Chicago Aviation News - 2018

yeogeo · Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:51 pm

chidino wrote:
CHI787ORD wrote:
AA is also not clearly as invested in short term growth at ORD, especially as compared to UA. Maybe in the long term that would change, so a later redevelopment of T3 for them would make sense.

It's going to be incredibly outdated 30 years from now though- its already a bit dated with the narrow concourses.

Depending on growth, though, isn't AA's choice somewhat limited, since they don't get the APM into T3 without rebuilding it (obviously)? So if traffic gets to 101.5 mil and triggers Sats 3 & 4 and the APM, I wonder what would happen; AA isn't signed to anything beyond Phase I, and the T3 redevelopment is Phase II and clearly up to AA and the city (as T1 is with United and the city).

Just a couple of comments:
Keep in mind, even if T-3 complete renewal is decades away, there are improvements for American in the 10 year plan, ie AA and its international partners will co-inhabit the Global Terminal (structure replacing T-2 + Satellite 1), be able to increase their international flights and the partners will have direct & easy access to AA's domestic flights.

I'm wondering if both arrivals and departures will occur in the new structure. There could be a considerable gain in available gates in T-3 if so.

Finally, I believe the "APM" in the 10-year plan is a tunnel w. moving sidewalks; the 30-year sees the actual encapsulated people mover - anyone confirm? In any case, in the first phase this "artery" is shown to extend along side of the existing T-3 (see https://oharenoise.org/resources/presen ... -plan/file -page 6), so will be of use to AA before the T-3 revamp.

Planeboy17 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:01 am

yeogeo wrote:
In Enrilia's post this week he notes that United plans a considerable increase in ORD-ANC seats next Spring.

"Probably filing error
*UA ANC-ORD MAY 1.0>3[1.0] JUN 1.0>3[1.8]"

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1404043

I came up with the following schedules of nonstops, looking at the middle of the month in both May and June:

May 12-18, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sat only ORD 00:45 / ANC 04:34
AS 139 Sun/Tue/Fri/Sat ORD 09:55 / ANC 13:51
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:02
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:25
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

June 9-15, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sun/Mon/Fri/Sat ORD 00:35 / ANC 04:10
AS 139 daily ORD 09:50 / ANC 13:33
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:04
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:27
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

ANC-ORD flights are all redeyes, and all leave within a short time frame (earliest departure at 19:55 and the latest 20:40) and all arriving at O'Hare in the 04:00-06:00 range. Again, United daily on all flights but with Alaska offering no returns to O'Hare on Sun/Tues/Wed and doubling up on Sat.

In Enrilia's post some expressed skepticism that UA will actually implement all these flights and some suggesting it as a move to keep American from entering the race.... don't know about that but I thought it was interesting.

Tell me - have we ever experienced so many seats on this route before? Am I wrong in remembering that Northwest used to fly this route? ..with 747's probably

I’m just going off memory here but I think this certainly the most nonstops and probably the most seats.
I think your correct about NW back in the 70s and early 80s with a DC10 maybe? That was the only nonstop though until AS started in the late 90s.
Interestingly that was AS first flight into ORD. Not SEA or PDX.
The most flights I can remember was maybe 7-10 years ago with daily 737 on AS, daily 757 on both AA and UA.
Again, this just from memory so hopefully someone can look it up.

Fargo · Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:06 am

yeogeo wrote:
chidino wrote:
CHI787ORD wrote:
AA is also not clearly as invested in short term growth at ORD, especially as compared to UA. Maybe in the long term that would change, so a later redevelopment of T3 for them would make sense.

It's going to be incredibly outdated 30 years from now though- its already a bit dated with the narrow concourses.

Depending on growth, though, isn't AA's choice somewhat limited, since they don't get the APM into T3 without rebuilding it (obviously)? So if traffic gets to 101.5 mil and triggers Sats 3 & 4 and the APM, I wonder what would happen; AA isn't signed to anything beyond Phase I, and the T3 redevelopment is Phase II and clearly up to AA and the city (as T1 is with United and the city).

Just a couple of comments:
Keep in mind, even if T-3 complete renewal is decades away, there are improvements for American in the 10 year plan, ie AA and its international partners will co-inhabit the Global Terminal (structure replacing T-2 + Satellite 1), be able to increase their international flights and the partners will have direct & easy access to AA's domestic flights.

I'm wondering if both arrivals and departures will occur in the new structure. There could be a considerable gain in available gates in T-3 if so.

Finally, I believe the "APM" in the 10-year plan is a tunnel w. moving sidewalks; the 30-year sees the actual encapsulated people mover - anyone confirm? In any case, in the first phase this "artery" is shown to extend along side of the existing T-3 (see https://oharenoise.org/resources/presen ... -plan/file -page 6), so will be of use to AA before the T-3 revamp.

I wonder if ORD will phase out the Terminal 1, 2, 3, 5 designations once the whole 30 year plan is completed? They would simply go to naming the concourses letters like ATL?

chidino · Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:03 am

yeogeo wrote:
Finally, I believe the "APM" in the 10-year plan is a tunnel w. moving sidewalks; the 30-year sees the actual encapsulated people mover - anyone confirm? In any case, in the first phase this "artery" is shown to extend along side of the existing T-3 (see https://oharenoise.org/resources/presen ... -plan/file -page 6), so will be of use to AA before the T-3 revamp.

The APM "designation" in Phase I is mainly the route for the APM tunnel, separate (and unused) from the parallel pax tunnels (including a separate sterile tunnel to/from Sat 1 to accommodate int'l), utilities tunnels, and baggage tunnels, but all dug at the same time. The specs in the agreement for the APM (itself) state that T3 has to be rebuilt so that the station is in the basement of T3 (probably T3 expanded somewhat, but the station not behind it or anything -- that's a placement error on some of the maps I've seen) with the station ideally open to daylight/terminal above. Does any of that help? I figure they'll honor the letter of the agreement more than something someone put together for a PowerPoint presentation.

