Welcome to the Chicago Aviation News master topic. The topic title will be periodically changed to reflect any major news. Quick links to the major news announcements can be found below.

[Sep 29]: 30 New Gates

Hi QF789 -

I noticed a few comments that were posted recently don't appear in the new link. Anyway you can share those to keep the most recent dialogue going?

ORDfan wrote:

Hi QF789 -

I noticed a few comments that were posted recently don't appear in the new link. Anyway you can share those to keep the most recent dialogue going?

Here are the recent discussion points

is El Al going to be launching ORD-TLV anytime soon?

Some really good year on year numbers coming out of ORD last month. International pax up almost 6% and cargo is on fire:

https://centreforaviation.com/news/chic ... fic-708649

I've also heard this rumored, but alas no official confirmation in hand. LY 787 look sleek...would love to them back at ORD.

All the more reason they need to get going on the terminal rebuild/expansion at ORD.

Can anyone else see WN resuming MDW-ISP service if Frontier does good on ORD-ISP service? To be honest, probably not, as WN already has 6 daily MDW-LGA flights.

WN doesn’t have much capacity at MDW and with the 733s going away, there are limited options.

ISP / SWF / others best bet is via ORD on UA or AA. They both seem to be targeting smaller markets (huge gate issue at ORD), but RJs can be “sneaked in” at limited times.

When there is one VERY large market in a state....isn't it better to separate it from the rest of the state?

But anyway...is B6 still trying to secure more gates @ ORD?

727LOVER wrote:

When there is one VERY large market in a state....isn't it better to separate it from the rest of the state?

But anyway...is B6 still trying to secure more gates @ ORD?

I believe the numerous attempts to have a Chicago thread have never panned out. For whatever reason, the Chicago airports aren’t as popular as everywhere else.

This is the first I’ve heard of B6 trying to secure more gates at ORD. I was under the impression that they struggle to make the markets they are flying work.

STAR ALLIANCE LAUNCHES “CONNECTION SERVICE” AT CHICAGO O’HARE

http://www.staralliance.com/en/news-art ... upId=20184

Seems like a great idea. I wonder if SA/United will also eventually follow American's lead and get an airside bus going as well. I think that would make this connection service even better.

No IL trolls to make this forum controversial. I guess Chicago is happy with ORD / MDW and is too drunk or too young to remember CGX.

kordcj wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

When there is one VERY large market in a state....isn't it better to separate it from the rest of the state?

But anyway...is B6 still trying to secure more gates @ ORD?

I believe the numerous attempts to have a Chicago thread have never panned out. For whatever reason, the Chicago airports aren’t as popular as everywhere else.

Probably because The Chicago airports seem pretty stagnant (relatively speaking) as far as growth. Yes, passenger traffic is increasing and new service comes from time to time, but nothing serious.

Now, when/if they ever get going on the ORD terminal rebuild/expansion, then there will be LOTS to talk about Chicago.

BTW, what is the status on the runway reconfiguration/reconstruction at ORD? Is it progressing as planned?

Runway reconfiguration is nearly complete. It has drastically changed the flows from 5-6 years ago. Now the only non East-West runway routinely used is 22L/4R (and that is primarily just used as an extra departure route for flights going south or east as 22L).

ADrum23 wrote:

Probably because The Chicago airports seem pretty stagnant (relatively speaking) as far as growth. Yes, passenger traffic is increasing and new service comes from time to time, but nothing serious.

Now, when/if they ever get going on the ORD terminal rebuild/expansion, then there will be LOTS to talk about Chicago.

BTW, what is the status on the runway reconfiguration/reconstruction at ORD? Is it progressing as planned?

Going to have to politely but vehemently disagree with you there. My guess is that it has to do with the fact that any time O'hare "makes the papers," it gets its own thread. More or less is true with Midway. Add in UA/AA/WN rebanking news, gate reshuffling, route/destination news, and voila... you have a plethora of dedicated Chicago-related threads popping up seemingly weekly or biweekly.

