o 

M} 



o 
o 
o 

LO 



o 
o 
o 

LO 



o o 

O CO 

^r co 



o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


LO 


LO 


lO 



8 



o 
o 

CM 



o 

o 



CM 



CO 



o 

o 

MD 

CN* 
LO 



O 
CO 



O 

o 

CM 
00 



c 
c 

CD 



E 

i_ 
C 

o 

_o 

a- 



a> 



3 
to 



"O 

c 
o 



°6 



o 
£ -a 

c 



o 

c 
O 

u 

o_ 

c .E 

II 

CQ — 
O 







(J 








o 




• 














C 




• 




£ 


Q. 


o_ 










0) 

a 

o 

o_ 

CO 


ways Parcel Post 
ways Air Freight 


15 

o 
o 

c 

S-, 

CO 

• 

< 


-4— 

.SP 

u_ 

< 
Urn 


q. 

LU 

</> 
a) 

</> 


Dispatch, Inc. 
Barnett 


CO 

c 

!_ 

D 

O 
LL. 

"O 

c 


3_ 

o 

U 

• 
i_ 

a) 

•*- 

c 
u. 

a. 

X 
LU 


o 

u 

-1— 

_c 

O) 

'<u 

s_ 
LL. 

(U 

c 
o 


E 

'j— 

1 


■4— 

_c 

CO 

"<u 

i_ 
U- 

< 


CO 

LL. 

i— 

< 
O 

c 
a) 


-o 

o 
c 
0) 

CO 


< 


<< 


a) 

Q_ 


a> 

E 

LU 


C 
5 


< § 


c 


< 


_Q 
< 


c 
o 

Q- 


1— 

• 


c 
O 


LU 

-o 


, 


CM 


CO 


"* 


LO 


o 


l\ 


00 


CN 




o 


, 


CM 



c 
o 

ID 



« 0) 

E t; 

O- r- 

— -O c 

M ® o 

a o 
cu E 
E 
o 



CO LU 



to 
0) 

4- D 

n o 

* 

* * 

* * 



-43 



FUTURE EXTENSION 



100" 50' 



TRUCK DOCK „ - 
A - 



500'x 60' 2 LEVELS 



TRUCK DOCK 



PARKING AREA 
APPROX. 245 CARS 



100' 



200" 



rr 



j i 




^ 



.truck: dock 



»;-j 



A^/ 




@J^ 



60 



OFFICE 



OFFICE 



CARGO 




TYPICAL PLAN A 



8' 8" 16" 24' 32' 40' 



AIR FREIGHT FORWARDERS 

CHICAGO O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



LANDRUM a BROWN 

CINCINNATI, OHIO EXHIBIT ~ I 

1-3-61 



I I 

i — r 
' i 



USE 



£=■ 




o 



^ 



L PLAN -"B" 



FORWARD ERS 



ITERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



I a BROWN 

ti, ohio EXH1 BIT -2 

9-61 









■< — 








»«• 














o 

* 


i 




1 
1 

I 1 

1 

1 i 


1 - - 


— 


o 
ui 

o_i 

t- < 

105 





llllllllllllllllll 

> o >o 

< 3 O 
W IE Hi CC 
X K XI- 

175 





Mi 

o — 

HOT 

111 

»z — 

X — 

o -> — 

= a ~ 

IE — 

*- < — 

< 105 ^ 






W 


w 
















W 


w 
















w 


w 












J— - 

ii . n 

A 






1 
1 


i , — 





— 






' ; 






w 


w 


I 1 


> 






1 = 









9 




A — 






i i 


"*i ', 


r 


) 


c 




\ 


( 


■ 




1 1 

' i 


• ■ i 


V. 


1 


\ 






< 






SERVfCE 


ROAD 




























LEGEND 

~ OFFICES 
W ~ WAREHOUSE 



100' 50' 



100' 



200' 




I I 



12 



® 



10 



60 



CARGO 
WAREHOUSE 



)tSt 



Q 



i i 

"io io 



SECTION A - A 



8' 8' 16' 24' 32' 40* 



TYPICAL PLAN -B 



AIR FREIGHT FORWARDERS 

CHICAGO 0'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



LANDRUM ft BROWN 

CINCINNATI, OHIO EX H I B I T " 2 

I -19-61 






I Herbert 

, TRUCKING ' Ic 

' I I ! I I I I I I 



SV 




T 



TERN ATIONAL 
3UILDING 

TERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
a BROWN 

* T| . 0H, ° EXHI BIT - 3 

3-61 



IAUTO 
1 III I 



PARKING 
I I I I I I I 



j: 



IMPORT 



U.S -^ 
APPRAISER 



PUBLIC 



J C 



U.S CUSTOMS 



OFFICE 



S^M™"^ OFR 



EXPORT 




40' 




40' 80' 120' 




TRUCKING ! Ic6. 

I I I i I I I i_ 



_fi22 




100 



MPORT CARGO 



" A A " 



SECTION A-A 



8' 8' 16" 24' 32' 40' 



12 



_i=» z 


1-1 




< 


1 s 8 


at 




o 


~ 




♦ 



TYPICAL INTERNATIONAL 
CARGO BUILDING 



CHICAGO O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



LANDRUM 6 BROWN 

CINCINNATI, OHIO EXHIBIT "3 
1-3-61 



LOCATION AND LAYOUTS 

Table 3-1 shows the square footage that would be required for international facilities 
under the demonstrated cargo volumes shown in Table 2-1. The ratio used for Table 3-1 
and 3-2 was derived from experience gained at other major airfields in the United States 
that have complete separate international and domestic cargo facilities now in operation. 

The different schemes shown on Exhibits 4 f 5 and 6 are functional with the approved 
master plan. 

From the standpoint of ideal functional relationship all airline cargo facilities 
should front on taxiways and aprons. An ideal functional relationship would place the 
Federal Inspection, Air Freight Forwarder and ASPCA operations in the center or core of 
a grouping of airline cargo units, with the airline units facing the airfield area. Due to 
the geometric and scale this cannot be accomplished at Chi cago-O' Hare International Airport, 

A review of the various advantages and disadvantages of each scheme is as follows: 

Exhibit 4 - Scheme 1 

Exhibit 4 presents a solution which permits gradual expansion of domestic air cargo 
facilities until the present cargo area North of Runway 9R-27L is saturated. Following 
this the area assignments begin at a new cargo complex immediately South of Runway 9R-27L. 