Big disclaimer: The way the agreement is worded, though, Phase II is supposed to trigger at 101.5 M, but the only signatures are to Phase I. As a result, T1 and T3 reconstructions as well as the APM are just plans right now.

chidino · Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:54 am

Fargo wrote:
I wonder if ORD will phase out the Terminal 1, 2, 3, 5 designations once the whole 30 year plan is completed? They would simply go to naming the concourses letters like ATL?

+1

Where do I vote? Not necessarily for letters vs numbers -- just renumber the place once everything is built so that no one gets asked where T4 is.

Also, referring to T3 and AA's plans: if things go well with their re-focusing (was that a sufficiently non-controversial word?) at ORD, and growth continues, then fine, and they rebuild T3 and get the APM and everybody gets rich. But what if they continue their current, um, cost-sensitive strategy? They'll still get a rather large re-configuration of their operations: not only do they pick up space in the OGT but whatever replaces G is all brand-new. So they end up with new facilities for all int'l and a lot of mainline, and shift RJs over to H/K where they work better anyway. Phase II or no, AA ends up with some new gates and a shift of its center of gravity to the west. (I'm absolutely spitballing here -- I don't have any pics or plans, no inside info.) But then the satellites end up being pretty much all UA long-term (after OGT and T5 complete).

Wrapping my head around that is proving to be a bit bigger than I assumed -- I'm sure it'll be easier once we start to see drawings. Please? Sketches? Rough concepts? Cocktail napkins?

MAH4546 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:07 am

yeogeo wrote:
In Enrilia's post this week he notes that United plans a considerable increase in ORD-ANC seats next Spring.

"Probably filing error
*UA ANC-ORD MAY 1.0>3[1.0] JUN 1.0>3[1.8]"

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1404043

I came up with the following schedules of nonstops, looking at the middle of the month in both May and June:

May 12-18, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sat only ORD 00:45 / ANC 04:34
AS 139 Sun/Tue/Fri/Sat ORD 09:55 / ANC 13:51
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:02
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:25
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

June 9-15, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sun/Mon/Fri/Sat ORD 00:35 / ANC 04:10
AS 139 daily ORD 09:50 / ANC 13:33
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:04
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:27
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

ANC-ORD flights are all redeyes, and all leave within a short time frame (earliest departure at 19:55 and the latest 20:40) and all arriving at O'Hare in the 04:00-06:00 range. Again, United daily on all flights but with Alaska offering no returns to O'Hare on Sun/Tues/Wed and doubling up on Sat.

In Enrilia's post some expressed skepticism that UA will actually implement all these flights and some suggesting it as a move to keep American from entering the race.... don't know about that but I thought it was interesting.

Tell me - have we ever experienced so many seats on this route before? Am I wrong in remembering that Northwest used to fly this route? ..with 747's probably

UA 1477/1280 is clearly a misfile. One will be removed soon.

jcwr56 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:13 pm

chidino wrote:
Fargo wrote:
I wonder if ORD will phase out the Terminal 1, 2, 3, 5 designations once the whole 30 year plan is completed? They would simply go to naming the concourses letters like ATL?

+1 Where do I vote? Not necessarily for letters vs numbers -- just renumber the place once everything is built so that no one gets asked where T4 is.

Also, referring to T3 and AA's plans: if things go well with their re-focusing (was that a sufficiently non-controversial word?) at ORD, and growth continues, then fine, and they rebuild T3 and get the APM and everybody gets rich. But what if they continue their current, um, cost-sensitive strategy? They'll still get a rather large re-configuration of their operations: not only do they pick up space in the OGT but whatever replaces G is all brand-new. So they end up with new facilities for all int'l and a lot of mainline, and shift RJs over to H/K where they work better anyway. Phase II or no, AA ends up with some new gates and a shift of its center of gravity to the west. (I'm absolutely spitballing here -- I don't have any pics or plans, no inside info.) But then the satellites end up being pretty much all UA long-term (after OGT and T5 complete).

Wrapping my head around that is proving to be a bit bigger than I assumed -- I'm sure it'll be easier once we start to see drawings. Please? Sketches? Rough concepts? Cocktail napkins?

and I'll throw this out there....The first reapportion of gates will take place in April 2021 and then yearly after that. Each preferential carrier will be allotted based on actual activity and turns per gate. If you look at it this way, now's the time to start ramping up flight schedules to maximize an airlines number. You could see UA/AA using T5 for operations itself as long as it doesn't impact common use for departures.

The way the ordinance is written, nothing is preventing any carrier from being accommodated on someones preferential gate if the demand exists.

It's not T1=UA, T3=AA or T5=Everyone else. It's simply Preferential, Domestic Common Use or International Common use airport wide.

SFOtoORD · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:26 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
In Enrilia's post this week he notes that United plans a considerable increase in ORD-ANC seats next Spring.

"Probably filing error
*UA ANC-ORD MAY 1.0>3[1.0] JUN 1.0>3[1.8]"

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1404043

I came up with the following schedules of nonstops, looking at the middle of the month in both May and June:

May 12-18, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sat only ORD 00:45 / ANC 04:34
AS 139 Sun/Tue/Fri/Sat ORD 09:55 / ANC 13:51
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:02
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:25
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

June 9-15, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sun/Mon/Fri/Sat ORD 00:35 / ANC 04:10
AS 139 daily ORD 09:50 / ANC 13:33
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:04
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:27
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

ANC-ORD flights are all redeyes, and all leave within a short time frame (earliest departure at 19:55 and the latest 20:40) and all arriving at O'Hare in the 04:00-06:00 range. Again, United daily on all flights but with Alaska offering no returns to O'Hare on Sun/Tues/Wed and doubling up on Sat.

In Enrilia's post some expressed skepticism that UA will actually implement all these flights and some suggesting it as a move to keep American from entering the race.... don't know about that but I thought it was interesting.

Tell me - have we ever experienced so many seats on this route before? Am I wrong in remembering that Northwest used to fly this route? ..with 747's probably

UA 1477/1280 is clearly a misfile. One will be removed soon.