As for nothing serious on new service: have you not been watching the T5 roster of foreign flags adding service over the past 5 years? I would say ORD is in its golden era of international service. There are very few mature markets in the US seeing the kind of y-o-y growth ORD has been seening, period, let alone at a dual megahub and three-hub city.

There is plenty to talk about. A few months ago, the mayor's office unveiled some proposals for revamping T2 and adding Western gates. The T5 expansion has already been approved.



Also, checkout the thread by Globalcabotage about whats in store for ORD for next year already:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1370787&p=19733523&hilit=o%27hare+summer#p19733523

edit: typo

Once the new gates are open you will see a large increase in flights. Gates are slowly being added. T3 has 5 new E170 gates opening next year. T5 is adding 9 new gates which is huge for international (T5 is maxed out now at peak times).

This is 14 new gates in the next two years which should add at least 100 daily flights. I

It’s the long awaited remodeling / destruction of the main terminal complex that will determine the future. Gate leases are up at ORD next year, so movement will happen soon.

CDA has a new Commissioner that “gets it.” The runway plan will be done in 3 years, now it’s on to the gates. UA and AA want new gates, but they don’t want to pay for Frontier, Spirit, or Jet Blue’s expansion at ORD. DL wants a few more gates as well (LAX, BOS, RDU), but doesn’t want to subsidize anyone either.

ORD is targeting service to Argentina, Australia, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Greece, ISRAEL, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Africa (yeah, right).

ORDfan wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Also, checkout the thread by Globalcabotage about whats in store for ORD for next year already:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1370787&p=19733523&hilit=o%27hare+summer#p19733523

You speak as if those are more than just baseless rumors. I wouldn't get my hopes up for most of those.

Also agree that the thread title is a bit strange... sounds like a thread about Illinois State University.

ORDfan wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Probably because The Chicago airports seem pretty stagnant (relatively speaking) as far as growth. Yes, passenger traffic is increasing and new service comes from time to time, but nothing serious.

Now, when/if they ever get going on the ORD terminal rebuild/expansion, then there will be LOTS to talk about Chicago.

BTW, what is the status on the runway reconfiguration/reconstruction at ORD? Is it progressing as planned?

Going to have to politely but vehemently disagree with you there. My guess is that it has to do with the fact that any time O'hare "makes the papers," it gets its own thread. More or less is true with Midway. Add in UA/AA/WN rebanking news, gate reshuffling, route/destination news, and voila... you have a plethora of dedicated Chicago-related threads popping up seemingly weekly or biweekly.

As for nothing serious on new service: have you not been watching the T5 roster of foreign flags adding service over the past 5 years? I would say ORD is in its golden era of international service. There are very few mature markets in the US seeing the kind of y-o-y growth ORD has been seening, period, let alone at a dual megahub and three-hub city.

There is plenty to talk about. A few months ago, the mayor's office unveiled some proposals for revamping T2 and adding Western gates. The T5 expansion has already been approved.



Also, checkout the thread by Globalcabotage about whats in store for ORD for next year already:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1370787&p=19733523&hilit=o%27hare+summer#p19733523

edit: typo

Well, I am not seeing any new updates on the terminal rebuild/expansion (or the UA/AA lease renegotiation). What is going on there? That is why I posted what I did.

I like the right image above, where the Y shaped terminals are demolished in favor of new island concourses. Something along those lines needs to happen.

I am also not seeing any news on the groundbreaking of the Terminal 5 expansion. If it has been approved, what is going on there?

I've updated the thread title to be a little more representative of the actual discussion here.

In other news, ORD was ranked #1 in the Western Hemisphere for international & domestic connections per OAG. Topping Atlanta for #1 domestic and Toronto for #1 international.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... -in-the-us

kngkyle wrote:

You speak as if those are more than just baseless rumors. I wouldn't get my hopes up for most of those.

Also agree that the thread title is a bit strange... sounds like a thread about Illinois State University.

Well I meant the information at the top, more: the BA upgauging, the AF going to back to yearly, ORD-BUD etc...

