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?

Why is it needed, imagine the only gate at T5 that can handle the aircraft goes out of service. (That's a real big concern currently) Where are you going to gate that beast? It gives options and that's what the city and the airlines wanted. Conversely, the same will happen with the two within the OGT and SAT 1. Flexibility is the key to this project.

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?

Why is it needed, imagine the only gate at T5 that can handle the aircraft goes out of service. (That's a real big concern currently) Where are you going to gate that beast? It gives options and that's what the city and the airlines wanted. Conversely, the same will happen with the two within the OGT and SAT 1. Flexibility is the key to this project.

Why is there a big concern about the A380 gate in T5 going out if there aren't any regularly scheduled A380's coming into O'Hare (not counting the forthcoming BA one in the coming weeks)?

Most of the A380's that would come into O'Hare would likely be a star or oneworld partner, thus, they'd be gated in the new global terminal/satellite 1 concourse. The only non star/oneworld foreign carrier that may bring the A380 into ORD is EK and that is even a stretch.

Is DL and the other non-affiliated carriers (NK, F9, B6, etc) going to move into T5 immediately upon the completion of the 9 gate expansion? Or will only DL and the others wait for the global terminal to open (so as to not overcrowd T5)?

Also, I would assume a new Sky Club will be built as part of the T5 expansion correct?

ADrum23 wrote:

Has LH indicated that it would serve ORD with an A380 if it had a compatible gate in T1?

No, I don't think they have, but back at the dawn of the A-380 (I know, eons ago) the Trib had an article with LH saying they would be interested in bringing the beast to O'Hare T-5 before, IIRC, the favorable T-1 gate arrangement it has now, which changed the equation.

ADrum23 wrote:

EK could serve with an A380 now, why isn't it?

Both LH and EK currently fly to O'Hare the second largest a/c that they operate. Given that, it seems to me they'd both be candidates to upgauge in the near to mid-term. I'd give them better than even odds of that happening, no matter the present circumstances.

ADrum23 wrote:

Is DL and the other non-affiliated carriers (NK, F9, B6, etc) going to move into T5 immediately upon the completion of the 9 gate expansion? Or will only DL and the others wait for the global terminal to open (so as to not overcrowd T5)?

I think the latter option would be the only sane one. I don't know if there are any airlines waiting to commence service due to lack of gates at their favored time , but it wouldn't surprise me (I suspect jcwr56 knows this but may not be able to inform us). I bet the additional gates will become immediately well-used, even without DL and the rest.

ADrum23 wrote:

Is DL and the other non-affiliated carriers (NK, F9, B6, etc) going to move into T5 immediately upon the completion of the 9 gate expansion? Or will only DL and the others wait for the global terminal to open (so as to not overcrowd T5)?

Also, I would assume a new Sky Club will be built as part of the T5 expansion correct?

To your first question, I agree, it's feasible with the new nine, isn't it (especially since all gates become common use as of May 12). So I went looking, and there is nothing specific yea or nay; but then, in the summary of the T5 work, is included the ominous "airlines to be relocated to T5 upon completion of the OGT" (emphasis added). Makes sense, I suppose... AA and UA aren't going to let DL get any early advantage out of this esp with them carrying the lion's share of costs. But maybe they put DL, NK, F9, B6 in there and call it "temporary"? That's feasible and wouldn't break the letter of the law, but if you thought AA screamed about 5 regional gates, UA and AA would be __________. (family-friendly)

Q #2 is up to Delta but there is specifically space set aside for their build-out of a club(s) as part of the redevelopment of T5 (the reconfiguration of gates to accommodate RJs, the big bulge coming in the center.) Whether Delta puts a temp one in there until T5 gets rebuilt depends on your original question: when are they moving?

In case anyone's wondering, the trigger for automatic construction of Sat 3 is ORD yearly pax count of 101,500,000.

On a (hopefully) lighter note: obviously, the TAP includes fire detection/suppression systems for the terminals; I'm hoping the firm from BBI hasn't heard.