Why? Solely based on the close timing. It shows for sale on their site.

yeogeo · Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:48 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
...The way the ordinance is written, nothing is preventing any carrier from being accommodated on someones preferential gate if the demand exists. It's not T1=UA, T3=AA or T5=Everyone else. It's simply Preferential, Domestic Common Use or International Common use airport wide.

Yikes! Trying to get my head around that.
Will be interesting to see how that all plays out.

kordcj · Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:40 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
and I'll throw this out there....The first reapportion of gates will take place in April 2021 and then yearly after that. Each preferential carrier will be allotted based on actual activity and turns per gate. If you look at it this way, now's the time to start ramping up flight schedules to maximize an airlines number. You could see UA/AA using T5 for operations itself as long as it doesn't impact common use for departures.

The way the ordinance is written, nothing is preventing any carrier from being accommodated on someones preferential gate if the demand exists.

It's not T1=UA, T3=AA or T5=Everyone else. It's simply Preferential, Domestic Common Use or International Common use airport wide.

Whoa so you’re saying that AA could and most likely will lose gates to whomever in 2021? How will the gate allocations be determined? I can already see the current non AA tenants of L pushing AA out, less their 5 new gates.

ORDfan · Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:50 pm

AmricanShamrok wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
Yesterday, I dropped off a relative at T5. I parked the car and walked across the bridge to the terminal, and I noticed something that I hadn't seen before: the board at the entrance of the bridge, with the airlines list servicing T5, noted that Lufthansa LH 437 to Munich departs from T5, unlike the other LH flights, which of course depart from T1.

Sure enough, Google and Flight Aware confirm this. When did this happen/change? Was it just this year? And is it going to be permanent? I'm also curious as to why: is it a gate availability issue at T1 around that time. Curious if anyone has any insight....

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH437

I’d be interested to know the reason for this too. LH have had a net decrease in aircraft movements since they pulled DUS-ORD so they must be getting a raw deal from UA if it’s a gate space issue at T1.

I'm not sure, is that right regarding LH?

I thought previously it was 4x daily as well: 1x DUS-ORD, 1x MUC-ORD, and 2x FRA-ORD.... whereas now its 2x MUC-ORD and 2x FRA-ORD, so net/net same # of movements...

MAH4546 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:16 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
In Enrilia's post this week he notes that United plans a considerable increase in ORD-ANC seats next Spring.

"Probably filing error
*UA ANC-ORD MAY 1.0>3[1.0] JUN 1.0>3[1.8]"

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1404043

I came up with the following schedules of nonstops, looking at the middle of the month in both May and June:

May 12-18, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sat only ORD 00:45 / ANC 04:34
AS 139 Sun/Tue/Fri/Sat ORD 09:55 / ANC 13:51
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:02
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:25
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

June 9-15, 2019 (all flights operate with 737's)

AS 135 Sun/Mon/Fri/Sat ORD 00:35 / ANC 04:10
AS 139 daily ORD 09:50 / ANC 13:33
UA 1475 daily ORD 10:19 / ANC 14:04
UA 1477 daily ORD 15:42 / ANC 19:27
UA 1280 daily ORD 15:50 / ANC 19:26

ANC-ORD flights are all redeyes, and all leave within a short time frame (earliest departure at 19:55 and the latest 20:40) and all arriving at O'Hare in the 04:00-06:00 range. Again, United daily on all flights but with Alaska offering no returns to O'Hare on Sun/Tues/Wed and doubling up on Sat.

In Enrilia's post some expressed skepticism that UA will actually implement all these flights and some suggesting it as a move to keep American from entering the race.... don't know about that but I thought it was interesting.

Tell me - have we ever experienced so many seats on this route before? Am I wrong in remembering that Northwest used to fly this route? ..with 747's probably

UA 1477/1280 is clearly a misfile. One will be removed soon.

Why? Solely based on the close timing. It shows for sale on their site.

Yes, based on the close timing and that the one that leaves first lands last. It's a misfile. This happens once in a while - airlines misfile flights and put both up for sale. It'll be corrected over the weekend most likely. Not the first time we've seen this, not the last.

jbs2886 · Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:32 pm

ORDfan wrote:
AmricanShamrok wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
Yesterday, I dropped off a relative at T5. I parked the car and walked across the bridge to the terminal, and I noticed something that I hadn't seen before: the board at the entrance of the bridge, with the airlines list servicing T5, noted that Lufthansa LH 437 to Munich departs from T5, unlike the other LH flights, which of course depart from T1.

Sure enough, Google and Flight Aware confirm this. When did this happen/change? Was it just this year? And is it going to be permanent? I'm also curious as to why: is it a gate availability issue at T1 around that time. Curious if anyone has any insight....

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH437

I’d be interested to know the reason for this too. LH have had a net decrease in aircraft movements since they pulled DUS-ORD so they must be getting a raw deal from UA if it’s a gate space issue at T1.

I'm not sure, is that right regarding LH?

I thought previously it was 4x daily as well: 1x DUS-ORD, 1x MUC-ORD, and 2x FRA-ORD.... whereas now its 2x MUC-ORD and 2x FRA-ORD, so net/net same # of movements...

The 2nd MUC flight is relatively new. There was a net decrease for a while.

yeogeo · Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:56 pm

MAH4546 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
MAH4546 wrote:

UA 1477/1280 is clearly a misfile. One will be removed soon.

Why? Solely based on the close timing. It shows for sale on their site.

Yes, based on the close timing and that the one that leaves first lands last. It's a misfile. This happens once in a while - airlines misfile flights and put both up for sale. It'll be corrected over the weekend most likely. Not the first time we've seen this, not the last.

You're right on all counts, MAH, 1477 is gone; down to two daily UA flights, ORD<>ANC.

Planeboy17 · Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:56 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
AmricanShamrok wrote:

I’d be interested to know the reason for this too. LH have had a net decrease in aircraft movements since they pulled DUS-ORD so they must be getting a raw deal from UA if it’s a gate space issue at T1.