Btw you beat me to the punch with the title change. Thanks!

kngkyle wrote:

In other news, ORD was ranked #1 in the Western Hemisphere for international & domestic connections per OAG. Topping Atlanta for #1 domestic and Toronto for #1 international.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... -in-the-us

This is truly fantastic news! Really just reaffirms the growth over the past several years I alluded too.

Ignore the trolls. This forum has turned into my airport vs. your airport.

There are many great posters here with knowledge, insight, and experience.

Unfortunately you take the good with the bad. Please ignore the few that spate hate, the moderators will address that, and let’s focus on meaning discussion! Don’t turn yourself into a troll (I’m guilty of that in the past and have finally grown up).

I am anxiously awaiting for news from ORD about the future of the terminals. Hopefully something big will be announced by the end of the year.

The only terminal construction that is happening for sure is the expansion to T3 Concourse L - 5 Gates. With the lack of information coming out about this project from the CDA and the media, I wouldn't believe it was happening except that I saw it with my own eyes from I-190. Does anyone have any recent photos of this project? I did see a completion date by 2nd Quarter of 2018, source at bottom.

From my understanding, the T5 expansion is still in the future - 9 Gates. There may be architectural/engineering work happening and/or some preliminary infrastructure preparation or demolition but still no concrete news. The same source said completion date 1st Quarter 2020 but completion dates are worthless without start dates.

The Consolidated Rental Car Facility and ATS Expansion is still under construction with the completion date on 10/31/2018. Even though I will never make use of this facility (I live in Chicago), I look forward to the rental car vans disappearing from the arrivals road. According to the source below, most of the hotels will now drop off at this facility also. I assume the City will be making the Rosemont hotels drop there and the Chicago hotels drop at the terminals... just a guess.

I wish they would extend the ATS into Rosemont and make a full loop to the Casino, Theater, Outlets, Convention Center and the hotels. Unfortunately, the City would never pay for this since it would only benefit Rosemont. Rosemont on the other hand could afford it and would benefit greatly from it. This is probably better for another thread.

The source below also says the 8th runway is scheduled to be completed at the end of 2018. I assume they mean 9C/27C. I didn't think that was under construction yet and the runways seemed to be taking 2+ years to build each...

http://www.journal-topics.com/news/arti ... 819b8.html

9C-27C started last year
https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html

kordcj wrote:

9C-27C started last year
https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html

Thank you!

14R/32L will be removed in 2019
9C/27C will be completed in 2020
The extension of 9R/27L will be in completed in 2021
That should complete the runway project... the most ambitious and comprehensive runway project in the US since DEN was built!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-met-01 ... story.html

News on the terminal front: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ort-revamp

The headlines:
20% increase in gates, to 215 from 185
Plan submit to FAA earlier this year
United, American, and the city in agreement
10-year construction plan
New T2 to be the international terminal for Star Alliance and Oneworld
T5 for SkyTeam, unaffiliated, and LCCs
Large T1 expansion




Also, in an effort to keep this topic going (when many prior have failed), I will updated the topic title any time there is major news so that those who don't regularly check here will still be made aware of the news.

kngkyle wrote:

Large T1 expansion

99% of this look perfect for enhanced capacity and the ability to expand without disrupting too much of the existing operation.

However, the connecting (east-west) link between the two new T1 concourses defeats the whole purpose of allowing for flow-thru traffic from either side of the gates. (like ATL, DEN and the existing ORD T-1) Creating the "box canyon" gate scenario like ORD T3 and LAX seems counter productive for a hub airport where you've got hundreds of planes doing turns at the same time with relatively low ground times compared to large Int'l airports where ground times are 2-3 hours or more.

If the connecting link is actually underground and the diagram just doesn't show it, then I'm in the 100% "like" category. When 4L eventually gets removed, there's a lot of natural space available to lengthen the far west concourse as necessary.

It is going to be a hike from T1 ticket counters to those western gates.

Awesome news! Congrats to UA, AA and the City on coming together on a deal like this, I knew it was going to happen.

Thank you kngkyle for keeping this thread going!

the gap between the furthest west two T1 concourses is huge - larger than the existing gap between B an C in T1 and I imagine most of the ops there will be RJ's, so I don't imagine a huge traffic flow problem. The only limitation is that all traffic will have to exit south, but there should be enough room that each side of the alley should have an in lane and an out lane.