Why is ORD keeping runway 4L/22R? What purpose will that runway serve in the future? I don't think it is necessary to keep it honestly.

They will have 7 other runways (two more than ATL currently has) and that runway seems to be impeding the possible construction of a north addition to the future satellite concourses 1 & 2. Why not remove it so you can create more room for the terminals and taxiways?

ADrum23 wrote:

Why is ORD keeping runway 4L/22R? What purpose will that runway serve in the future? I don't think it is necessary to keep it honestly.

They will have 7 other runways (two more than ATL currently has) and that runway seems to be impeding the possible construction of a north addition to the future satellite concourses 1 & 2. Why not remove it so you can create more room for the terminals and taxiways?

Official reason on FAA docs: "operational flexibility". Real reason probably has to do with the fact it handles about 20% of overnight flights; maybe they get fewer complaints with that runway/approach? (That's the runway I always saw as the setting for a bad disaster flick with the plane impacting a full Rosemont Horizon/Allstate Arena.) Besides the arena, there seems to be a little more industry/commercial NE of that endpoint, plus 4R/22L does go over Park Ridge N and on the south end it's much closer to residential. It may just be the city's ongoing noise issue.

chidino wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Is DL and the other non-affiliated carriers (NK, F9, B6, etc) going to move into T5 immediately upon the completion of the 9 gate expansion? Or will only DL and the others wait for the global terminal to open (so as to not overcrowd T5)?

Also, I would assume a new Sky Club will be built as part of the T5 expansion correct?

To your first question, I agree, it's feasible with the new nine, isn't it (especially since all gates become common use as of May 12). So I went looking, and there is nothing specific yea or nay; but then, in the summary of the T5 work, is included the ominous "airlines to be relocated to T5 upon completion of the OGT" (emphasis added). Makes sense, I suppose... AA and UA aren't going to let DL get any early advantage out of this esp with them carrying the lion's share of costs. But maybe they put DL, NK, F9, B6 in there and call it "temporary"? That's feasible and wouldn't break the letter of the law, but if you thought AA screamed about 5 regional gates, UA and AA would be __________. (family-friendly)

Q #2 is up to Delta but there is specifically space set aside for their build-out of a club(s) as part of the redevelopment of T5 (the reconfiguration of gates to accommodate RJs, the big bulge coming in the center.) Whether Delta puts a temp one in there until T5 gets rebuilt depends on your original question: when are they moving?

Isn't the east part of the concourse one way only? I don't arrive there much, but the TAP calls for two-way traffic to be built in the east concourse concurrent to/after OGT. So I guess that's the answer.

A friend of mine was on the F9 flight to ISP on Friday and snapped this pic below of the new stinger walkway. He didn't catch the actual gets unfortunately. Gotta admit...from the early looks of it, the walkway came out better than I feared.

https://ibb.co/cA90tc

finally CDA offer both O'hare n Midway free unlimited wifi internet
http://abc7chicago.com/travel/chicago-a ... t/3378741/

chidino wrote:

In case anyone's wondering, the trigger for automatic construction of Sat 3 is ORD yearly pax count of 101,500,000.

On a (hopefully) lighter note: obviously, the TAP includes fire detection/suppression systems for the terminals; I'm hoping the firm from BBI hasn't heard.

Hopefully they’ll pull that trigger before that number is reached...

Am I the only one that thinks that once the expansion is complete extra traffic will be added immediately and ORD will be at capacity again in five years time?

United787 wrote:

I have been concerned that these two major projects could send our fees up so high that it is unsustainable (like KIX). Of course, some of that is probably offset by our relatively low fares and huge volume... but I am sure this is a delicate balance. Don't get me wrong, ORD needs this project but they need to be careful they don't shoot themselves in the foot...

I wouldn't worry too much. O'hare's landing fees are currently quite low compared to other large airports (probably because we've delayed any capital projects for a long time), and even after the runway projects and now the terminal projects, O'hare's passenger fees will be slightly above average but not that much higher than comparable airports. Remember that O'hare's peer airports like ATL, LAX, DFW, JFK are all undergoing pretty large construction projects themselves, which will raise their fees in the coming years as well.