I'm not sure, is that right regarding LH?

I thought previously it was 4x daily as well: 1x DUS-ORD, 1x MUC-ORD, and 2x FRA-ORD.... whereas now its 2x MUC-ORD and 2x FRA-ORD, so net/net same # of movements...

The 2nd MUC flight is relatively new. There was a net decrease for a while.

The 2nd flight only operates 3 times a week I believe.

ckfred · Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:02 pm

It looks like the new destinations AA is flying to Florida from ORD for spring break will be all Embrear 175s. I wonder what the weight restriction will be for Key West to ORD?

United787 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:13 pm

Interesting that all of AA's adds from ORD lately seem to be leisure destinations:

Europe: ATH
Caribbean: AUA, GCM, NAS, PLS
Hawaii: HNL
Florida: EYW, ECP, PNS, VPS

Some of these were overdue but AA seems to be looking more like US...

yeogeo · Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:29 pm

Anyone interesting in bidding for the continuing construction of 9C/27C and the rehabilitation 4L/22R?

Email out today from the Chicago Dept. of Aviation with bid package for ..."the construction of a portion of Runway 9C-27C, rehabilitation of Runway 4L-22R, associated Taxiways, and rehabilitation of the North Airfield Lighting Control Vault...

Pre-Bid Conference Location: Aviation Administration Building, 10510 W. Zemke Road, Chicago, IL 60666

Date:October 3, 2018 10:00 A.M., CST
Questions and Clarifications Due:October 10, 2018 5:00 P.M., Central Time
Bid Opening Date:November 20, 2018 11:00 A.M., CST @ Bid and Bond Room, City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle Street, Room 103, Chicago, 60602."

SurfandSnow · Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:48 pm

United787 wrote:
Interesting that all of AA's adds from ORD lately seem to be leisure destinations:

Europe: ATH
Caribbean: AUA, GCM, NAS, PLS
Hawaii: HNL
Florida: EYW, ECP, PNS, VPS

Some of these were overdue but AA seems to be looking more like US...

AA is adding ORD-SRQ as well. Then again, UA has been busy adding leisure destinations from ORD too. EYW and SUN spring to mind as some of their more recent additions. I'm not sure if BJX is more of a business, leisure or VFR destination but UA starts flying ORD-BJX next month. A few days later, UA starts nonstop service to BRO. That is certainly a new leisure destination from Chicago!

Sydscott · Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:24 am

United787 wrote:
Interesting that all of AA's adds from ORD lately seem to be leisure destinations:

Europe: ATH
Caribbean: AUA, GCM, NAS, PLS
Hawaii: HNL
Florida: EYW, ECP, PNS, VPS

Some of these were overdue but AA seems to be looking more like US...

I'm sure the thinking behind the strategy is that for AA they have all of their business destinations covered from ORD with the last major upgrade they did being the introduction of Shuttle service on ORD-LGA. Once you have your key business markets locked down, (and on the international front it's clear AA views this as LHR and that's about it), then it makes sense to expand to leisure destinations to expand loyalty in the local market. That appears to be what both AA and UA are doing with equal vigour it's just that UA has started from a bigger base being larger at ORD.

So all of AA's moves make sense in terms of building a very large, primarily domestically focused operation at ORD which is clearly where AA believes it optimises ORD's profitabilty along with LHR service and a raft of seasonal services. Everything else is being handed off to Partners of various types.

ORDfan · Wed Sep 26, 2018 3:51 pm

Planeboy17 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:

I'm not sure, is that right regarding LH?

I thought previously it was 4x daily as well: 1x DUS-ORD, 1x MUC-ORD, and 2x FRA-ORD.... whereas now its 2x MUC-ORD and 2x FRA-ORD, so net/net same # of movements...

The 2nd MUC flight is relatively new. There was a net decrease for a while.

The 2nd flight only operates 3 times a week I believe.

Ah thanks...yep think you're right.

Interestingly enough just browsing flights for next spring, and it looks like LH 437 moves to a 3:35pm departure. I didn't check the full LH timetable for next year, though...

Will be curious to see if it stays as at T5 or if that earlier slot moves it to T1.

ORDfan · Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:03 pm

ual763 wrote:
Well, this might actually have some fruit. In the O’hare 21 plan or whatever it was called, the end result (So once all the piers are open, 3 & 4) did show that the main hall of T3 would be widened and left in place, but without the pier concourses. So maybe, in the future AAL will occupy S3 & S4. I can only imagine then that the widened T3 hall will become an extension to the Global Terminal. I understand that the current piers will probably need to go, as they’re not conducive to widebodies, but I find it hard to imagine they wouldn’t have at least 1 big wide body pier. Makes you wonder if all that ramp space will be hardstands while the widened T3 hall has gates? If so, that would be quite disappointing to me.

Totally agree. I find it implausible that a new T3 wouldn't have at least one or two piers. Seems like it would be a big waste of space if not. In my opinion, I think something along the likes of a JFK terminal 4 (below) will be more likely.

As I said earlier, the 30 year plan has not been funded and it so far away, I have a hard time taking anything in it seriously or literally. Just look at how the original OMP has changed in 15 years. I don't doubt that eventually (whenever that is), T3 will be redone/remodeled/rebuilt or whatever, but I am not holding my breath that it will look like as the 30 year plan depicts, today.

ZBA2CGX · Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:46 pm

that appears to be JFK !

Planeboy17 · Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:56 pm

ZBA2CGX wrote:
that appears to be JFK !

Yes, did you read his post? He said T3 could adapt into something similar to T4 at JFK.

Fargo · Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:13 am

ORDfan wrote:
ual763 wrote:
Well, this might actually have some fruit. In the O’hare 21 plan or whatever it was called, the end result (So once all the piers are open, 3 & 4) did show that the main hall of T3 would be widened and left in place, but without the pier concourses. So maybe, in the future AAL will occupy S3 & S4. I can only imagine then that the widened T3 hall will become an extension to the Global Terminal. I understand that the current piers will probably need to go, as they’re not conducive to widebodies, but I find it hard to imagine they wouldn’t have at least 1 big wide body pier. Makes you wonder if all that ramp space will be hardstands while the widened T3 hall has gates? If so, that would be quite disappointing to me.