I'm assuming those two new remote concourses south of T2 are part of T2- perhaps narrowbody gates. Can we estimate at this stage how many gates there will be at the new international T2?

CHI787ORD wrote:

I'm assuming those two new remote concourses south of T2 are part of T2- perhaps narrowbody gates. Can we estimate at this stage how many gates there will be at the new international T2?

Those aren't remote concourses but rather new taxiways.

drdisque wrote:

the gap between the furthest west two T1 concourses is huge - larger than the existing gap between B an C in T1

The larger gap is necessary. Currently, nothing larger than a 767 can park in the B gates (except for B17/18) and the C-odd gates. If the Star and OW alliance carriers bring their 77W, A346 and 78Js into T2 while UA has 77W and 78Js in the new "C" concourse, they're going to need every bit of that space. When T1 was built in the 80's the most common large plane UA used was the DC10 and they fit perfect in most of the C and B gates. The occasional 747 parked at C10-C18. A DC10 is 172' long. A 77W is 242' long.

I see the new concourses being used almost exclusively for UA mainline. The RJs will probably be concentrated on the upper C gates where the concourse is narrow and easily congested. I'm sure that the new concourses will be much wider, like DEN, which is much more appropriate for the larger planes.

As a controller I can attest that any box canyon gate setup is less than ideal.

jetblastdubai wrote:

drdisque wrote:

the gap between the furthest west two T1 concourses is huge - larger than the existing gap between B an C in T1

The larger gap is necessary. Currently, nothing larger than a 767 can park in the B gates (except for B17/18) and the C-odd gates. If the Star and OW alliance carriers bring their 77W, A346 and 78Js into T2 while UA has 77W and 78Js in the new "C" concourse, they're going to need every bit of that space. When T1 was built in the 80's the most common large plane UA used was the DC10 and they fit perfect in most of the C and B gates. The occasional 747 parked at C10-C18. A DC10 is 172' long. A 77W is 242' long.

I see the new concourses being used almost exclusively for UA mainline. The RJs will probably be concentrated on the upper C gates where the concourse is narrow and easily congested. I'm sure that the new concourses will be much wider, like DEN, which is much more appropriate for the larger planes.

As a controller I can attest that any box canyon gate setup is less than ideal.

And don't forget BA A380 starting this May, and I'm assuming by then LH A380.

How can all of that extra concourse space in T1, only add an extra 30 gates? Especially if the expansion of T5 and concourse L counts towards that 30. I get that T2 probably won't have as many gates as it currently does, but that Western expansion of T1 looks to be a lot larger than T2 ever was.

ual763 wrote:

How can all of that extra concourse space in T1, only add an extra 30 gates? Especially if the expansion of T5 and concourse L counts towards that 30. I get that T2 probably won't have as many gates as it currently does, but that Western expansion of T1 looks to be a lot larger than T2 ever was.

Terminal 2 has 43 RJ gates that will be replaced with probably 15-20 widebody gates. That is a loss of up to 28 gates, so that is almost 60 more gates to be built. We know 9 will be at T5 and a few at T3. So the new T1 concourses will probably be 40-50 gates.

kngkyle wrote:

ual763 wrote:

How can all of that extra concourse space in T1, only add an extra 30 gates? Especially if the expansion of T5 and concourse L counts towards that 30. I get that T2 probably won't have as many gates as it currently does, but that Western expansion of T1 looks to be a lot larger than T2 ever was.

Terminal 2 has 43 RJ gates that will be replaced with probably 15-20 widebody gates. That is a loss of up to 28 gates, so that is almost 60 more gates to be built. We know 9 will be at T5 and a few at T3. So the new T1 concourses will probably be 40-50 gates.

Makes sense. Looking at the diagram though, it seems as if American will get a lot less out of this deal than United and Delta. I'm assuming the T5 gates will, for most of them at least, be downsized in order to add quantity. I only say this, because Delta pretty much only operates narrowbodies to ORD, yet most gates in T5 are meant for widebodies. Obviously, a number of them will probably be kept as Heavy gates to accommodate Air France and KLM and the other Skyteam carriers.

