Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
kordcj wrote:9C-27C started last year
https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html
kngkyle wrote:Large T1 expansion
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?
drdisque wrote:the gap between the furthest west two T1 concourses is huge - larger than the existing gap between B an C in T1
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.
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.
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.
FoxtrotSierra wrote: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...
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?
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.
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).
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.
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).
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...
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...
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...
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?