Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
chidino wrote:And then I read forward to page 9: (I wish I could post it, but it's one huge xeroxed file) Intl pax will ascend to a third-floor corridor network that includes APC kiosks that lead to escalators that descend down to a sterile tunnel that leads to escalators that connect to the OGT (global terminal) CPB arrivals hall. There's no allocation for anything other than APC kiosks, no inspection area; obviously there's going to have to be some temp facility in place while we wait for OGT/new T2.
ZBA2CGX wrote:The problem with the ATS, is that there is no direct path from the baggage claim to the ATS Station. If you have multiple bags/kids it is not a fun time moving getting from baggage claim through multiple escalators / elevators (which are too small for more than 2 families with bags) to the ATS then to the rental car / remote lots.
The way finding is not that great and would be pretty easy to get lost or frustrated. For me, I've given up parking in the remote lot because it is usually cheaper to take an uber than to drive. Also, the though of moving all the luggage & kids is daunting.
Suggestions
As part of the terminal redo coming up, make a direct link to the ATS from the baggage claim & exit. Ideally, use ramps and make the elevators bigger/faster. Improve the way to the ATS with clear signs (From ORD T1-C to ATS is a convoluted mess).
ZBA2CGX wrote:The problem with the ATS, is that there is no direct path from the baggage claim to the ATS Station. If you have multiple bags/kids it is not a fun time moving getting from baggage claim through multiple escalators / elevators (which are too small for more than 2 families with bags) to the ATS then to the rental car / remote lots.
The way finding is not that great and would be pretty easy to get lost or frustrated. For me, I've given up parking in the remote lot because it is usually cheaper to take an uber than to drive. Also, the though of moving all the luggage & kids is daunting.
Suggestions
As part of the terminal redo coming up, make a direct link to the ATS from the baggage claim & exit. Ideally, use ramps and make the elevators bigger/faster. Improve the way to the ATS with clear signs (From ORD T1-C to ATS is a convoluted mess).
chidino wrote:Something seemingly unimportant that I'm becoming somewhat fascinated about is the tunnel to the new satellites. That can't be some small ditch.
chidino wrote:Something seemingly unimportant that I'm becoming somewhat fascinated about is the tunnel to the new satellites. That can't be some small ditch. Allowance for an APM, which wouldn't be installed til Phase II but they have to plan for; somehow the APM has to keep secure passengers separate with their own corridor. (Satellite 2 is domestic/precleared only, but additional int'l gates can always be added to Phase II.) Also, the stations, which are to be installed and listed as the basements, are desired to have "natural daylight into the APM station platform", which will be a neat trick if the architects figure it out.
So, in the tunnel: two APM guideways and emergency access; a separate secure corridor with walkways in both directions and a physical aisle for hoofers/APM failures (for some reason, width not specified but it will take up "approximately 55,300 sq ft"); a main passenger corridor with twin walkways in both directions and ground space ("approx.170,000 sq ft"); baggage tug/system tunnel, not less than 26' wide and 16' high; a separate baggage conveyor tunnel only as far as Satellite 1 that's another 21' x 16'; separate dry and wet utility tunnels and separate fireproof emergency egress tunnels.
Another "small" thing holding construction up is the central basin elimination and south basin expansion. I can clearly see how that has to proceed immediately; what I don't have the knowledge for is how much can go on at one time without screwing up operations. But basin, tunnel, then we start to see something above ground is how it seems to read to me.
ADrum23 wrote:
I don’t understand why they just can’t install the people mover now and simply extend it when Phase II is built.
chidino wrote:ADrum23 wrote:
I don’t understand why they just can’t install the people mover now and simply extend it when Phase II is built.
I agree. The new concourses are wider and also spaced further apart than B & C; plus the tunnel comes in at the north end of Sat 2 (and the middle of Sat 3 & 4); given the dimensions, it's likely that, if you're like me, you will still be facing a 1500 ft walk to the gate! My very rough guesstimate is that Sat 1 will be about 40% further west than C currently ends; now double that distance to Sat 2. They're going to need it fairly quickly.
ADrum23 wrote:Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?