Once you add up all the gates United is losing to make this work it quite a few. Based on the rendering they will lose B1-3, C1-3, E - All (9) & F - All (26). So you need to replace 41 gates before you have any gains. Assuming the new plan if for United to have 60 new / replaced gates it would probably end up being 40 Regional and 20 a combination of WB / NB. I am assuming Air Canada will move into T1. This all seems logical and reuses as many current facilities as possible.

Does the international Terminal 2 have enough gates? T5 is at capacity most week days in the afternoon.

AA comes out winning on this because the can take over L when Frontier, Spirit and Jet Blue move to 5.

So in the end UA & AA gains will be about the same along with limiting too many new gates for the LCCs.

I guess the first step would have to be the C expansion otherwise you have no place to move those operations to rebuilt T2.

All very interesting.

I am taking the over on 10 years before this is completed.

This is gonna be interesting... I wonder if they are doing a general remodernization of the interiors of the existing terminals, maybe opening up T3 since it’s not changing much. It will be very interesting in 10 years to see what comes out of this.

I wonder if DL has any interest into making ORD into a hub...

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

I wonder if DL has any interest into making ORD into a hub...

Clearly there won’t be gate space for that nor would AA and UA agree to make space. Further, why would DL do that when it has two fortress hubs nearby? Makes no sense.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

I wonder if DL has any interest into making ORD into a hub...

No, no, no...

ORD, like former DL hub at DFW, will be a large “spoke.” ORD is between DTW and MSP, no reason for a hub, let alone a focus city, with AA and UA owning ORD and WN owning that MDW thing.

ORD has huge O&D and many corporate contracts. Sure, DL likes that, but flights to their hubs and focus cities is more than enough. Heck, Sky can’t make ORD-LHR work. Add flights to LAX, BOS, and RDU, and DL has a nice 70 day flight “spoke.”

Well this is exciting news for my most favourite place on earth.

Could a longer term plan be to eventually destroy the C concourse and extend the add-on northward for future expansion? That gets rid of the “box”. If you look at the gap between present day B and the C add-on, they are almost identical in width. It would allow traffic flow North to south between the 2 concourses after removing the E-W portion of course.

If the city has submitted this plan to the FAA, does that mean that the airlines are already on board? I really hope they get rid of the “everyone on board” clause about airport projects, that has hampered growth at the field more than anything else imo.

Edit: fixed typos

Eh, is that really the best they can do? I mean, it doesn't seem like much. It's mostly expanding the existing facilities rather than doing a full demolition and rebuild/reconfiguration (which is needed badly). I would have liked more island concourses. Plus, where is the western access?

ADrum23 wrote:

Eh, is that really the best they can do? I mean, it doesn't seem like much. It's mostly expanding the existing facilities rather than doing a full demolition and rebuild/reconfiguration (which is needed badly). I would have liked more island concourses. Plus, where is the western access?

This proposal is entirely realistic and not idealistic. Western access was a political ploy and never meant to actually happen. A full rebuild and reconfiguration is not needed badly at all. In today's presentation they mentioned that all of T1 needs a new roof which is no small feat. What remains of the existing complex will probably be nearly entirely gutted and remodeled as part of a 15 year plan.

kngkyle wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Eh, is that really the best they can do? I mean, it doesn't seem like much. It's mostly expanding the existing facilities rather than doing a full demolition and rebuild/reconfiguration (which is needed badly). I would have liked more island concourses. Plus, where is the western access?

This proposal is entirely realistic and not idealistic. Western access was a political ploy and never meant to actually happen. A full rebuild and reconfiguration is not needed badly at all. In today's presentation they mentioned that all of T1 needs a new roof which is no small feat. What remains of the existing complex will probably be nearly entirely gutted and remodeled as part of a 15 year plan.

I wasn't talking about the western terminal, I was just talking about western access to the airport from the new IL-390 tollway. That is sorely needed regardless of what anyone may say. Even if they just put in a parking garage/drop off area where people can then catch a people mover to the terminals, it would be nice.