The only thing that could derail this financially is if passenger projections don't hold up. E.g. if we face an economic downturn and a lot of the new terminal space goes unused, then we could be in trouble. However, given that the work will be done in stages (at least 2 stages just for phase I), if passenger volumes fail to keep up, we can always postpone e.g. the western concourses until passenger volumes justify them.

Also, airlines will bellyache about the fees, but the truth is, they're losing money due to lack of gates right now: having a plane full of passengers idling in a penalty box for 15-30 minutes waiting for their gate to open up costs real money. Towing aircraft from T5 to T1 & T3 costs money. Extra-long taxiing procedures due to the current terminal complex not being optimal for the new runway configuration costs money. Plus all those delays and operational inefficiencies mean scheduling becomes less reliable, leading to padding of connection times and a whole host of other inefficiencies. They know this, which is why all of the airlines support the project. They're fully aware of the expected fee increases, but on balance, they still want it.

Again, unless the economy tanks and traffic nosedives, I think O'hare will be fine, even with the increased fees.

ADrum23 wrote:

Is DL and the other non-affiliated carriers (NK, F9, B6, etc) going to move into T5 immediately upon the completion of the 9 gate expansion? Or will only DL and the others wait for the global terminal to open (so as to not overcrowd T5)?

I don't know if DL will move right after T5 is opened but they can't wait until the global terminal is open because that can't open the new global terminal without tearing down T2 first and that is where DL currently is. But, they may wait until the new satellite concourses are opened to the west because that would allow UA to move their regional jets out of T2 along with AC and also allow UA and their Star Alliance partners to move out of T5 since the 1st new satellite will have FIS, probably only for UA & *. Once the Star Alliance partners and UA are completely out of T5, that will allow more flexibility to T5 so that DL can to move out of T2 so they can demo it. It will also probably allow AS, F9, B6, and NK to move to T5 so that AA can have more space since they will also be losing some gates as part of the T2 project.

United787 wrote:

...I arrived back at ORD yesterday and flew over the consolidated car rental... it looks almost done from the air.

The last I heard was that it was due for completion "sometime in mid-2018" - so if that holds, sometime soon.



One aspect that I was only recently made aware of is the green roof, installed in 2017, on the smaller of the two Transportation Center structures.

https://www.sempergreen.com/us/about-us ... rt-chicago

ADrum23 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?

Why is it needed, imagine the only gate at T5 that can handle the aircraft goes out of service. (That's a real big concern currently) Where are you going to gate that beast? It gives options and that's what the city and the airlines wanted. Conversely, the same will happen with the two within the OGT and SAT 1. Flexibility is the key to this project.

Why is there a big concern about the A380 gate in T5 going out if there aren't any regularly scheduled A380's coming into O'Hare (not counting the forthcoming BA one in the coming weeks)?
.

I don't understand your argument. Should the city not build any new gates until there is a firm commitment that they will be used?

Hainan has been sending some interesting Kung Fu 789's O'Hare's way lately...
The first from April 10 and the second from March 29

CHI787ORD wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

Why is it needed, imagine the only gate at T5 that can handle the aircraft goes out of service. (That's a real big concern currently) Where are you going to gate that beast? It gives options and that's what the city and the airlines wanted. Conversely, the same will happen with the two within the OGT and SAT 1. Flexibility is the key to this project.

Why is there a big concern about the A380 gate in T5 going out if there aren't any regularly scheduled A380's coming into O'Hare (not counting the forthcoming BA one in the coming weeks)?
.

I don't understand your argument. Should the city not build any new gates until there is a firm commitment that they will be used?

No, not at all. I’m just saying it puzzles me why three additional A380 gates are needed when only one airline (BA) has regularly scheduled A380 service.

I for sure see the need for the ones in the global terminal (though even the one on S1 is a bit of a stretch), but why is an additional one needed on T5?

yeogeo wrote:

United787 wrote:

...I arrived back at ORD yesterday and flew over the consolidated car rental... it looks almost done from the air.