ADrum23 wrote:Exactly. CVG has a people mover for a much shorter distance. They really should just install it now.
nomorerjs wrote:Now the illustrations of T5 seem to have too many international gates, but that can easily be adjusted. SkyTeam: DL / AF / AM / AZ (seasonal if they survive), KE, MU, plus non-affiliated.
United787 wrote:nomorerjs wrote:Now the illustrations of T5 seem to have too many international gates, but that can easily be adjusted. SkyTeam: DL / AF / AM / AZ (seasonal if they survive), KE, MU, plus non-affiliated.
T5 won't be too many gates if they plan to put the One World and Star Alliance "non-core" partners over there, TK, LO, AY, QR etc! All documents so far seem to point in that direction including the diagrams showing the quantities of widebodies at T2 vs T5, I really hope not... I think it would be a huge mistake to not put all of the airlines for the two alliance at T2.
chidino wrote:...the intention is all Star and oneworld partners exchange with each other at T2/satellites. Even non-affiliated but cooperating, like AS and AA...
yeogeo wrote:
Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.
chidino wrote:yeogeo wrote:
Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.
They heard you. That's exactly the point; even SkyTeam will have that ability in T5. Delta was a big participant in the signing, their VP/Facilities, Wayne Aaron, said in the city's puff piece, "We are excited about the opportunity to move to Terminal 5, where colocating with our Sky team Partners in a modern and spacious facility will improve our ability to connect passengers." FWIW (I'm sure this is incredibly obvious to most), but the feedback was that originally DL had no choice because of blowback from their frequent fliers unable to get to ORD w/o hubbing, but now they think they can leverage their int'l partners into a reasonable level of service, dictated by the incoming connections and their big $$ frequents. Makes sense.
In other words, if your airline switches alliances, it will switch terminals at the new O'Hare...
yeogeo wrote:chidino wrote:...the intention is all Star and oneworld partners exchange with each other at T2/satellites. Even non-affiliated but cooperating, like AS and AA...
Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.
yeogeo wrote:Elon Musk's developing hyperloop project, linking O'Hare to downtown, has raised more than 110 million (mostly his own $)
http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/apr/ ... hyperloop/
"Musk earlier sold Boring Co (not a typo) hats and flamethrowers to raise funds. The company says tunnel-digging projects can cost as much as $1 billion per mile, but its goal is to lower these costs by a factor of 10 or more."
globalcabotage wrote:There have been “discussions” of HA at ORD, but I’m hearing AA is more likely, but not anytime soon.
Now that ET and NZ have announced service, getting QF as well as service to ATH, BOG (will happen), EZE, GYE/UIO, LIM, LIS, MXP, OSL, and TLV are top priorities.
United787 wrote:yeogeo wrote:Elon Musk's developing hyperloop project, linking O'Hare to downtown, has raised more than 110 million (mostly his own $)
http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/apr/ ... hyperloop/
"Musk earlier sold Boring Co (not a typo) hats and flamethrowers to raise funds. The company says tunnel-digging projects can cost as much as $1 billion per mile, but its goal is to lower these costs by a factor of 10 or more."
He is still one of two finalists, correct? No decision yet.
ADrum23 wrote:1. Is this a serious proposal? I'm having a hard time taking this seriously (that goes for pretty much anything Mr. Musk says).
2. How in the heck are they going to build this without massive disruption and expensive costs?
3. What is the point of an express ORD-Loop train? Is the Blue Line not sufficient?
4. When would construction even start?
ADrum23 wrote:globalcabotage wrote:There have been “discussions” of HA at ORD, but I’m hearing AA is more likely, but not anytime soon.
Now that ET and NZ have announced service, getting QF as well as service to ATH, BOG (will happen), EZE, GYE/UIO, LIM, LIS, MXP, OSL, and TLV are top priorities.
Some routes mentioned such as ATH, BOG and EZE involve markets where the local economy can be volatile and so investments in those markets from ORD may not make sense. For AA and given how its management views things, ATH is best served out of PHL and BOG and EZE from MIA.
Why hasn't AA restarted at least seasonal ORD-HNL? That seems like a no-brainer.
With which aircraft? AA previously flew the route with 767s, but ORD is not really a 767 base anymore and the 788s seem like too much aircraft to fly on this route. AA would probably look for an extra 772 or 330 to fly ORD-HNL, but the question for management is whether that aircraft could be used more profitably elsewhere.