Totally agree. I find it implausible that a new T3 wouldn't have at least one or two piers. Seems like it would be a big waste of space if not. In my opinion, I think something along the likes of a JFK terminal 4 (below) will be more likely.

As I said earlier, the 30 year plan has not been funded and it so far away, I have a hard time taking anything in it seriously or literally. Just look at how the original OMP has changed in 15 years. I don't doubt that eventually (whenever that is), T3 will be redone/remodeled/rebuilt or whatever, but I am not holding my breath that it will look like as the 30 year plan depicts, today.

While you have a good point, keep in mind the terminal aspect of the OMP were just concepts and never were agreed upon by the airlines. This new plan, while not fully agreed upon by the airlines beyond Phase 1, nonetheless, is a little bit more final (at least according to the lease link Adrum23 left a while back).

Certainly things can and will change over the next 20-30 years, but I do believe it is ORD's desire is to go to an ATL style pier concourse layout with entrances on both ends and connected via a tunnel and APM. With ORD being a big connecting operation like it is, that layout is what makes the most sense long term.

According to the draft Phase 2 plans, the present day G will be redeveloped into an extension of the global terminal, but H, K and L will go and presumably be replaced by Satellite's 3 and 4. I agree there probably could be a second concourse where T3 currently stands in addition to the redeveloped G. Then again, maybe they want that space for RON parking?

Of course, we don't know for sure what will happen as planning for the next section won't begin until the 100,000,000 pax threshold is triggered, which honestly, is not terribly far away and is achievable within the next decade (ORD would be close now if UA/AA would upgauge more flying to mainline, but that's another conversation).

ORDfan · Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:10 pm

July traffic data released, with synopsis for ORD by CAPA below.

Overall traffic up 7% y-o-y at ORD, and international continues to shine! Cargo seems like its cooling off, but I think this is an indicator for global trade flows at the moment.

Midway struggling a little bit with traffic down 0.85% but I think the holidays could see it battle back to even if not slightly ahead.

Chicago O'Hare International Airport reported (26-Sep-2018) the following traffic highlights for Jul-2018:

Passengers: 8.1 million, +7.0% year-on-year;
Domestic: 6.7 million, +6.6%;
International: 1.4 million, +8.6%;
Cargo: 165,917 tonnes, -2.8%;
Freight: 144,684 tonnes, -2.9%;
Domestic: 30,259 tonnes, -2.1%;
International: 114,425 tonnes, -3.2%;
Express: 14,362 tonnes, -3.4%;
Mail: 6871 tonnes, +2.2%;
Aircraft movements: 82,054, +5.4%;
Domestic: 73,565, +5.7%;
International: 8489, +2.9%.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/chic ... 018-844186

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

chicawgo · Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:05 pm

ORDfan wrote:
July traffic data released, with synopsis for ORD by CAPA below.

Overall traffic up 7% y-o-y at ORD, and international continues to shine! Cargo seems like its cooling off, but I think this is an indicator for global trade flows at the moment.

Midway struggling a little bit with traffic down 0.85% but I think the holidays could see it battle back to even if not slightly ahead.

Chicago O'Hare International Airport reported (26-Sep-2018) the following traffic highlights for Jul-2018:

Passengers: 8.1 million, +7.0% year-on-year;
Domestic: 6.7 million, +6.6%;
International: 1.4 million, +8.6%;
Cargo: 165,917 tonnes, -2.8%;
Freight: 144,684 tonnes, -2.9%;
Domestic: 30,259 tonnes, -2.1%;
International: 114,425 tonnes, -3.2%;
Express: 14,362 tonnes, -3.4%;
Mail: 6871 tonnes, +2.2%;
Aircraft movements: 82,054, +5.4%;
Domestic: 73,565, +5.7%;
International: 8489, +2.9%.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/chic ... 018-844186

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Most interestingly, I think it's looking probable that ORD will overtake ATL on movements this year. I can't believe how much movements are up at ORD, especially with the upgauging.

Planeboy17 · Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:22 pm

chicawgo wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
July traffic data released, with synopsis for ORD by CAPA below.

Overall traffic up 7% y-o-y at ORD, and international continues to shine! Cargo seems like its cooling off, but I think this is an indicator for global trade flows at the moment.

Midway struggling a little bit with traffic down 0.85% but I think the holidays could see it battle back to even if not slightly ahead.

Chicago O'Hare International Airport reported (26-Sep-2018) the following traffic highlights for Jul-2018:

Passengers: 8.1 million, +7.0% year-on-year;
Domestic: 6.7 million, +6.6%;
International: 1.4 million, +8.6%;
Cargo: 165,917 tonnes, -2.8%;
Freight: 144,684 tonnes, -2.9%;
Domestic: 30,259 tonnes, -2.1%;
International: 114,425 tonnes, -3.2%;
Express: 14,362 tonnes, -3.4%;
Mail: 6871 tonnes, +2.2%;
Aircraft movements: 82,054, +5.4%;
Domestic: 73,565, +5.7%;
International: 8489, +2.9%.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/chic ... 018-844186

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Most interestingly, I think it's looking probable that ORD will overtake ATL on movements this year. I can't believe how much movements are up at ORD, especially with the upgauging.

Also interesting is that Intl ops are actually down slightly YOY yet pax numbers are higher YOY.

yeogeo · Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:03 am

This article...

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=84077721

... had me thinking about the effect the Amazon HQ2 coming to Chicago would have on O'Hare and Midway (even if it is far from a done deal).
The site they've been apparently checking out is just south and west of the south loop on the river off of Roosevelt, according to the article.

Clearly Midway would be the most convenient to the site, although both Chicago Airports would be impacted to some extent, should Amazon move in. The basic number of employees bantered about is 50,000.