This plan somewhat remotes the international facilities but provides a fairly well 
centralized location for the Air Freight Forwarders and the ASPCA facilities in the ultimate 
cargo complex. 

Advantages: 

1 . Developes domestic cargo facilities at a minimum early stage cost 

2. Provides Air Freight Forwarder facilities in small units which could simplify 

occupancy should individual financing by lessee be used. 

_47_ 



3. Plan makes maximum use of existing roadways both now and in the future. For 
example, the present Lawrence and Manheim Roads could be used for Air Freight 
Forwarder circulation. 

Disadvantages : 

1 . The international facilities are remote, particularly in the early stages. 

2. Until the potential cargo volumes are developed the Air Freight Forwarder 
area is remoted from the first stage air cargo area as compared to certain other 
solutions, 

3. Site development cost probably greater than for other plans. 

4. Uses airfield frontage for activity that does not require frontage on airfield. 
The strength of this solution depends on the timing of development of the second 

cargo complex and the need for international air cargo facilities. 

Exhibit 5 - Scheme 2 



Exhibit 5 indicates a progression of domestic development in the cargo complex with 
the international facilities adjacent to the Runway 9R-27L taxiway system. Further domestic 
expansion is indicated to the South of Runway 9R-27L. 

Advantages: 

1 . The Air Freight Forwarders are located in relatively good relationship to the 
known present cargo complex and future expansion South of Runway 9R-27L. 

2. Ready aircraft access to Runway 27L. 

3. The relationship between the ASPCA and the international operations is more 
favorable than under Exhibit 4. 



48- 



Disadvantages; 

1 . The plan of the international area is somewhat cluttered and not as clear cut as 
either of those shown on Exhibits 4 or 6. 

2. Although it is advantageous to have the ASPCA adjacent to the international 

facilities it is not essential. Operationally, it is better to have Federal Inspection, 
Air Freight Forwarders, ASPCA and international facilities in the same complex. 

Exhibit 6 - Scheme 3 

Exhibit 6 indicates the gradual growth of the domestic air cargo development 
until the present complex is saturated and the development of the South part of a new 
complex as a domestic expansion „ The international facilities are shown expanding 
gradually immediately South of Runway 9R-27L. 

Advantages: 

l>The development of the international facilities are well organized. 

2. Taxiway construction is minimized., 

3. The functional relationship between international, ASPCA, Air Freight 
Forwarders and Federal Inspection areas is good. 

4. Plan is more flexible than other schemes. 

5. Gives ready aircraft access to airfield in all stages. 
Disadvantages: 

1 . Depending on the timing of the international facilities additional site 

development may be required. 
2. Until long range potential volumes are experienced, the volume-distance rate 

for the Air Freight Forwarders is greater than under the alternate location plan. 

Of the three plans, Scheme 3 appears to be the soundest plan for the cargo complex 

development. 

-49- 



TABLE 3-6 
SCHEME I EXHIBIT 4 

Based upon 80 foot width Domestic Building and 100 foot width International Building,, 

1961 1965 1980 

Building Building Building Leased 

Space Space Space Area 

Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Acres 

Area 1 

Area 2 (F.T. ) 

Area 3 

Area 4 

Area 5 ( F.F. & U.S. Customs ) 

Area 6 ( F.F.) 

Area 7 ( ASPCA ) 

Area 8 

Area 9 

Area 10 International* 

Area 11 International* 

Total 125,300 520,000 899,000 105.0 

* Based on POTENTIAL forecast from Table 2-2. 

( F.T. ) - Flying Tiger 

(F.F. ) - Freight Forwarders - One floor building 

ASPCA - American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 



91,500 


91,500 


91,500 


13.6 


33,800 


33,800 


60,800 


9.0 




60,000 


60,000 


7.4 




120,000 


120,000 


14.6 


*) 


60,000 


96,000 


10.4 






24,000 


2.8 




5,000 


10,000 


2.0 




49,700 


80,000 


9.2 






160,000 


18.4 




100,000 


118,700 


18.4 






78,000 


9.2 



-50- 




LEGEND 

'< 19 6 1 

vzmfrA 1965 

T" _ "! 19 80 



(N°) SEE TABLE 3-6 300' 

FOR ACREAGE 



GRAPHIC SCALE 



CHEME " I 



EX H I B I T " 4 



30 AREA STUDY 



600 900 



1965 TAXIWAY 



INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

JAN., 1961 
8 BROWN - CINCINNATI, OHIO 




1965 TAXIWA 



CARGO AREA STUDY 

CHICAGO- O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

JAN., 1961 
LANORUM a BROWN - CI NCI NNATI .OHIO 



TABLE 3-7 

SCHEME 2 - EXHIBIT 5 
Based upon 60 ft. width Domestic Building and 100 ft. width International Building 



Land Site 

Area 1 

Area 2 (F. T. ) 

Area 3 

Area 4 

Area 5 ( F. F. - 2 Floors ) 

Area 6 

Area 7 

Area 8 

Area 9 

Area 10 

Area 1 1 

Area 12 

Area 13 ( ASPCA ) 



1961 

BIdg. Space 

Sq. Ft. 


1965 

BIdg. Space 
Sq. Ft. 


1980 

BIdg. Space 

Sq. Ft. 