Of those foreign destinations you listed, TLV has to be the top priority of those. I still can't believe LY choose SFO when they already have TLV service on UA. Either LY or UA have to start ORD-TLV soon.
jcwr56 wrote:For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.
ORDfan wrote:Great conversation guys... every time I come on here now I learn something new about the ORD expansion. Still don't think I've wrapped my head around all the changes!
Just today, I noticed the expanded gate/lounge area at T5 in the updated renderings between gates M12 and M7. I'm guessing this is going to be some combination of lounges, retail, and general waiting area?
One minor potential quibble/concern is that I've always loved how the arrivals/passport control hall has a ton of natural light from the skylight windows...I hope that new section betwen M11 and M8 doesn't crowd out all the light .
United787 wrote:jcwr56 wrote:For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.
I am interested! That is awesome news even though I rarely fly AA anymore.
But why is no one talking about this? Nothing on the CDA or AA websites! Nothing in the news anywhere. I think the CDA need to step up it's PR machine.
jcwr56 wrote:United787 wrote:jcwr56 wrote:For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.
I am interested! That is awesome news even though I rarely fly AA anymore.
But why is no one talking about this? Nothing on the CDA or AA websites! Nothing in the news anywhere. I think the CDA need to step up it's PR machine.
I have no clue, but regional's have been coming and going all day. L21 and L22 have been the two primarily ones used.
ORDfan wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:Airside - It ran from the low end of the C gates under E and over to the middle of F. A good idea in theory, as it's a long walk, but in practice it was faster to walk.Not obvious as the line for the shuttle got mixed in with nearby gates, and there was only one small floor sign..
Bummer! I would've loved to have taken that...must've been a really cool view of the apron from the bus.
ADrum23 wrote:Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?
Midway737 wrote:ADrum23 wrote:Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?
it should!! or two.
chidino wrote:Midway737 wrote:ADrum23 wrote:Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?
it should!! or two.
One in Satellite 1, one in OGT/new T2, and existing M11a in T5. Technically, they're common-use (as are all gates as of May 12, 2018) but they line up as Star's in Sat 1/long Concourse C, oneworld's in OGT/new T2 and SkyTeam/unaffiliateds T5. This specific quantity and layout is actually a deal-breaker in that no more are allowed without everyone's lease being torn up (fat chance), so between that and the likelihood of a sudden purchase of 380s by AA or UA, very doubtful we would see more Group VI gates for the 15-year term of the leases.
jcwr56 wrote:Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.
yeogeo wrote:jcwr56 wrote:Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.
Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:
Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar
Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.
CHI787ORD wrote:[Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.]
yeogeo wrote:jcwr56 wrote:Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.
Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:
Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar
Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.
ZBA2CGX wrote:I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.
ZBA2CGX wrote:CHI787ORD wrote:[Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.]
I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.
CHI787ORD wrote:ZBA2CGX wrote:CHI787ORD wrote:[Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.]
I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.
So you could have a BA and LH A380s unloading at the same time at T2, and an EK A380 unloading at T5 at the same time.
A KE flight would be at T5 and likely wouldn't overlap with EK based on the current timings.
EY, and QR A380s are probably unlikely to come to ORD. More likely we'd see 2x 777s. OZ has only recently started going daily to ORD and AF can't keep a 777 filled on the route.
So barring a new A380 airline starting service, or a sudden increase in demand for A380s by existing airlines, at most you'd have 3 A380s parked at gates at ORD at the same with 4 available gates so I doubt the hardstand would ever be used in the nearish future.
CHI787ORD wrote:CHI787ORD wrote:ZBA2CGX wrote:
I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.
yeogeo wrote:jcwr56 wrote:Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.
Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:
Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar
Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.
ADrum23 wrote:yeogeo wrote:jcwr56 wrote:Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.
Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:
Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar
Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.
Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.
Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?
jcwr56 wrote:ADrum23 wrote:yeogeo wrote:
Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:
Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar
Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.
Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.
Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?
Because I know and lets leave it at that.
CHI787ORD wrote:jcwr56 wrote:ADrum23 wrote:
Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.
Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?
Because I know and lets leave it at that.
EK.
And when the new T2 is built, LH.
ADrum23 wrote:Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.
Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?