The last I heard was that it was due for completion "sometime in mid-2018" - so if that holds, sometime soon.



One aspect that I was only recently made aware of is the green roof, installed in 2017, on the smaller of the two Transportation Center structures.

https://www.sempergreen.com/us/about-us ... rt-chicago

How is the progress on the extension and upgrades to the ATS? Are they replacing track and other things, or are they simply refurbishing?

chidino wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Why is ORD keeping runway 4L/22R? What purpose will that runway serve in the future? I don't think it is necessary to keep it honestly.

They will have 7 other runways (two more than ATL currently has) and that runway seems to be impeding the possible construction of a north addition to the future satellite concourses 1 & 2. Why not remove it so you can create more room for the terminals and taxiways?

Official reason on FAA docs: "operational flexibility". Real reason probably has to do with the fact it handles about 20% of overnight flights; maybe they get fewer complaints with that runway/approach? (That's the runway I always saw as the setting for a bad disaster flick with the plane impacting a full Rosemont Horizon/Allstate Arena.) Besides the arena, there seems to be a little more industry/commercial NE of that endpoint, plus 4R/22L does go over Park Ridge N and on the south end it's much closer to residential. It may just be the city's ongoing noise issue.

When the crosswind limitations exceed using the east-west flow then they must use the 22s or 4s. They need to keep both because then you’d have a situation where the entire airport is down to just one usable runway. It doesn’t happen often thankfully but it does happen once or twice a year.

A little tid bit on the new AA LGA-ORD shuttle.

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... o-nyc.html

O'Hare came in third on the passenger count over the spring holidays (March 15 to April 15), beat only by LAX and JFK.

https://www.amny.com/news/kennedy-airpo ... 1.18218148

"According to the TSA, more than 72 million people flew out of the country’s airports from March to April, nearly a 5 percent increase over the same period last year."

LAX's tally was 3.8 million passengers, JFK's was 2.8 million and ORD saw more than 2.5 million over the period.

stlgph wrote:

A little tid bit on the new AA LGA-ORD shuttle.

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... o-nyc.html

So this is a branding exercise then. In the past AA has offered hourly departures between ORD-LGA using 727s.

william wrote:

stlgph wrote:

A little tid bit on the new AA LGA-ORD shuttle.

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... o-nyc.html

So this is a branding exercise then. In the past AA has offered hourly departures between ORD-LGA using 727s.

Pretty much.

While it might cause a little confusion for some of "you get a free beer on this flight, but not your next" for those connection, I imagine the local o&d traffic between the two is strong enough the benefits and conveniences of catering to those passengers with dedicated check-in and boarding outweighs the confusion of a free beer.

I haven't taken AA shuttle yet between the two - is there a dedicated security lane at either airport?

First, I noticed that it took AA several days after the L stinger gates became operational, before the map was added to the phone app. Last I looked at OHare.com, the L stinger gates weren't added.

Second, has anyone posted any pictures from inside the new L gates? I'm curious as to how it looks inside. More importantly, are there any concessions in the new gates?

Third, after the new rental car garage opens, what are the City's plans for the old rental car surface lots? Will they be turned into more economy parking? If so, it seems to me parking towards the south end, where the I-190 ramps meet Bessie Coleman Blvd., will be a long ride to the station.

CKFred-

If you are on Facebook, the Chicago group has some pictures posted.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/698296610181764/

Can't answer the other inquiries though, sorry.

ADrum23 wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

United787 wrote:

...I arrived back at ORD yesterday and flew over the consolidated car rental... it looks almost done from the air.

The last I heard was that it was due for completion "sometime in mid-2018" - so if that holds, sometime soon.



One aspect that I was only recently made aware of is the green roof, installed in 2017, on the smaller of the two Transportation Center structures.

https://www.sempergreen.com/us/about-us ... rt-chicago

How is the progress on the extension and upgrades to the ATS? Are they replacing track and other things, or are they simply refurbishing?