Any thoughts if Chicago was chosen?

yeogeo · Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:05 am

yeogeo wrote:
This article...

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=84077721

... had me thinking about the effect the Amazon HQ2 coming to Chicago would have on O'Hare and Midway (even if it is far from a done deal).
The site they've been apparently checking out is in the south loop on the river off of Roosevelt, according to the article.

Clearly Midway would be the most convenient to the site, although both Chicago Airports would be impacted to some extent, should Amazon move in. The basic number of employees bantered about is 50,000.

Any thoughts if Chicago was chosen?

ual763 · Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:27 am

yeogeo wrote:
This article...

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=84077721

... had me thinking about the effect the Amazon HQ2 coming to Chicago would have on O'Hare and Midway (even if it is far from a done deal).
The site they've been apparently checking out is just south and west of the south loop on the river off of Roosevelt, according to the article.

Clearly Midway would be the most convenient to the site, although both Chicago Airports would be impacted to some extent, should Amazon move in. The basic number of employees bantered about is 50,000.

Any thoughts if Chicago was chosen?

Personally, I think it would mostly help O'hare, as the majors such as American/United are sure to win a contract with Amazon just based off of their Global route networks. However, that being said.... 50,000 employees is a lot of people, so Midway will more than likely get a portion of the traffic when these employees travel for personal reasons. Although, I would imagine Delta at MDW may also get some people from Amazon traveling for business. Wouldn't surprise me (if the south loop location is indeed chosen) to see Delta start a SEA-MDW flight.

I'm kind of surprised though, honestly, that they are not surveying sites out closer to O'hare. Access to a major airport was one of the key requirements and/or wishes they specified. For example, the site they are surveying out by me in Virginia currently, is literally right next to Dulles.

ORDfan · Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:24 pm

yeogeo wrote:
This article...

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=84077721

... had me thinking about the effect the Amazon HQ2 coming to Chicago would have on O'Hare and Midway (even if it is far from a done deal).
The site they've been apparently checking out is just south and west of the south loop on the river off of Roosevelt, according to the article.

Clearly Midway would be the most convenient to the site, although both Chicago Airports would be impacted to some extent, should Amazon move in. The basic number of employees bantered about is 50,000.

Any thoughts if Chicago was chosen?

There's been a few articles this weekend about the 2nd visit, and it seems like the focus was on the "78" neighborhood/ward South of Roosevelt. Personally, I think that site makes the most sense for them if they choose Chicago.

Sure air transportation/proximity to airports is an importation consideration for HQ2, but so is access to employee talent, university students etc. Lincoln Yards on the NW-side would be a commuter's nightmare with that many workers (I believe the alderman and LP residents are pushing to scale back the office component and focus on residential), and that location really kind of limits you to talent on the North-side of the city, whereas the 78 allows them to pull talent from all directions (North, West, South), even if it's not as convenient to getting to O'hare specifically. But it is particularly convenient for MDW.

Also, it seems like eventually downtown will get some sort of express train service to ORD, so a quick hop from 78 to downtown would be feasible.

chidino · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:31 pm

ORDfan wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
This article...

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=84077721

... had me thinking about the effect the Amazon HQ2 coming to Chicago would have on O'Hare and Midway (even if it is far from a done deal).
The site they've been apparently checking out is just south and west of the south loop on the river off of Roosevelt, according to the article.

Clearly Midway would be the most convenient to the site, although both Chicago Airports would be impacted to some extent, should Amazon move in. The basic number of employees bantered about is 50,000.

Any thoughts if Chicago was chosen?

There's been a few articles this weekend about the 2nd visit, and it seems like the focus was on the "78" neighborhood/ward South of Roosevelt. Personally, I think that site makes the most sense for them if they choose Chicago.

Sure air transportation/proximity to airports is an importation consideration for HQ2, but so is access to employee talent, university students etc. Lincoln Yards on the NW-side would be a commuter's nightmare with that many workers (I believe the alderman and LP residents are pushing to scale back the office component and focus on residential), and that location really kind of limits you to talent on the North-side of the city, whereas the 78 allows them to pull talent from all directions (North, West, South), even if it's not as convenient to getting to O'hare specifically. But it is particularly convenient for MDW.

Also, it seems like eventually downtown will get some sort of express train service to ORD, so a quick hop from 78 to downtown would be feasible.

I agree with ORDfan's assessment of Lincoln Yards: they are projecting 70-story towers bordering the Kennedy ("oh, we'll respect Lincoln Park by starting low on the east..." and ending up making the Kennedy an even worse scar, but I digress); most of the streets are two-lane with parking. Their solution: a new Clybourn Metra stop! Because, sure, that's like rapid transit. Whether it's the money east or the millennials (and money) west, I think that plan as presented is DOA and Amazon-type density won't be approved. And just who was going to occupy a 70-story building with no downtown around it? Also, I wonder if Amazon re-looked anywhere else and we just didn't hear about it. The thought of them starting off in the Post Office has a symmetry to it that really gets my sentimental side (sorry) and their had been (now-shelved, previous developer) plans for 6 million sq ft adjacent.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20110721/CRED03/110729952/skyscrapers-retail-part-of-massive-old-post-office-plan

I've been wondering about our various mayors' obsession with an express train (please hear me out). Many cities continue to function without a dedicated system; NYC would give their eye teeth for the L service we take for granted. The thing that tries my patience about the L to O'Hare isn't the 45 minutes, but the crowding and the stops and the kids and the millennials and the shopping bags and... What if they ran an Airport Express that only stopped selectively, charged more, had WiFi and USB charging and guaranteed single seat and safe place for your luggage, and an attendant (obviously)? I could use the time profitably that way, and have a predictable trip. Yeah, it'd be slooow, but it would be peaceful. Retrofit a few old 2600-series cars with better interiors, etc, and you have a service you could try for not a lot of money. (CTA's really limited: they can't even run the new 5000-series cars on the O'Hare line because the Milwaukee substation is so old -- not to mention they haven't spent a dime on the Congress branch's electrical. But that's a different board.)

hOMSaR · Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:56 pm

chidino wrote:
What if they ran an Airport Express that only stopped selectively, charged more, had WiFi and USB charging and guaranteed single seat and safe place for your luggage, and an attendant (obviously)?

