MovieChat Forums > Airport (1970) Discussion > Why Insist on Landing ONLY In Chicago?

Why Insist on Landing ONLY In Chicago?

posted 14 years ago by lonnien-1
26 replies | jump to latest

Can someone please add their thoughts to this question that has been bothering me for years? I LOVE this film – think it really is dramatic, even at times touching – but I have always wondered why the BIG DEAL about having to land in Chicago? Supposedly, the bomb went off while the plane was over the Atlantic – the plane then begins its descent, and attempts to make it back to Chicago (Lincoln Int’l Airport) which presumably is still hundred, if not thousands of miles away.

Why on earth, with a plane that has just had an explosion, would anyone insist on trying to fly all the way back to Chicago – to land there, and only there? Plus, the issue of Runway 29 – if it was still blocked by the stuck airplane, that long runway would be out of commission – forcing it to land on the shorter Runway 22,, which Dean Martin says would result in the airplane possibly breaking apart, with many resulting deaths.

So, you have the issue of other cities, with their runways, being far closer to the plane than Chicago with its doubtful Runway 29. So why in the world would any bombed-airplane in that condition insist on making it back to Chicago, and only Chicago? For heaven’s sake, land in Toronto, land in Cleveland. Land anywhere!!

[–] rorysa 14 years ago

For someone who loves "Airport," you missed a crucial ATC communication with Captain Harris soon after the bomb went off. He was informed that everything east of Lincoln (the airport in "Airport") was closed due to weather, but that Detroit could open if necessary--they had snow over ice, but would do the best they could. Harris and Demerest decided based on the damaged rudder and stabilizer that would be too dangerous, so they risked going on to Lincoln and that the major runway would be cleared by the time they arrived.

[–] Vashramana 13 years ago

I seriously doubt every airport east of Chicago is closed due to weather. If they were an hour east of Chicago that would put them right around Ottawa, not quite to Montreal yet. So that gives them quite a few large airports to choose for an emergency landing that are closer than Chicago. You have Toronto, Quebec City, Saint John, Halifax, Portland, Boston, New York, Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. I think they did say that Cleveland and Detroit were closed for sure. I wouldn't think all of those airports would be shut down at the same time.

[–] rorysa 13 years ago

Look, if you don't like the plot of the film (and novel), there's not a lot we can do about it.

[–] Vashramana 13 years ago

I liked it. I was just agreeing with the OP about this one part of the film. You don't have to get so offended...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vashramana 13 years ago

In a situation like that I don't think you'd be too worried about immigration restrictions...Also, were they that strict back in the early 70's?

[–] jejozi 13 years ago

I agree that a storm around the Great Lakes can shut down a lot of country, but I don't think there was much of a problem with immigration issues between the US and Canada in the 70s. You didn't need a passport to enter Canada until after 9/11

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

[–] seatart-2 12 years ago

I went to Canada in 1990 and they didn't even ask to see my US driver's license. I was so hurt!

[–] kmorrison1 12 years ago

"I seriously doubt every airport east of Chicago is closed due to weather."

if, In the film, every airport east of chicago is closed, then every airport is closed. What dont you get about that? This is a work of fiction!

[–] rgoutierez 13 years ago

The bomb didn't go off over the Atlantic. That was the wacko's plan, but once the crew became aware of the bomb on board, they reversed course to return to Chicago. This leads to the scene between Dean Martin and the nerdy kid who notices the course change. They're well on their way back to Lincoln Intl. by the time the bomb detonates and that's why airports like Detroit, Toronto, etc. are the only alternatives offered for landing. The pilots even discuss whether the airplane can stay in the air an hour, so they're obviously already close to Chicago.

[–] TorontoJediMaster 12 years ago

I doubt that they would have had any problems with immigration, as it was an unplanned emergency. As well, it was an international flight to begin with. Everyone on the plane would have had to have been in possession of a passport.

Another reason -explained in the book- for the return to Chicago was that the extra cruising time allowed them to burn off fuel, thus reducing their landing weight. The lighter the landing weight, the better their chances of the plane holding together. They didn't want to dump fuel because the damage to the plane might have been causing electrical sparks that could ignite the fuel as it was jettisoned.

The crew apparently weighed the pros and cons of all options and decided to return to Chicago because the storm wasn't as severe there, and the extra time would allow the aircraft to land with less weight.

[–] jjuergen 12 years ago

There are different reasons. Maybe....

1. Because of the storm other aircraft could have been diverted to other airports in the area (Detroit, Cleveland,....)
2. Other airports might not have had the equipment to handle this type of emergency, remember this was the late 60s-early 70s.
3. Other airports in the area might not have been able to handle the snowstorms and were also closed. Chicago is the big airport in the region.

I know where I've been shot, dammit, I'm a doctor!

[–] mojo2004 11 years ago

As another poster said the OP wasn't paying attention. They found out about the bomb almost as soon as they took off. If the wife had spoke up even sooner they likely would have caught it while it was still on the runway. But the pilot played by Barry Nelson ,turned the plane around to go back saying he hoped the passengers didn't notice.