I don't know progress per se, but City says everything's on time & under budget, due by the end of the year. Specifically to your question about the ATS: of the $792 million for the CONRAC/ATS project, $310 mil of it went to the ATS. You should expect state-of-the-art; they rebuilt any issues on the tracks, but more important is the auto-driver system (Cityflo 650, Bombardier's system for the new cars), which essentially is always intelligent and always know location and status of other cars in the system.

March data is out and another impressive month at ORD.

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectio ... UMMARY.pdf

Total PAX up 4.18% for March and 4.10% YTD. Int'l pax maintaining significant growth up 9.63% for March and 12.34% YTD.

Even ops are showing strong increase up 4.50% for March and 3.95% YTD.

Hopefully it will continue with all the new service and upgauges this summer.

AV announces ORD-GUA starting April 1, 2019 on Avianca Costa Rica 320.

AV572 GUA1735 – 2320ORD 320 D
AV573 ORD0130 – 0500GUA 320 D

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... pril-2019/

When will BOG start?

Some of you might find this interesting - a monthly compilation of O'Hare traffic. Bolded numbers indicated a record for that specific month. We're at 11 consecutive months of record breaking international traffic.

kngkyle wrote:

Some of you might find this interesting - a monthly compilation of O'Hare traffic. Bolded numbers indicated a record for that specific month. We're at 11 consecutive months of record breaking international traffic.

Any thoughts on what happened this Feb? Int'l pax absolutely exploded, above and beyond the overall trend of increased int'l traffic. Is it just a quirk or were there significant new routes added / big events in the city? And how is T5 not bursting at the seams yet?!

kngkyle wrote:

Some of you might find this interesting - a monthly compilation of O'Hare traffic. Bolded numbers indicated a record for that specific month. We're at 11 consecutive months of record breaking international traffic.

Interesting! Can you give a link for the chart?

yeogeo wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

Some of you might find this interesting - a monthly compilation of O'Hare traffic. Bolded numbers indicated a record for that specific month. We're at 11 consecutive months of record breaking international traffic.

Interesting! Can you give a link for the chart?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

muralir wrote:

Any thoughts on what happened this Feb? Int'l pax absolutely exploded, above and beyond the overall trend of increased int'l traffic. Is it just a quirk or were there significant new routes added / big events in the city? And how is T5 not bursting at the seams yet?!

It is a mystery to me as well. International operations are actually down 4.78% YTD, so that conflicts with the large increase in international PAX. The only explanation then is a big uptick in load factors... but it seems too sudden and too large. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ckfred wrote:

First, I noticed that it took AA several days after the L stinger gates became operational, before the map was added to the phone app. Last I looked at OHare.com, the L stinger gates weren't added.

Second, has anyone posted any pictures from inside the new L gates? I'm curious as to how it looks inside. More importantly, are there any concessions in the new gates?

Third, after the new rental car garage opens, what are the City's plans for the old rental car surface lots? Will they be turned into more economy parking? If so, it seems to me parking towards the south end, where the I-190 ramps meet Bessie Coleman Blvd., will be a long ride to the station.

The O'Hare website is now been add as well as AA website along with mobile.

Pictures of new L gates can be seen on facebook. Chicago Aviation

hope that help

ckfred wrote:

...Third, after the new rental car garage opens, what are the City's plans for the old rental car surface lots? Will they be turned into more economy parking? If so, it seems to me parking towards the south end, where the I-190 ramps meet Bessie Coleman Blvd., will be a long ride to the station.

Lots G and H: stay as the cheapest, long-term parking; pax will take the ATS to the new facility, then one of 14 new green buses (either NGV or EV) across Mannheim on a new dedicated ramp (even long-term doesn't sound so bad). Lot E, where the current station is, and all the rental lots south of it disappear (as well as an employee lot farther south that is either just closed or closing real soon). Reason: too close to E end of new 9C/27C. The 2,676 public spots in the new facility are the quicker remote parking, so they took the place of lot E (since they're at the ATS station). If they need additional remote parking, the CONRAC/facility can be expanded to nine stories from its existing five.