Leased 

Area 

Acres 


91,500 


91,500 


91,500 


13.6 


33,800 


33,800 


60,800 


.90 




90,000 


90,000 


1.35 




45,000 


45,000 


7.8 


i 


30,000 


60,000 


7.5 




50,000 


50,000 


5.5 




45,000 


45,000 


4.9 




10,000 


66,200 


7.3 




60,000 


60,000 


8.8 




35,700 


120,000 


17.4 






120,000 


17.4 






23,500 


8.8 




5,000 


10,000 


2.0 



Total 125,300 495,000 839,000 123.6 

( F. T. ) Flying Tiger 

( F. F. ) Freight Forwarders 

( ASPCA ) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 



-52- 




LEGEND 

H^^H 19 6 1 

^S^3 1965 

IZZZZ! 19 80 



GRAPHIC SCALE 



EXH I B IT " 5 



(NO) SEE TABLE 3"7 300' 

FOR ACREAGE 



600 900 



3 1965 TAXIWAYS 



GO AREA STUDY 

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
JAN , I96| 

I a BROWN - CINCINNATI, OHIO 




(SCHEME -2) EXHIBIT-5 



CARGO AREA STUDY 

CHICAGO- O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
JAN. , I96| 



LANDRUM & BROWN - CI NCI NNATI ,OHIO 



TABLE 3-8 

SCHEME 3 - EXHIBIT 6 

Based upon 80 ft. width Domestic Buildings and 100 ft. width International Buildings. 

Under 

Construction 1965 1980 Leased 

Bldg. Space Bldg. Space Bldg. Space Area 

Land Site Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Acres 

Area 1 

Area 2 (F. T. ) 

Area 3 

Area 4 

Area 5 ( ASPCA ) 

Area 5A* ( ASPCA) 
Area 6 ( F. F. - 1 Floor) 

Area 6A* ( F. F. - 2 Floors) 
Area 7 
Area 8 
Area 9 
Area 10 
Area 1 1 



91,500 


91,500 


91,500 


13.6 


33,800 


33,800 


60,800 


9.0 




120,000 


120,000 


14 8 




60,000 


60,000 


7.4 




5,000 


10,000 


1.2 




( 5,000) 


(10,000) 


(1.2) 




60,000 


120,000 


13.2 


Floors ) 


(30,000) 


(60,000) 


(10.0) 




75,000 


75,000 


8.1 




30,000 


103,000 


15.4 




49,700 


120,000 


14.8 






120,000 


14.8 






18,700 


7.4 



Total 125,300 525,000 869,000 109.5 

( F. T. ) Flying Tiger 

( F. F. ) Freight Forwarders 

( ASPCA ) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

* 5A and 6A - Alternate Areas 

-54- 




EXH I B I T" 6 



I 980 

SEE TABLE 3-8 
FOR ACREAGE 

1965 TAXIWAY 



3 RGO AREA STUDY 

900' *E INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

JAN., 1961 
DM B BROWN - CINCINNATI , OHIO 




CARGO AREA STUDY 

CHICAGO- O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

JAN., 1961 
LAN DRUM & BROWN - CI NCI NNATI .OHIO 



CHAPTER IV 
METHODS OF FINANCE 



CHAPTER IV 

FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT 
CONSIDERATIONS 



INTRODUCTION 

The discussion in this chapter is concerned with the financing of the air cargo area 
facilities at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport and the agreements to be written covering 
the use thereof. Because of the potential future volume of these activities and the require- 
ments of other air transportation and ancillary activities at O'Hare, careful consideration 
should be given to the methods of financing used and the leasing arrangements made. 

The types of facilities and activities included in these discussions are: 

1 . Federal Inspection Services, 

2. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 

3. International Cargo Facility, 

4. Domestic Cargo Facility, ( excluding those covered by existing agreements ). 

5. Air Freight Forwarder Facility. 

The financing of the facilities constructed can be provided either by the City or by 
a private individual or firm. Careful consideration should be given to all of the factors involved 
in deciding the method of financing to be used. Such factors will include, among others, the 
following: 

1 . The need for the facilities, 

2. The means of financing available to the City ( revenue bonds, general obligation 
bonds or the corporate fund ), 

3. The availability of financing by a private individual or firm. 

( Willingness of a private firm or individual to provide such financing ), 

4. Management and operational considerations. ( The control over the facilities 

-56- 



by the City will be influenced by the method of financing used and, conversely, 
the desire for control over the facilities will dictate, to an extent, the type 
of financing which management may desire to use )„ 
The primary advantage to the financing of the facilities by the City itself is that 
the City can maintain a greater degree of control over the operation of the activities than 
if the financing were provided by a private firm or individual „ However, private financing 
would relieve the City of the problems attendant to financing the construction of the facilities 
themselves. The City has indicated that it is currently thinking in terms of having financing 
provided by a private firm or individual. The detailed considerations regarding financing 
methods and the best interests of the City are the proper areas for review by the City's 
Financial Consultants. The aforegoing observations have been presented simply to show 
the major alternatives involved. 

Regardless of the method of financing used, the agreements covering the use and 
occupancy of the facilities should be written so as to retain for the City as tight as possible 
a control over the operations and also to maintain a flexibility so that the operations of 
these activities can be made to conform with the operational requirements of O'Hare in the 
future. 

The following paragraphs list the provisions which should be included in the agreement 
between the City and the lessee ( lessees ) covering the use and occupancy of the air cargo 
area facilities at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. This list is not meant to be 
complete in respect to all provisions which should be included in such an agreement, but 
only to specify certain of the more important fundamental provisions from management's 
point of view which should be incorporated into the agreements. Some of the provisions 
listed are not applicable, if the financing is provided by the City. Others are not 
applicable if the financing is done by private interests. 

-57 - 



CONSIDERATIONS 

1. Premises, Rights and Privileges 

A description of the land areas, building and other facilities leased 
exclusively to the lessee and the use of the Airport facilities in common with others 
( rights of ingress and egress, vehicular and aircraft parking rights and others ) should 
be set out in this provision. 

2. Term of Agreement 

The term of the agreement should be kept as short as possible to maintain 
the greatest degree of flexibility if the City does the financing. If private financing 
is used, the term of the agreement should be made commensurate with the amount of 
investment required, giving consideration to a reasonable period for the write-off of 
such investment. In the event of construction by lessee the City should retain the 
right to purchase the unamortized balance of the lessee's investment. 

3. Use of Premises 

This provision should specificially denote the uses which can be made of 
the premises covered by the agreement and restrict the lessee from other activities. 