"MOJO2014"

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Actually, they'd been in the air for well over an hour, probably closer to two, before they got word about the bomb, since by then they were under the control of Toronto air traffic control. The Captain then went back to check where the bomber was sitting before turning the plane around.

As another poster pointed out the plane had already begun its turn back to Chicago when Guerrero set off the bomb. The poster who said they could have flown to Halifax, New York, Philadelphia, etc., was being ridiculous since most of those cities were much farther away than Chicago, so the extent of the storm wasn't the only factor.

But to the thread question, the Captain didn't "insist on landing only in Chicago". As his transmissions indicated, he'd have preferred to have landed someplace closer (at least after the bomb went off), but weather and runway conditions prevented it. Chicago was their only option. Easily explained.

Incidentally, did it ever strike anyone that nowhere in the entire movie does anyone ever say that Lincoln Airport is in Chicago? In fact, the word "Chicago" is never uttered in the film. Wouldn't you think that somewhere along the line the filmmakers have taken the pretty basic step of actually naming the city where the airport is located?

[–] Eric-62-2 11 years ago

To clarify on alternate options, they are told that Detroit is prepared to open in case of emergency for them, but the instant the report is their runway has ice beneath snow, Captain Harris visibly shakes his head no and says that's out. In their condition, attempting a landing on a runway where there's ice even after the snow is cleared would have been disastrous. Toronto was supposed to be already closed due to the weather (in the book this is established before they take off in the briefing; all points east would have further been socked in by the blizzard)

And it's not true that "Chicago" is never uttered in the film. Captain Demarest mentions after takeoff how the weather is a lot better in Rome than "what we left behind in Chicago" and if you look at the address when Guerrero mails his flight insurance thing to his wife, it clearly says "Chicago, IL" as well.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

And it's not true that "Chicago" is never uttered in the film. Captain Demarest mentions after takeoff how the weather is a lot better in Rome than "what we left behind in Chicago" and if you look at the address when Guerrero mails his flight insurance thing to his wife, it clearly says "Chicago, IL" as well.

True. I stand corrected. Still, that constitutes only one fleeting mention, plus the envelope. It's still strange they didn't mention the city more often. Even in their transmissions they refer to the weather at "Lincoln", not "Chicago". Granted there are multiple airports in the Windy City, the weather would be the same for all three. (Not necessarily field conditions, but the weather.)

For that matter, if the only problem with Lincoln was that its long runway was closed down, why couldn't the plane divert to this place called O'Hare? I'll be kind and assume the older Midway didn't have long enough runways, though it might have done in a pinch.

[–] Eric-62-2 11 years ago

Well, Hob, I think with this film you have to accept the parameters of the universe this film operates in, which is that Lincoln is the only airport of note in Chicago. That's the universe of Arthur Hailey's novel where there are no other airports (I suspect he created a fictional one so he could have total creative control over what his fictional airport was like) in the area. People who saw the film were generally familiar with the novel and I think also wouldn't have asked that question.

And remember, "Chicago Center" is referenced frequently in the film which makes it clear that Chicago is the city they took off from and that "Chicago Center" would handle them initially after take-off and prior to being handed off to the airport for landing. So the geographic location of the place is never a mystery in the film even without those other explicit references.

[–] hobnob53 11 years ago

Did they say "Chicago Center"? Okay, so Chicago's mentioned.

Yes, I know that in Hailey's world, or universe, Lincoln was the only airport in Chicago. Or was it in Nebraska? Hey! Maybe it's the airport in Boone City.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

I wonder if there are any other city's named Lincoln in the USA?

I knew there were several others, but not the number I found when I looked it up on good old Wikipedia. According to that site, the following states have cities or towns called Lincoln -- two states have more than one:

Alabama, Arizona, California (2), Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin (13 towns called Lincoln!).

Plus there's a Lincoln in Utah, but it's now a ghost town.

However, apart from the capital of Nebraska, I doubt many of these Lincolns have international airports.

[–] Ken1260 10 years ago

"Chicago Center" would handle many different airports and most likely the whole airspace over the Midwest. It's still that way as it was shown last year when they had a fire in Chicago and limited air traffic in the Midwest.

[–] lessigvon 10 years ago

NOT SURE OF THE ANSWER WHY THEY NEEDED CHICAGO,SEEN THE MOVIE 20-30 TIMES OVER THE YEARS NOT A BIG CONCERN FOR ME BUT THEY DID NEED A LONGER RUNWAY BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF THE FULL CONTROL OF THE PLANE...BUT THAT EXCHANGE WAS CLASSIC BETWEEN DEAN MARTIN AND THE TOWER WITH THE SPLIT SCREEN AND THE OTHER SPLIT SCREENS USED WERE SPECTACULAR ...ALSO THE MUSIC SCORE THROUGH OUT THE MOVIE IS INCREDIBLE...LOVE GEORGE KENNEDY,DEAN MARTIN AND HELEN HAYES...ORIGINALLY I SAW THE MOVIE IN THE DRIVE-IN BACK IN THE DAY AND I NEW THEN IT WAS SOMETHING SPECIAL...THE MOVIES TODAY I PIC APART THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE FOR ITS SHEAR STUPIDITY OF THE SCRIPT.AND THESE MOVIES SOME HOW BECOME AWARD WINNING BEST PICTURES...ARGO...PLEASE ...OF RECENT SLUMDOG MILLIONARE THE ONLY EXCEPTION.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

The obvious answer to the OP's question can be found in the movie's title. Some of the action takes place on the plane but the setting for the movie, in large part, is the airport. That's where most of the main characters are located and where most of the story unfolds. It makes sense that's where everything would end up.