All airport parking will go to dynamic pricing with the opening, so it'll be like rideshare and you'll won't know what you'll pay until you park.

Also in the TAP is a garage for T5 (will be built after OGT at same time as T5 redevelopment); in (much more speculative) Phase II, a 'proposed' garage for the terminal core would completely fill the infield from T1 to T3. Yikes. At this point, it's not even a drawing, just an enormous black blotch in-between the terminals.

chidino wrote:

Lot E, where the current station is, and all the rental lots south of it disappear (as well as an employee lot farther south that is either just closed or closing real soon). Reason: too close to E end of new 9C/27C. The 2,676 public spots in the new facility are the quicker remote parking, so they took the place of lot E (since they're at the ATS station). If they need additional remote parking, the CONRAC/facility can be expanded to nine stories from its existing five.

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly; does the Lot E ATS station disappear?

chidino wrote:

ckfred wrote:

All airport parking will go to dynamic pricing with the opening, so it'll be like rideshare and you'll won't know what you'll pay until you park.

Hopefully, they will have it on a app or city aviation website so you can see how much it is before parking?

Midway737 wrote:

Pictures of new L gates can be seen on facebook. Chicago Aviation

hope that help

Just checked. Didn't see anything... do you have to join the group to see the photos?

kngkyle wrote:

Some of you might find this interesting - a monthly compilation of O'Hare traffic. Bolded numbers indicated a record for that specific month. We're at 11 consecutive months of record breaking international traffic.

chicawgo wrote:

March data is out and another impressive month at ORD.

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectio ... UMMARY.pdf

Total PAX up 4.18% for March and 4.10% YTD. Int'l pax maintaining significant growth up 9.63% for March and 12.34% YTD.

Even ops are showing strong increase up 4.50% for March and 3.95% YTD.

Hopefully it will continue with all the new service and upgauges this summer.

Fantastic stuff! And impressive levels of YTD and y-o-y growth, especially for such a mature market. T5 will be busting at the seems this summer, no doubt....those new gates can't come fast enough.

Just theorizing here, I'm sure some of this has to do with McDonald's and Caterpillar's new headquarters; it's been reported that various suppliers are now following their lead and also opening/growing offices in the surrounding areas. Reddit is opening a Chicago office (first one not on the Coasts), and Korea's largest Steel/Metals conglomerate, Posco, just opened an office in the suburbs...strangely enough, no media outlet has covered it, but the company is massive and this will be their US headquarters.

ADM also continues to expand it's Chicago office and company HQ: in additions to the executive suite which moved a few years ago, they are now adding trading staff to 77 W. Wacker and I believe that desk is up to 100+ globe-trotting types and support personnel.

I have a quick observation, last two weeks I have flown ORD/ MDW to MCO, MEMP, and TPA. What I noticed is that MCO is very modern looking and somewhat impressive, MEMP has been decimated by Deltas de-hubbing, and TPA is also very efficient and functional. But one thing I noticed is that Chicagos airports appear to be much more busier, and bustling and people occupied at comparable times, which is unusual with Florida cities being tourist centered. Leads me to believe that their is a lot of Foreign originating traffic, and domestic visitor traffic pouring into Chicago airports. Also this tidbit, people complain about Chicago taxes, Florida may have no income tax, but they more than make up for it with tolls seemingly every 10 miles, and super exhorbitant prices for all their attractions, and Tennessee also double taxes most everything travel related.

ORDfan wrote:

Midway737 wrote:

Pictures of new L gates can be seen on facebook. Chicago Aviation

hope that help

Just checked. Didn't see anything... do you have to join the group to see the photos?

kngkyle wrote:

Some of you might find this interesting - a monthly compilation of O'Hare traffic. Bolded numbers indicated a record for that specific month. We're at 11 consecutive months of record breaking international traffic.

chicawgo wrote:

March data is out and another impressive month at ORD.