4. Construction by City 



All construction and installations which are to be provided by the City 
should be described in this provision. If the City is to finance and construct the entire 
facility, it should be so specified. If, on the other hand, the City is to provide limited 
( or no ) construction and installation, it should be similarly specified. 

5. Construction by Lessee 

This provision should set forth the construction and installations which 

will be required to be made by the lessee including the minimum and maximum 

-58- 



investments. It will not be necessary to include provision in the agreement if the City 
is to finance and construct all of the required facilities. 

6. Financing of the Construction 



i In this provision all limitations should be given regarding the financing to 

be provided by the lessee, together with restrictions as to mortgages and liens which the 
lessee is allowed to obtain. 

7. Rentals and Charges 

The applicable rentals and charges pertaining to site, buildings, other 
facilities, utility charges, vehicular parking and other ( if any ) should be set forth 
in this paragraph. 

8. Renegotiation of Rental Rates and Charges 

This provision should specify that rental rates and charges applicable to 
the lessee shall be revised periodically during the term of the agreement, if the 
agreement is made for a long term ( more than five years ). 

9. Assignment and Subletting 

This provision should specify that no assignment or subletting of the 
agreement or the premises covered by the agreement can be made without the approval 
of the City. |t should also be specified that the agreement between the lessee and all 
sublessees be so written as to make it possible to require any sublessee to vacate the 
premises for reasonable cause in the event the City should so desire. 

10. Control Over Rental Rates and Charges by Lessee 

This provision should provide that the City shall have the right of 

-59- 



approval on all rental rates and charges made by the lessee provided, however, that 
the minimum rates and charges shall be sufficient to permit lessee to recover its 
investment ( if any ) and a reasonable return thereon. 

This provision should be included if private financing is used. It may 
be desirable to include it also if the City provides the financing and construction and 
leases the facilities to one or more large operators who, in turn, are permitted to sublet 
space. 

1 1 . Performance Bond 

This provision should specify the amount of the performance bond which 
will be required by the City from the lessee to assure performance of the agreement. 
It is desirable to have this provision regardless of the method of financing used. However, 
the amount of the performance required should be gauged according to the interests of 
the City involved in the performance of the agreement and the need for screening tenants 
desiring space. 

12. Repair of Damages 

A provision requiring the lessee to repair all damages to the facilities 
( whether covered by insurance or not ) caused by the lessee or its sublessees, or its 
or their employees, agents, suppliers or patrons, should be included in the agreement 
regardless of the method of financing used. 

13. Inspection by Lessor 

The right to inspect the premises and to require the lessee to make 
any changes or improvements in cleaning or maintenance methods deemed necessary 

-60- 



or desirable by the City, should be retained by the lessor in the agreement. 

14. Expansion of Facilities 

This provision should enable the City to require the lessee to expand 
the facilities if there is a demonstrated need for such facilities. The details in regard 
to the amount and terms of expansion required should also be specified in this provision. 

This provision will only be required if the financing of the facilities is 
to be provided by private interests. 

15. Insurance and Indemnity 

This provision should list the types and amounts of insurance which 
the lessee is required to carry, and should also indemnify the City against all losses, 
damages and claims caused by or arising from the operation of this activity. It should 
further specify how the proceeds of fire and extended coverage insurance shall be 
distributed between the parties, how they will be spent, and the condition upon 
which the facilities shall be repaired, restored or abandoned. 

This provision should be included in the agreement no matter which 
method of financing is used. 

16. Cancellation by the City 

This provision should give the notice requirements and reason for 
cancellation of the agreement available to the City. Specifically, this provision 
should include among the reasons for cancellation non-performance by the lessee, 
( especially non-payment of rentals ) bankruptcy, insolvency and similar reasons. 



-61 - 



If private financing is used, the notice period might be made longer 
than if the lessee is not required to make a substantial or any investment in facilities. 
Ninety days would appear to be a reasonable maximum notice period under most 
circumstances „ 

17. Cancellation by the Lessee 



Cancellation rights of the lessee should be specified in this provision. 
Circumstances under which the lessee may cancel should be limited to non-performance 
of the agreement by the City and inability to use the airport for an extended period of 
time. 

18. Rules and Regulations 

This provision should require the lessee to conform to all reasonable 
rules and regulations promulgated by the City for the operation of O'Hare Field. 
This provision should be included no matter which method of financing is used. 

19. Surrender of Facilities Upon Termination of Agreement 

This provision should require that the facilities will become the property 
of the City upon the termination of the agreement, whether by expiration of the term or 
earlier termination as provided for in the other provisions of the agreement. |t should 
also specify that the property shall be in good condition ; reasonable wear and tear 
excepted. 

This provision should be included if the financing is provided either 
by the City or a private firm or individual. If financing is provided by the City, the 
provision should specify only that the lessee be required to surrender the premises in 
as good condition as received, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 

-62- 



20. Signs 

The provision should specifically restrict the erection of advertising 
and other signs on the premises, except within buildings, unless such signs shall 
have first been approved by the City in writing. 

The aforegoing list of provisions does not include those which are regarded as 
standard provisions in most agreements or those which are anticipated to have a 
significant effect upon the operation of the airport. 

Other considerations in respect to the individual activities in the air cargo area 
which should also be covered in the agreements are: 

1 . Federal Inspection Services - the customs bureau does not build or rent space 
at airports for federal inspection services. Space should be provided by the 
international air carriers through rental of facilities from the City or construction 
by the air carriers. 

2. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - if there is a 
request by the organization and an area is available, ground space should be 
leased by the City to the Society for the construction of their required 
facilities. 

3. Roads, Utilities, Site Preparation and Airfield Paving - a substantial cost in 
providing these facilities, much of which will be used jointly by tenants, 
cannot be specifically assigned to any user or group of users. Such costs 
should be recovered by the City through the basic land rental charges. 

In summary, of primary importance to the City are the following: 

A. The flexibility to either remove the lessee's operations from the initial 
site or from the airport itself if the City deems it necessary. 