There had to be an explanation for why the damaged plane would go back to the departure airport. Inclement weather was as good an explanation as any; it's something simple the audience could understand, relate to, and accept.

lessigvon says > ORIGINALLY I SAW THE MOVIE IN THE DRIVE-IN BACK IN THE DAY AND I NEW THEN IT WAS SOMETHING SPECIAL...THE MOVIES TODAY I PIC APART THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE FOR ITS SHEAR STUPIDITY OF THE SCRIPT.AND THESE MOVIES SOME HOW BECOME AWARD WINNING BEST PICTURES...ARGO...PLEASE ...OF RECENT SLUMDOG MILLIONARE THE ONLY EXCEPTION.

I understand what you're saying but I think it's unfair to compare older movies with those being made today. Older movies tend to be straightforward and simple. These days, almost everything about the movie industry has changed.

Moviemakers have many more hurdles to overcome; a lot of competition from a variety of other sources, more demanding and diverse audiences, huge budgets that have to be recouped, or, in the case of Indie films, small budgets but the need to attract a lot of attention.

For these and other reasons, the movies being made these days tend to be more complex and/or are presented in more creative ways. Naturally, all audiences will not respond positively; especially those that aren't being targeted.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

You're right of course -- in terms of the movie, it only makes plot sense to have the plane land right back where it departed from.

But as several of us have said previously, the reason given in the film for Chicago is that all other airports before "Lincoln" are shut down because of bad weather (with only a remote possibility for Detroit that the Captain decides isn't worth the risk). And at Lincoln International, only runway 29 is viable for a landing of this aircraft. So there really is no mystery regarding the OP's question.

To your comment mdonin,

For these and other reasons, the movies being made these days tend to be more complex and/or are presented in more creative ways.

I strongly dispute this. Sure, the movie business has changed since 1970 -- as it had many times before then and has continued to do, and will go on doing. It does have to make more money than before, even relative to inflation. But whether films today are "more complex" or "creative" is highly debatable. In fact, most films today cater to a much lower common denominator than major films once did, precisely because they need to recoup much more money than they once did. This is why today most films rely either mostly on visuals at the expense of actual story-telling, or have fairly simplistic tales whose points are entirely predictable and unremarkable. Few films today actually utilize dialogue, character exploration, or any hint of true sophistication or nuance as so many films once did. An over-reliance on technology has replaced story, language and plot to get by.

This is simple fact. It isn't a judgment that all modern films are bad and all old ones good, but the business has moved away from the complex characters and plots that were once much more common and instead toward more basic, uncomplicated fare that throws stuff at the audience without truly involving them, emotionally or intellectually. This is a generalization, of course, but essentially an accurate one.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

I think we're pretty much in agreement regarding the modern-day movies. When I say complex and creative it's not necessarily a good thing; it may be but not always. Audiences expect more, so they have to be given more; especially since the big movies that have built-in fans and followers. It's all about the experience often at the expense of the overall story.

I don't see many big blockbuster type movies for the exact reasons you mentioned. I tend to watch a lot of older movies usually pre-sixties, but when I do see them, usually the plot itself may be thin but the telling of the story weaves in and out, they travel from point a to point b then back again. Things are blown up, there are crashes, there are chases, etc. There's a lot going on in the story - even if at the end you're left wondering what was the point of all that.

As far as presenting them creatively, even you have to agree that visually these movies can be stunning. They're way beyond anything you'd see in older movies. There are entire companies devoted to just special effects and a few scenes will take months to perfect. The creativity is not lacking.

In this particular movie, Airport, you only need to imagine how different it would be if the exact movie was made but according to current standards. The look would be completely different, the explosion would be bigger, the injuries more vivid, there would be more to it.

I only saw the last half of the movie so I don't know what I missed but I'm sure the characters would have deeper back stories and so much more would be going on. There might be the one bomber but many other suspects; the speed at which he was identified and confronted would not be the same. There would have to be a lot of profilers involved and a few false positives, twists and turns. Part of it is because the times are different like the airport screening process, assigned seats, preboarding ID checks, etc. but even if those things hadn't changed that's how the movies work these days. They're more complex, complicated and the creativity involved is be greater. I stand by that.

In a newer version, we'd probably also see all the other snowed in airports that were just mentioned in the 1970 version and there may be an attempt to land somewhere else first, etc., etc., etc.

[–] nutsberryfarm 10 years ago

for the deep dish pizza.

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