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollectio ... UMMARY.pdf

Total PAX up 4.18% for March and 4.10% YTD. Int'l pax maintaining significant growth up 9.63% for March and 12.34% YTD.

Even ops are showing strong increase up 4.50% for March and 3.95% YTD.

Hopefully it will continue with all the new service and upgauges this summer.

Fantastic stuff! And impressive levels of YTD and y-o-y growth, especially for such a mature market. T5 will be busting at the seems this summer, no doubt....those new gates can't come fast enough.

Just theorizing here, I'm sure some of this has to do with McDonald's and Caterpillar's new headquarters; it's been reported that various suppliers are now following their lead and also opening/growing offices in the surrounding areas. Reddit is opening a Chicago office (first one not on the Coasts), and Korea's largest Steel/Metals conglomerate, Posco, just opened an office in the suburbs...strangely enough, no media outlet has covered it, but the company is massive and this will be their US headquarters.

ADM also continues to expand it's Chicago office and company HQ: in additions to the executive suite which moved a few years ago, they are now adding trading staff to 77 W. Wacker and I believe that desk is up to 100+ globe-trotting types and support personnel.

Definitely agree that it's largely due to the increased business and HQ in the Chicago area. I would put McDonald's as an exception though since they are just moving from Oak Brook to the city so I don't think that would really affect ORD traffic.

chidino wrote:

ckfred wrote:

...Third, after the new rental car garage opens, what are the City's plans for the old rental car surface lots? Will they be turned into more economy parking? If so, it seems to me parking towards the south end, where the I-190 ramps meet Bessie Coleman Blvd., will be a long ride to the station.

Lots G and H: stay as the cheapest, long-term parking; pax will take the ATS to the new facility, then one of 14 new green buses (either NGV or EV) across Mannheim on a new dedicated ramp (even long-term doesn't sound so bad). Lot E, where the current station is, and all the rental lots south of it disappear (as well as an employee lot farther south that is either just closed or closing real soon). Reason: too close to E end of new 9C/27C. The 2,676 public spots in the new facility are the quicker remote parking, so they took the place of lot E (since they're at the ATS station). If they need additional remote parking, the CONRAC/facility can be expanded to nine stories from its existing five.

All airport parking will go to dynamic pricing with the opening, so it'll be like rideshare and you'll won't know what you'll pay until you park.

Also in the TAP is a garage for T5 (will be built after OGT at same time as T5 redevelopment); in (much more speculative) Phase II, a 'proposed' garage for the terminal core would completely fill the infield from T1 to T3. Yikes. At this point, it's not even a drawing, just an enormous black blotch in-between the terminals.

That still doesn't answer the question of what the City plans to do with Lot E and the rental car lots. I can't see them just being vacant areas of asphalt, with fading parking stripes.

That said, it seems to me that the City ought to keep E as overflow for when parking becomes a premium. A couple of times, I wanted to park in the main garage, and it was marked as closed. I had to park at T5, take the ATS to Terminal 3 to meet relatives, then take the ATS back to T5.

While traveling this past spring break, I got directed to Lot H, because Lot E was full. Even though it sounds like the rental car garage, G, and H have more spaces than E, G, and H, I still think there are days when parking could max out, especially around 3-day weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and spring break. To connect G and E, so that buses can traverse both lots, would not be that difficult.

But, here is the concern that, I wager, planners haven't thought. Getting from westbound I-190 to northbound Mannheim isn't that easy, because getting to the exit ramp means cutting across the lanes from the toll both for cars exiting southbound I-294. Then, there is the issue of the extra lane needed for eastbound I-190.

ckfred wrote:

That still doesn't answer the question of what the City plans to do with Lot E and the rental car lots. I can't see them just being vacant areas of asphalt, with fading parking stripes.

That said, it seems to me that the City ought to keep E as overflow for when parking becomes a premium. A couple of times, I wanted to park in the main garage, and it was marked as closed. I had to park at T5, take the ATS to Terminal 3 to meet relatives, then take the ATS back to T5.