-63- 



B. The ability of the City to share in materially increased revenues if 
such should be realized by the lessee. 

C. The clear understanding that the lessees are subject to the rules and 
regulations of the City at all times. 



-64- 



APPENDIX A 



-65 



A 
P 

P 
E 
N 
D 
I 
X 



LANDRUM AND BROWN 
309 Vine Street 
Cincinnati 2, Ohio 

September 21, 1960 



Commissioner William E. Downes, Jr. 
Commissioner of Aviation 
City Hall 
Chicago, Illinois 

Dear Commissioner Downes: 

This is a brief interim letter report concerning Chicago-O'Hare air cargo 
facilities to set forth the general status of planning to date. The data given in this 
letter is presented as information, not as a definite solution. 

A general chronological listing of events to date is: 

First 6 months of 1960 - Letters to Mr. Downes from individual firms regarding 
space information at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. 

June 1960 - Letter to individual Freight Forwarders and answers from several 
Freight Forwarders concerning their required space. This item was by 
Mr. R. Ro Mitchell of United Airlines. 

July 27 ', 1 960 - Questionnaire sent out to 45 Freight Forwarders in the Chicago 
area by Landrum and Brown. Answers received from eleven. 

August 17, 1960 - Analysis of questionnaires and plan studies for meeting in 
Chicago with Freight Forwarder officials, Chicago Department of Aviation, 
Airline Technical Committee Representatives, Naess and Murphy representatives 
and Mr. Landrum. 

Letter report this date - 

Landrum and Brown sent out questionnaire* forms to 45 Freight Forwarders in 
the Chicago area. Eleven of these forms were returned the first week of August, 1960. 
A summary of the space requirements requested by the eleven Freight Forwarders who 
returned questionnaires is given in Table I. 

Table I indicates that the air Freight Forwarders wish approximately 67,000 square 
feet of space for 1965. By comparison with other large airport hubs this figure seem some- 



Commissioner William E. Dowries, Jr. 
Page - 2 - 



what high,. 

The international carriers in 1959 requested approximately 9,250 square 
feet. For 1965 this quantity appears low. A questionnaire was forwarded to the 
international carriers in August. Their revised requests along with Federal inspection 
requirements will be reported later. 

Two of the domestic carriers have requested in the magnitude of 100,000 
square feet of space. 

The other domestic carriers either occupy or have requested approximately 
40,000 square feet in the first stage. 

Air Express is assigned approximately 15,500 square feet in the first stage. 

The Flying Tiger lease is established in the master plan. 

The two air cargo buildings ( one 50 feet wide, the other 72 feet wide ) now 
being constructed total 91,500 square feet ( not including Flying Tiger ). The three 
remaining cargo building sites shown on the master plan will produce 1 12,500 to 
192,000 square feet additional space, with the exact quantity depending on the building 
widths. 

The total space indicated as needed is as follows: 

Air Freight Forwarders 67,000 sq. ft. 

International Carriers 10,000 sq. ft. 

Domestic Carriers 100,000 sq. ft. 

Other Domestic Carriers 40,000 sq. ft. 

Air Express 15,500 sq. ft. 

Total 232,500 sq. ft. 

This compares to the 91,500 square feet being built plus three added buildings 
totalling 1 12,500 or 192,000 ( depending on building widths ) for a total of from 204,000 
to 283,000 square feet. Thus, if all requests are honored, there would be an excess of 
space in the first stage only if the three new cargo buildings are more than 63 feet in width 

-2 - 



Commissioner William E. Dowries, Jr. 
Page - 3 - 



Schemes 1 , 2 and 3 attached were "quick" studies made to present possible 
solutions to the problem in the first stage, using only the first stage cargo complex. 
Neither of these plans are suggested as a final solution, as each presents certain 
problems. 

Further studies are in progress considering the use of a cargo complex No. 2 
south of future runway 27L and parallel to relocated Manheim Road. As soon as these 
studies are complete, a recommended course of action will be submitted for your 
consideration . 

Respectfully submitted, 

LANDRUM AND BROWN 



^X^T. 



<f. ^ 



Chas. O . Landrum 



COL/wg 



Enclosures: 1 . Schemes 1 , 2 and 3. 

2. Typical Plan "A" and "B'\ 

3. Letter and questionnaire sent to Air Freight Forwarders 

4. List of Forwarders receiving letter and questionnaire. 



-3- 













* 


* 










* 




* 














* 


* 




* 




* 


* 




* 










o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


^- 


O 


o 


o 


cS 






o 


s 


O 


o 


o 


O 


o 


CO 


CM 


o 


CO 


8 






tx 


O 


o 


o 


O 


m 


IN. 




o 


CM 


"t 






o 
































CN 


— 


CM 


CO 


CM 


CO 






co 


CM 




o 
co 




o 








* 


* 










* 




* 






ro 








* 


* 










* 




* 






o 
U ^ 




O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


m 


<tf 


o 


CO 


o 


CM 




LO 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


8 


CM 


o 


o 


o 


00 




o 


m 


r\ 


O 


IT) 


00 


in 




o 


co 


LO 


CN 






o 






_ 


, — 


"<t 


co 






CM 


— 




o" 




c o 


























— 




_o 1— 






























Q_~ — ' 




























— 


ID 


4— 

c 


5? 


o 


* 
* 

5? 


* 
* 

o 


o 


o 




CM 


* 
* 

o 


r-v 


* 
* 
o 


o 


m 




l/l 


o 


o 


o 


o 


t> 


»— 


o 


m 


o 


o 


_l 




<D 


CM 


CM 


■o- 


MD 


CO 


Tj- 






N 


m 


CM 


CM 


CO 




L. 










*. 














* 


< 




a. 










— 














m 



o 

o 
U ' 

~D 

a> 

c I 
_o . 

Q. 

C 



O 



o 



cr 
oo 



a> ^ 



a; 

O 

u. 

in 

IXJ 

at 

< 

Z 

z 
o 



a 

I— 
x 

$2 

LU 

C£ 
Ll_ 

< 



< 



3 
eo 



to 



o 

8 

CM 



O 
IT) 
CM 



O 

LO 

l-N. 