Because doing so would make the crowding, stops, kids, millennials (really?), shopping bags, etc., worse on all the rest of the trains. A train slot that once had an 8-car train carrying 900-1000 people will now be carrying maybe a few dozen or so airport passengers, but still taking up the same track capacity as the local train.

chicawgo · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:11 pm

When they announced they're giving the express to Elon Musk underground tunnel thing, I immediately had the thought that Amazon could pay for them to build a stop if they wanted. The way that Musk's system is designed is that you could build branches wherever you wanted. A branch could be built off of the main tunnel and go directly to Lincoln Yards. Or it could extend from the downtown terminus to the 78. But it enables that modular capability that allows for infinite opportunities.

Also, I don't think having it at Lincoln Yards would preclude people South and West from working there. It's not THAT far north. I think we really just need to do the Circle Line. That would fix so many public transportation issues. Or at least extend the Brown Line from Kimball to Jefferson Park.

ZBA2CGX · Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:26 pm

chicawgo wrote:
Also, I don't think having it at Lincoln Yards would preclude people South and West from working there. It's not THAT far north. I think we really just need to do the Circle Line. That would fix so many public transportation issues. Or at least extend the Brown Line from Kimball to Jefferson Park.

The problem with Lincoln Yards, is the streets are only 2 lanes (a good thing), there is not a blue/red/brown line stop nearby and it is only served by 2 Metra Lines (UP-N & UP-NW).

I think a more downtown location would be better to grab a larger talent pool from all existing CTA and Metra Lines. Now if they ever get around to building the circle line, I think my opinion might change.

chicawgo · Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:28 pm

ZBA2CGX wrote:
chicawgo wrote:
Also, I don't think having it at Lincoln Yards would preclude people South and West from working there. It's not THAT far north. I think we really just need to do the Circle Line. That would fix so many public transportation issues. Or at least extend the Brown Line from Kimball to Jefferson Park.

The problem with Lincoln Yards, is the streets are only 2 lanes (a good thing), there is not a blue/red/brown line stop nearby and it is only served by 2 Metra Lines (UP-N & UP-NW).

I think a more downtown location would be better to grab a larger talent pool from all existing CTA and Metra Lines. Now if they ever get around to building the circle line, I think my opinion might change.

I would argue there is a brown line stop (and red line tracks) nearby. Armitage is 2000 feet from the site. Not the absolute most convenient but for up to 50K employees, there's a lot of creativity they could have (i.e. track spur to the site, shuttles on designated thruway, underground people mover, etc. I agree with you touting the Metra stop is nonsense.

FromGSPtoChi · Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:53 am

ZBA2CGX wrote:
chicawgo wrote:
Also, I don't think having it at Lincoln Yards would preclude people South and West from working there. It's not THAT far north. I think we really just need to do the Circle Line. That would fix so many public transportation issues. Or at least extend the Brown Line from Kimball to Jefferson Park.

The problem with Lincoln Yards, is the streets are only 2 lanes (a good thing), there is not a blue/red/brown line stop nearby and it is only served by 2 Metra Lines (UP-N & UP-NW).

I think a more downtown location would be better to grab a larger talent pool from all existing CTA and Metra Lines. Now if they ever get around to building the circle line, I think my opinion might change.

I live across the street from the 78. Once they add the red line stop and the Metra stop, the RI and SWS lines, it would have nice connectivity. They could consider the Clark Orange line stop mentioned in the Circle line proposal.

The only downside of the 78 is limited ingress/egress for auto traffic. Direct west access is blocked by the river and Metra maint yard. The east is blocked by Metra trains. Costly to go over or under. From the north you have Wells street.

chidino · Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:12 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
chidino wrote:
What if they ran an Airport Express that only stopped selectively, charged more, had WiFi and USB charging and guaranteed single seat and safe place for your luggage, and an attendant (obviously)?

Because doing so would make the crowding, stops, kids, millennials (really?), shopping bags, etc., worse on all the rest of the trains. A train slot that once had an 8-car train carrying 900-1000 people will now be carrying maybe a few dozen or so airport passengers, but still taking up the same track capacity as the local train.

Understood -- I would propose you run it 0900 - 1600 and see if there's a market, that's all. The rush hour overcrowding on that line needs more power and service, not interruptions.

hOMSaR · Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:47 pm

chidino wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
chidino wrote:
What if they ran an Airport Express that only stopped selectively, charged more, had WiFi and USB charging and guaranteed single seat and safe place for your luggage, and an attendant (obviously)?

Because doing so would make the crowding, stops, kids, millennials (really?), shopping bags, etc., worse on all the rest of the trains. A train slot that once had an 8-car train carrying 900-1000 people will now be carrying maybe a few dozen or so airport passengers, but still taking up the same track capacity as the local train.

Understood -- I would propose you run it 0900 - 1600 and see if there's a market, that's all. The rush hour overcrowding on that line needs more power and service, not interruptions.

The other issue is that there's no practical way to segregate those who have paid the premium fare you propose from those who just paid the $2.50/regular fare, given the lack of extra platform space.

Beyond that, your idea is more or less the stillborn "Airport Express" proposal that got as far as a hole in the ground and an empty shell of a station at State & Washington before it was thankfully killed 10 or so years ago. There were all sorts of unresolved operational problems with the idea then, and none of them have gotten any better in the intervening decade.

ORDfan · Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:26 pm

It's been awhile since I've been through MDW, but sounds like the MMP is progressing quickly. As some may know, they've completed the first phase of the concessions update, and are now working on the bridge and expanding security lanes. The final phase of food court/main hall remodel appears to be on track for completion by 2020.

According to the press, the first part of the new security pavilion will open mid-2019 and the full bridge expansion should be done by next winter.