As far as the terminals go, I agree with the proposal to demolish the extremely outdated Terminal 2 and replace it with a new international terminal for UA/AA and their respective alliances, and I love the idea of adding gates to Terminal 5 and converting it to a mixed domestic/international terminal for non-UA/AA carriers. However, I don't think its enough. I would have simply demolished the existing Terminal 2 and United Concourse C and built several large island concourses to the west. Plus, where are the new AA gates? This plan seems this is heavily tilted in favor of United (yes, I know UA is the biggest carrier, but AA's operation is no small potatoes and they should have some redesign of their terminal areas).

ADrum23 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Eh, is that really the best they can do? I mean, it doesn't seem like much. It's mostly expanding the existing facilities rather than doing a full demolition and rebuild/reconfiguration (which is needed badly). I would have liked more island concourses. Plus, where is the western access?

This proposal is entirely realistic and not idealistic. Western access was a political ploy and never meant to actually happen. A full rebuild and reconfiguration is not needed badly at all. In today's presentation they mentioned that all of T1 needs a new roof which is no small feat. What remains of the existing complex will probably be nearly entirely gutted and remodeled as part of a 15 year plan.

I wasn't talking about the western terminal, I was just talking about western access to the airport from the new IL-390 tollway. That is sorely needed regardless of what anyone may say. Even if they just put in a parking garage/drop off area where people can then catch a people mover to the terminals, it would be nice.

As far as the terminals go, I agree with the proposal to demolish the extremely outdated Terminal 2 and replace it with a new international terminal for UA/AA and their respective alliances, and I love the idea of adding gates to Terminal 5 and converting it to a mixed domestic/international terminal for non-UA/AA carriers. However, I don't think its enough. I would have simply demolished the existing Terminal 2 and United Concourse C and built several large island concourses to the west. Plus, where are the new AA gates? This plan seems this is heavily tilted in favor of United (yes, I know UA is the biggest carrier, but AA's operation is no small potatoes and they should have some redesign of their terminal areas).

UA will probably end up paying more. But AA does benefit as well from getting to kick DL, B6, VA, etc. to T5 and get T3 all to themselves. They might not get flashy brand new gates but they will get more gates, which they will probably renovate to be like-new anyway.

I think people are underestimating the capacity increases in this plan.

We are talking about demolishing 45 RJ gates and replacing them with 15-20 widebody gates and up to 60 narrowbody gates. I'm sure maybe 50% of those will end up being RJ gates but will UA want to build them out as just RJ gates or 737/A320 capable gates for future expansion? 60 gates is the equivalent of the main concourse of the McNamara Terminal at DTW.

kngkyle wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

This proposal is entirely realistic and not idealistic. Western access was a political ploy and never meant to actually happen. A full rebuild and reconfiguration is not needed badly at all. In today's presentation they mentioned that all of T1 needs a new roof which is no small feat. What remains of the existing complex will probably be nearly entirely gutted and remodeled as part of a 15 year plan.

I wasn't talking about the western terminal, I was just talking about western access to the airport from the new IL-390 tollway. That is sorely needed regardless of what anyone may say. Even if they just put in a parking garage/drop off area where people can then catch a people mover to the terminals, it would be nice.

As far as the terminals go, I agree with the proposal to demolish the extremely outdated Terminal 2 and replace it with a new international terminal for UA/AA and their respective alliances, and I love the idea of adding gates to Terminal 5 and converting it to a mixed domestic/international terminal for non-UA/AA carriers. However, I don't think its enough. I would have simply demolished the existing Terminal 2 and United Concourse C and built several large island concourses to the west. Plus, where are the new AA gates? This plan seems this is heavily tilted in favor of United (yes, I know UA is the biggest carrier, but AA's operation is no small potatoes and they should have some redesign of their terminal areas).

UA will probably end up paying more. But AA does benefit as well from getting to kick DL, B6, VA, etc. to T5 and get T3 all to themselves. They might not get flashy brand new gates but they will get more gates, which they will probably renovate to be like-new anyway.