O 
O 
O 

co" 



o 
o 
o 



co 



o 
o 
o 



o 

o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

CM 



o 



o 

8 



o 
o 

l-N 



o 

o 



o 
o 

-3- 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

LO 



* 

* 

o 

o 

o 



* 
o 
o 
o 



* 

* 

o 

o 

o 

co" 



* 
o 

8 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 
o 



LO 

o 
o 



MD — 



— — "* 



o 
o 
o 



o 
m 
IN, 



o 
o 

CM 



o 
o 

CM 



— CM — — 



* 
* 

o 
m 



o 
o 
o 

CM 



o 
o 
o 



* 

o 

o 

nD 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

00 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

MD 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 

o 



o 
o 
o 

m 



o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

CM 

CM 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

00 



o 
o 

CO 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 

LO 
CM 



* 

o 

o 

00 



o 
o 
co 



8 

IN. 



IN 

3 



CM 
CO 



c 
o 



m 

CM 
CM 



m 
eg 

CM 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 



o 



in 



ts, 

CM 



* 
o 
o 
o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

CM 



o 

o 

LO 



o 
o 

LO 

CM 



o 
o 

co 



* 

o 
o 
o 



* 

o 
o 
o 



* 
o 
o 
IN. 



* 

o 
o 
IN. 



* 

o 

o 

LO 



o 
o 



o 
o 
o 

CN 



o 
o 
o 

o 



o 

o 
o 



< 

X 

b 

I 

o 
o 
< 

y 

X 

u 



a 



o 

Q. 
CO 



< 



o en 

Ou .— 

<D 

<D £ 

o 

1_ 1- 

a. < 



D D 

'< '< 



o 

o 

c 
c 

0) 

ca 



<0 



o 
o 
o 



-o 
o 

CO 



CM 
CN 
LO 



o 
o 
o 



o 

o 
o 



o 
o 

CM 



o 
o 
o 

CN 



o 

H 

-o 



o 
o 

LO 



$ 



en 
'a> 



< 

1— 

e 

U-l 



CL 
X 



0) 
l/» 

en 

c 



en 

c 



— "E 



— CM 



o 
o_ 



< 

MD 



-o 
c 
o 



o 

u 

u 
0) 

c 



Q_ 

X 



^ < 



CO 



o 

u 



0) 

c 
o 

_Q 



o 



en 



< 



LO 

co 

co" 

co 



ro 

LO 

co 
o" 



o 

CM 

LO 

o" 



o 

IS, 



LO 

CO 



CN 
MD 



o 
o 

CM 

co 



o 
o 

CO 

LO 



LO 



CO 
OJ 



-a 

c 
o 

£ 

D 
u 

-o 

c 

>s 

_Q 

"O 

0) 



DJ 

'53 



< - 

_ o 
2 o 

(U *— 

c 

V 

o 



o — 



c 


5 


<D 


o 


i/l 


i_ 


O 


co 


$ 


T3 


c 


c 

a 


o 


e 


(1) 


3 


3 


"O 


en 


c 




o 


^*- 


_J 


LO 


^ 


CN 


^D 


< — 


-o 


l/l 


0) 
-*- 


o 


D 


<D 


E 


E 


•jz 


o 


i/t 


LO 


UJ 




•X 


* 


* 



c 
o 
U 



UJ 

—I 

CO 

< 



V 

0) 

s $* 



0) 

CD 
>-l 
_o 

Q_ 

E 









o 

CM 






in 

CM 



in»noooininin""> -o I — 
— cm md ""> cm cm r^ -<t r^ 

CO 



OOOCOOCOIOQQO 
— CM ">* CO CM CM LO CO 



iO|\-^-CX3CMCMmiOlOTt 
— CM — — CM 



cm in 

— CM 



8 



fc 



co 



* * * * 

-«t rfr lt> m o o MD -o 
cm — — ^r co ^F 

CM 



* * 

* * . 
ooooo-^commo -o -o 

CNCMCM— — CM CM h» 



* * . 

mr-xO-^tcocMomm ■<* m 

— — — — o 



8 



ooKOCMmoco — o ol — 

— — CO CM CM «0 



vO CO LO 



CO 



I CO 00 



LO IT) CO 



CO 



CM -O O 

— I o 



i— r«s m 



£ 



o 

u_ 
oo 

UJ 
< 

Z 

z 
g 

i— 

CO 

UJ 

a 

I— 
X 

o 



ex. 



3 



< 

X 

b 
i 

o 

o 

< 

y 

x 
u 



en 
a> •— 

LU 3 



O 



4c 4f ^ 

m o"">ocr>ir>inmir>in>o| 

Tt —OMCOCO— CMI^s^ 



3 



o 

CO 



omo^mcomoo o\ o 

— — CM CM — CM m — o 

CM 



o o co cm m m co 

— CM — CM 



* 

m co 



CO 



t 


o 


^— 


a. 


a> 




Q 


15 




o 




i— 


o 


o 


a> 


a_ 


Q. 




co 


•£. 


MM 


o 




I 


a) 
< 


<. 



< 



O 

D 

c 
a) 

CO 




a. 



co 



< 

a> 

E 



* 
-o -«* 



-o 



o 



— CM 



Q- 
X 



CD 

0) 

w» 

CO 

c 



m 



s. 