So far, everthing looks to be on schedule at MDW. Glad to see CDA providing regular updates on this one.

https://www.flychicago.com/business/med ... ewsid=1499

https://www.flychicago.com/sites/midway ... -sheet.pdf

ORDfan · Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:30 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
chidino wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:

Because doing so would make the crowding, stops, kids, millennials (really?), shopping bags, etc., worse on all the rest of the trains. A train slot that once had an 8-car train carrying 900-1000 people will now be carrying maybe a few dozen or so airport passengers, but still taking up the same track capacity as the local train.

Understood -- I would propose you run it 0900 - 1600 and see if there's a market, that's all. The rush hour overcrowding on that line needs more power and service, not interruptions.

The other issue is that there's no practical way to segregate those who have paid the premium fare you propose from those who just paid the $2.50/regular fare, given the lack of extra platform space.

Beyond that, your idea is more or less the stillborn "Airport Express" proposal that got as far as a hole in the ground and an empty shell of a station at State & Washington before it was thankfully killed 10 or so years ago. There were all sorts of unresolved operational problems with the idea then, and none of them have gotten any better in the intervening decade.

Speaking of the "airport express," I'm curious to see what happens once Rahm leaves office. While I'd love to see the Boring version of the O'hare Express, I'm not sure the next mayor will have the same working relationships/boosterism of the project as Rahm. Not to mention, how much is the next mayor going to focus on the idea, overall?

yeogeo · Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:56 am

American 42 (ORD>VCE) had a little trouble last night - passenger emergency?
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 2#1e1d4839

Has me wondering what the procedure is when the aircraft is loaded for a trans-Atlantic flight and must return to the origin airport only a few minutes after takeoff - doesn't seem like they had time to jettison fuel. Would it not be overweight for landing?

Rl12383 · Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:39 pm

The American Airlines hangar 2 under construction at ORD recently had their new doors hung. Unfortunately they were not secured properly and were blown over last week. No one was hurt, but looks like the doors are a total loss. Big big mistake.

yeogeo · Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:09 pm

Looking at the history from the above link, the aircraft was in flight for 28 minutes by my calculation; surely not enough time to dump fuel. Maybe someone can clarify.

yeogeo · Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:05 pm

Here's the reason for AA42's brief flight last night:
https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/1 ... 7441941505

Drunken pax. Surprised they were boarded.
Took off again, minus some passenger(s), arrived in VCE 3 1/2 hours late.

elbandgeek · Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:35 pm

ORDfan wrote:
It's been awhile since I've been through MDW, but sounds like the MMP is progressing quickly. As some may know, they've completed the first phase of the concessions update, and are now working on the bridge and expanding security lanes. The final phase of food court/main hall remodel appears to be on track for completion by 2020.

According to the press, the first part of the new security pavilion will open mid-2019 and the full bridge expansion should be done by next winter.

So far, everthing looks to be on schedule at MDW. Glad to see CDA providing regular updates on this one.

https://www.flychicago.com/business/med ... ewsid=1499

https://www.flychicago.com/sites/midway ... -sheet.pdf

I was on vacation a couple weeks ago and was impressed with the progress that's being made. The new A food court is very nice and offers probably the best field view you can get except maybe the A4 satellite. When I left on the 21st the framework for the bridge was up but there was no floor and when I came back on the 26th there was floor so that can give you an idea of how quick they're working. The main terminal is a bit messy right now though since there are walls up just about everywhere in the northern half of the ticketing and baggage halls (where WN is and therefore the busier half) and half the central escalators are closed. Security seems to be hit or miss because I heard a few days beforehand it was backing up to the parking garage but when I went through I got through precheck pretty much in the time it took me to walk through. I think this week they started relocating some of the lanes and I have no idea how that is going.

EDIT: I just remembered I did get a pic of the new bridge from the old one so here you go.
http://i65.tinypic.com/4vivzo.jpg

muralir · Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:48 pm

ual763 wrote:
Personally, I think it would mostly help O'hare, as the majors such as American/United are sure to win a contract with Amazon just based off of their Global route networks. However, that being said.... 50,000 employees is a lot of people, so Midway will more than likely get a portion of the traffic when these employees travel for personal reasons. Although, I would imagine Delta at MDW may also get some people from Amazon traveling for business. Wouldn't surprise me (if the south loop location is indeed chosen) to see Delta start a SEA-MDW flight.

I'm kind of surprised though, honestly, that they are not surveying sites out closer to O'hare. Access to a major airport was one of the key requirements and/or wishes they specified. For example, the site they are surveying out by me in Virginia currently, is literally right next to Dulles.

I think that depends more on where the new people choose to live, rather than where the office is located. Most people travelling for business get the whole day off, which means they leave from home to the airport, not the office. If most of them choose to live on the northside, they'll probably fly out of ORD. OTOH, outsiders flying *in* to meet with Amazon (e.g. clients / vendors / employees from Seattle) might prefer a flight into MDW so it's a short taxi ride into the office.

Either way, the Blue line capacity upgrades can't come soon enough :-)

SRQLOT · Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:40 pm

I flew in to Chicago Kord Wednesday and returned yesterday. I was amazed by the amount of 787 American had hanging around the gates. I counted 7 at the same time and in a 2 hour span additional 4-5 came in. One curious thing I did notice was that 5 of the 787s had speed tape around the cockpit windows in different places. Is there an issue that American is having? And where are all the 777s? Did not see even one belonging to American.

yeogeo · Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:37 pm

SRQLOT wrote:
I flew in to Chicago Kord Wednesday and returned yesterday. I was amazed by the amount of 787 American had hanging around the gates. I counted 7 at the same time and in a 2 hour span additional 4-5 came in.... And where are all the 777s? Did not see even one belonging to American.

I haven't seen an AA triple-seven for a long time. I don't believe there are any scheduled into or out of O'Hare currently.
Would be interested if anyone knows the route history of the 777 with American at ORD.

And speaking of American wide bodies at O'Hare...

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20181009

...789's will replace -8's starting 30 March 2019 on the ORD<>LHR route.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net