I agree with this. It makes the most sense. Once the entirety or ORD is modernized they better have some tall ceilings and lots of windows... it’s a wonderful airport, just feels a little too closed in nowadays

A couple of things:

1) From reading the article, this plan seems to be a product of both the City and the Airlines... while not a final plan, it sounds as though everyone agrees to this in concept so that is why they submitted this to the FAA.

2) I think the discuss between who wins between UA and AA is useless at this point since we have no idea how the future gates will be allocated. I think both airlines will win here with better integration of their domestic and international operations as well as a more seemless operation with their partners.

3) I wonder if T2 will be strictly foreign carriers in *Alliance and One World or if they will allow other codeshare partners like EY...

ADrum23 wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Eh, is that really the best they can do? I mean, it doesn't seem like much. It's mostly expanding the existing facilities rather than doing a full demolition and rebuild/reconfiguration (which is needed badly). I would have liked more island concourses. Plus, where is the western access?

This proposal is entirely realistic and not idealistic. Western access was a political ploy and never meant to actually happen. A full rebuild and reconfiguration is not needed badly at all. In today's presentation they mentioned that all of T1 needs a new roof which is no small feat. What remains of the existing complex will probably be nearly entirely gutted and remodeled as part of a 15 year plan.

I wasn't talking about the western terminal, I was just talking about western access to the airport from the new IL-390 tollway. That is sorely needed regardless of what anyone may say. Even if they just put in a parking garage/drop off area where people can then catch a people mover to the terminals, it would be nice.

As far as the terminals go, I agree with the proposal to demolish the extremely outdated Terminal 2 and replace it with a new international terminal for UA/AA and their respective alliances, and I love the idea of adding gates to Terminal 5 and converting it to a mixed domestic/international terminal for non-UA/AA carriers. However, I don't think its enough. I would have simply demolished the existing Terminal 2 and United Concourse C and built several large island concourses to the west. Plus, where are the new AA gates? This plan seems this is heavily tilted in favor of United (yes, I know UA is the biggest carrier, but AA's operation is no small potatoes and they should have some redesign of their terminal areas).

The plan in the article does have Western Parking/Screening Facilities.

It doesn't say how it will be connected and the diagram doesn't show it. Not sure what that means exactly. I never quite understood how that would work... you check in a western terminal and take a train or something to your concourse... fine. But when you arrive, how does your bag know to goto the western terminal over the eastern terminals...

United787 wrote:

It doesn't say how it will be connected and the diagram doesn't show it. Not sure what that means exactly. I never quite understood how that would work... you check in a western terminal and take a train or something to your concourse... fine. But when you arrive, how does your bag know to goto the western terminal over the eastern terminals...

Hopefully, we will be seeing more final plans soon so these questions will be answered.

United787 wrote:

3) I wonder if T2 will be strictly foreign carriers in *Alliance and One World or if they will allow other codeshare partners like EY...

I dont see why not. It would free up more Terminal 5 gates for common useage.

United787 wrote:

It doesn't say how it will be connected and the diagram doesn't show it. Not sure what that means exactly. I never quite understood how that would work... you check in a western terminal and take a train or something to your concourse... fine. But when you arrive, how does your bag know to goto the western terminal over the eastern terminals...

That's a very valid point. The only thing I can think of, is if the check-in/baggage facilities along T1 will be dedicated solely to intl. departures/arrivals using T2, The current T2 check in/luggage area will probably be dominated by CBP. Maybe a Western screening area, would be solely for United domestic check-ins? Only downside to that, however, is then United domestic check-in would be pain to get to from downtown. So I honestly, have no idea how it'll work.

[threeid][/threeid]Why not just build a pre-security people mover (like they currently have) from a western entrance point that terminates where the current CTA "L" station is under the terminal? That way you could park on the western side or get dropped off, take the people mover (train, hyperloop, high speed sled, teleporter, etc) and check in at the existing counters and security checkpoints.

It would eliminate the need for airline specific baggage and check in facilities on the west side, and still provide "western access."