Q 
< 



CM O O 

— CM 



CM 



CM — 



O 

_c 

CO 

c 

Lb 

o 

I 

o 

u_ 

c 
o 



o 

u 



Q. 
X 
UJ 



.£ < 



rv co 



a. 

|mi 

o 

u 



o 



CO 

'5 



< 



2| s 



Ol CO 

— I o 



<0| CO 



c^ 
"5 



o 

i— 

a) 

c 

<D 

o 



-o 
c 


E 

D 
w 
"O 

c 

.3 



<D 




i— 




0) 




-»— 


C 


c 


5 


CD 


o 


1/1 




CO 


$ 


"O 




c 


~D 


o 


C 




a 


E 


CD 


p 


D 


~a 


CO 


c 




o 


u^ 


_i 


lO 


>v 




_Q 



~o 

o 

E 



o — 



-5- 



< 

UJ 

or 

< 




avoa 



30IAH3S 



~~-\ 



n 



o 
o 

CO 



o 




-: 



UJ 

< 

UJ 



o 

o 
a 



o 




i ! 



o 
o 

oo 



o 



1 



en 

< 
o 

o 
oo 

<\J 



X 

o 
cc 
a. 
o. 
< 



u 



o 
o 

Q 



O 

Z> 

or 



< 


U- 


LU 


o 


t£ 


o 


< 


00 




X 


o 




2 


h- 


— 


li 


^ 




cc 


in 


< 


f\i 


a. 









or 










< 


o 








UJ 


LL 

rr 








rr 










< 


< 


"o 

mo 




< 

El 


ir 

UJ 

o 


< 

z 




CJ 




Z 


cr 


o 






Z 


< 

_1 


< 


< 


Ld - 


'8 


* o 
01 o 


a. 


cr 
o 
u_ 


z 
<r 

UJ 

t- 


< 

a 

o 




03 " 

< 
a z 


< 




2 


X 

a. 
< 




=> z 
cc - 


o 


\- 




K - 


H° 


o_ 


X 


UJ 

or 






< o 


>- 


o 


< 








i- 


UJ 


X 










or 


o 




Us 






u_ 


o 

13 








or 


< 








M 


o 








< 


X 










o 









.00* 



_l « 

< < 

o 

— > 

>" < 

I- > 



CO > 

— < 

Z 
e> en 

jo 

o en 

z 

en uj 

E 1 
i- a 



UJ 



en 



>• 

CD 



I 

h- -J 

O => 

I- 03 



UJ 

_1 
_l 
< 



z 
o 



u 

UJ 



en 



z f 

< _l 

_) Q. 

a. 

co < 

i >- 

I- == 



< _ 

CD o 
Ul 

z < 

o 

? i 

z < 

g uj o 

m z a 

goS 

r to o 



UJ 

H 
O 




A V M I X V 1 



-9- 



OS 

(T - 
< < 



avod 



3DIAH3S 



00 



< £ 



at _J 

UJ < 
O z 

or o 

< P 

< 



o S 




o 
o 
ao 



u. 

o 
o 



J 



en 

a: 
< 
o 

o 
oo 

CM 



X 

o 

cc 
a. 
a. 

< 



u 



n 



z 
o 
a: 
a. 

< 



o 
cc 




< 


u. 


UJ 


o 


< 


o 

00 


CO 


X 


z 


1- 


*: 


u. 


< 


(M 



< 

o 

Q. 

>- 
I- 



X 

o 

UJ 
DC 



UJ 

cc 
< 

X 



1° 
oo o 



3 r 

ac — 

a o 

< o 



O 

or S 
< £ 

X 

o 













cr 
















Ul 
















n 


m 












o 


cc 


h- 




< 
o 

0. 


co 
< 


Ul 

H 

CO 

-J 




Ul 

H 
CO 
Ul 

o 
o 

—> 


< 

cc 
o 
u 


o 

3 
< 

< 




>- 


< 


< 




CO 


H 




1- 


> 


Z 






X 














CO 


o 


(0 




co 


>- 
< 

2 


u 

>- 




< 

5 


Ul 

cc 
u 


Ul 

> 


(S> 
7 


z 




Ul 


z 


1- 




< 




o 


CO 




Z> 


cc 


h- 


\- 


— 


7 


n 


<_> 


o 


< 


Z 


Ul 


co 


o 


Ul 


— 


>- 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 

o 


CO 


o 


< 

_l 


Ul 


CO 

III 


2 


CO 


2 
Ul 


3 


Ul 

-I 


CO 


-L 
1- 


cc 

a. 


o 

CD 


T 


2 


Ul 


Ul 


X 


> 


Ul 


(T> 


H 


Q 


CC 


CO 


1- 


m 


u. 





<M 



Ul 

H 
O 

z 



,02C 




AVMIX VI 



10- 



LANDRUMAND BROWN 
Phone: 309 Vine Street 

PArkway 1-1149 Cincinnati, Ohio 

July 27, 1960 



Gentlemen: 

Recently there have been a number of requests for additional cargo building 
space at Chicago-O'Hare International Airport. 

On June 7, 1960 a letter request for an indication of desired facilities located 
at Chicago International was forwarded to certain Air Freight Forwarders by Mr. R. R. 
Mitchell of United Airlines. Certain answers indicating the scope of need have been 
received by United. 

Commissioner William E. Downes of the Chicago Department of Aviation has 
instructed our firm to develop a program of specific need for these cargo functions and 
to present general methods of solving this problem. 

As time is of the essence in this phase of the work, the following time table has 
been established: 

A. Distribute letter and questionnaire July 27, 1960. 

B. Completed questionnaires returned to Landrum and Brown on or before 
August 8, 1960. 

C . Landrum and Brown analyze questionnaires and master plan August 8 to 
August 15, 1960. 

D. Group meeting of all interested parties 10 A.M., Wednesday August 17th 
in Chicago Planning Commission conference room, 10th floor, City Hall, 
Chicago, Illinois, to review a basic operating plan and concept. 

E. As soon as feasible following August 17, resolve a financing plan, resolve 
negotiations, complete plans and initiate construction. 

Attached to this letter are copies of a questionnaire and a general explanation sheet 
If you are interested in cargo space at Chicago International, will you please complete and 
return the questionnaire. An addressed stamped envelope is attached for your convenience. 



11 



Page - 2 - 



July 27, 1960 



If we do not receive your questionnaire by August 8, 1960 it will be assumed 
that you require no space and no provision will be made for your operation in the planning, 

If there are any questions or a desire for further information please do not hesitate 
to contact Mr. Charles Landrum or Mr. Nelson Aaronson at the letter head address or 
telephone number. 

Sincerely, 

LANDRUM AND BROWN 

Charles O. Landrum 



COLAa 
End. 



- 12 - 



General Explanation Notes 

1 . It is assumed that the Air Freight Forwarder facilities will be near or 
adjacent to the main cargo complex. 

2. For preliminary concept, assume the following general building specification: 

a . Building 60 to 80 feet wide and of length needed to serve all users. 

b. A truck dock approximately 46 inches high on one side of building. 

c. Truck dock 8 to 10 feet wide. 

d. Roadway at building floor level on side of building opposite truck dock, 
approximately 24 feet wide. 

e. Bays 24 feet on center producing 1,440 sq. ft. and 1,920 sq. ft. respectively 
for 60 and 80 foot building widths. 

f. Two 10 x 12 foot overhead doors per bay on each side of the building. 

g. A 13 ft. minimum clear ceiling height, 
h. Twenty to 30 foot candles illumination. 

i . Heat at 55 degrees minimum for warehouse area, 
j . Central toilet and utility area. 

3. Assume user will install at their own expense office partitioning, air conditioning 
or other facilities improving warehouse space. 



LANDRUM AND BROWN 
309 Vine Street 
Cincinnati 2, Ohio 



- 13- 



AIR FREIGHT QUESTIONNAIRE 



CHICAGO-O'HARE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 



User: 



-Activity 
Warehouse 
Office 
Other 



Area in Square Feet 



Total Space 



Client- Auto Parking 
Employee Auto Parking 
Trucks at Dock 
Peak Shift Employees 
Total Employees 



Enplaned Cargo 
Deplaned Cargo 

Comments: 



'resent 


1965 


1970 



























Number of Units 



'resent 


1965 


1970 

































•Number of Tons 



Present 


1965 


1970 





















Landrum and Brown 
309 Vine Street 
Cincinnati 2, Ohio 



-14- 



LIST OF AIR FREIGHT FORWARDERS 



I. Acme Air Cargo, Inc 
1512 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago, 



mois 



2. Airborne Freight Corp. 
5500 W . 47th Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

3. Air Cargo, Inc. 
5500 W . 47th Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

4. Air Dispatch, Inc. 
Koerner Motor Express 
5421 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

5. Bernacki, Peter A., Inc. 
5100 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago 38, Illinois 

6. Emery Air Freight Corp. 
Room 21 12 Prudential Plaza 
Chicago 1 , Illinois 

7. W. T« C. Air Freight 
1003 W. Huron 
Chicago, Illinois 

8. Wings & Wheels Express, Inc, 
5100 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago 38, Illinois 

9. American Shippers 
2642 W. Arthington 
Chicago, Illinois 



10. Air Freight, Inc „ 

222 W. Roosevelt Road 
Chicago, Illinois 

1 1 . Air Express International Corp. 
6217 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago Midway Airport 
Chicago 38, Illinois 

12. Air-Land Rocket Air Freight 
6016 S. Central 
Chicago, Illinois 

13. Airways Parcel Post Service, Inc 
6453 S . Cicero 

Chicago, Illinois 

14. Four - A Air Freight Corp. 
5719 No Central Avenue 
Chicago 46, Illinois 

15. General Air Freight 

1003 W. Huron Street 
Chicago 22, Illinois 

16. Hawaiian Freight Forwarders, Inc, 

120 E. S. Wtr. 
Chicago, Illinois 

17. Pan Maritime Cargo Service, Inc. 
5500 W. 47th Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

18. Shulman, Inc. 
26 N . Aberdeen 
Chicago, Illinois 



-15- 



LIST OF AIR FREIGHT FORWARDERS 



19. United Parcel Service, Air, Inc. 
331 E. 38th Street 

New York, New York 

20. A. Able Trucking Co. 
1125W. Lake 
Chicago, Illinois 

21 . AAA Special Delivery Service 
638 N. Ashland 
Chicago, Illinois 

22. ASA International Airlines 
608 S. Dearborn 
Chicago, Illinois 

23. Aerial Special Delivery 
4751 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago^, Illinois 

24. Airline Cartage, Inc. 
5331 S. Keating 
Chicago, Illinois 

25. American Freight Forwarding Co. 
2550 W . 26th Street 

Chicago, Illinois 

26 . Andrews DC & Co of Illinois , Inc. 
327 S. LaSalle 

Chicago, Illinois 

27. Barnett International Air Freight Service 
5500 E . 28th Street 

Chicago, Illinois 

28. BOR Air Freight Company, Inc. 
41 15 Skokiana 

Skokie, Illinois 



29. Cannon Ball Bonded Special 

Delivery Service 
412 N. Wells 
Chicago, Illinois 

30. City Bonded Messenger Service 

193 N. LaSalle 
Chicago,, Illinois 

31 . Courier, Ltd. 

4217 W. 59th Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

32. Florida Freight Terminal Inc. 
5500 W o 47th Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

33. Highwinds Air Charter, Inc. 
4848 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

34. Holland Highway Express Inc. 
5500 47th Street 

Summit, Illinois 

35. International Expediters, Inc. 
200 E. Illinois 

Chicago, Illinois 

36. KHS Air Freight Service 
4848 W. 63rd Street 
Chicago, Illinois 

37. Lincoln Storage & Moving Co., Inc 
4259 S. Drexi 

Chicago, Illinois 

38. Mercury Messenger Service, Inc. 
420 N. Wells 

Chicago, Illinois 



- 16 - 



LIST OF AIR FREIGHT FORWARDERS 



39. Midway Air Freight Service 
6550 So Keating 
Chicago, Illinois 

40 o Midwest Delivery Service 
2641 S. Whipple 
Chicago, Illinois 

4K Pacific Air Freight Inc. 

2641 S.Whipple 
Chicago, Illinois 

42. Parcelair System 

Division of American Shipper, Inc 

2642 W. Arthington 
Chicago, Illinois 

43. Republic Air Freight 

Div. of Republic Carloading & 

Distributing Co., Inc. 
608 S. Dearborn 
Chicago, Illinois 

44. Soper MA Company 
2221 W. Walnut 
Chicago, Illinois 

45. Wi I lett Company 

5045 S. Pulaski 
Chicago, Illinois 

46. Inland Forwarding, Inc. 
900 South Wells Street 
Chicago 7, Illinois 



- 17 -