While traveling this past spring break, I got directed to Lot H, because Lot E was full. Even though it sounds like the rental car garage, G, and H have more spaces than E, G, and H, I still think there are days when parking could max out, especially around 3-day weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and spring break. To connect G and E, so that buses can traverse both lots, would not be that difficult.

But, here is the concern that, I wager, planners haven't thought. Getting from westbound I-190 to northbound Mannheim isn't that easy, because getting to the exit ramp means cutting across the lanes from the toll both for cars exiting southbound I-294. Then, there is the issue of the extra lane needed for eastbound I-190.

We're still a couple years out from the city planners needing to decide what to do with those lots; if anything, it probably behooves them to wait and see what kind of car-based developments happen in the future and if there is something the airport might need that we haven't thought of yet (construction personnel or employee parking?).

I could see the rental lots being an expanded cell lot, an Uber/ride-sharing lot, EV charging stations for cars and/or airport-service vehicles, etc, possibly some sort of small-scale solar field/farm? Or any combination thereof.

Personally, I think the rental lots would be ripe for EV-charging of buses, trucks, etc. I'd like to see more charging stations added to the garages and lots in general, as well.

ORDfan wrote:

ckfred wrote:

That still doesn't answer the question of what the City plans to do with Lot E and the rental car lots. I can't see them just being vacant areas of asphalt, with fading parking stripes.

That said, it seems to me that the City ought to keep E as overflow for when parking becomes a premium. A couple of times, I wanted to park in the main garage, and it was marked as closed. I had to park at T5, take the ATS to Terminal 3 to meet relatives, then take the ATS back to T5.

While traveling this past spring break, I got directed to Lot H, because Lot E was full. Even though it sounds like the rental car garage, G, and H have more spaces than E, G, and H, I still think there are days when parking could max out, especially around 3-day weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and spring break. To connect G and E, so that buses can traverse both lots, would not be that difficult.

But, here is the concern that, I wager, planners haven't thought. Getting from westbound I-190 to northbound Mannheim isn't that easy, because getting to the exit ramp means cutting across the lanes from the toll both for cars exiting southbound I-294. Then, there is the issue of the extra lane needed for eastbound I-190.

We're still a couple years out from the city planners needing to decide what to do with those lots; if anything, it probably behooves them to wait and see what kind of car-based developments happen in the future and if there is something the airport might need that we haven't thought of yet (construction personnel or employee parking?).

I could see the rental lots being an expanded cell lot, an Uber/ride-sharing lot, EV charging stations for cars and/or airport-service vehicles, etc, possibly some sort of small-scale solar field/farm? Or any combination thereof.

Personally, I think the rental lots would be ripe for EV-charging of buses, trucks, etc. I'd like to see more charging stations added to the garages and lots in general, as well.

Or a United Airlines Aviation Museum w/ Aircrs ft Spotting Area! Just throwing the idea out there

ual763 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

ckfred wrote:

That still doesn't answer the question of what the City plans to do with Lot E and the rental car lots. I can't see them just being vacant areas of asphalt, with fading parking stripes.

That said, it seems to me that the City ought to keep E as overflow for when parking becomes a premium. A couple of times, I wanted to park in the main garage, and it was marked as closed. I had to park at T5, take the ATS to Terminal 3 to meet relatives, then take the ATS back to T5.

While traveling this past spring break, I got directed to Lot H, because Lot E was full. Even though it sounds like the rental car garage, G, and H have more spaces than E, G, and H, I still think there are days when parking could max out, especially around 3-day weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and spring break. To connect G and E, so that buses can traverse both lots, would not be that difficult.

But, here is the concern that, I wager, planners haven't thought. Getting from westbound I-190 to northbound Mannheim isn't that easy, because getting to the exit ramp means cutting across the lanes from the toll both for cars exiting southbound I-294. Then, there is the issue of the extra lane needed for eastbound I-190.

We're still a couple years out from the city planners needing to decide what to do with those lots; if anything, it probably behooves them to wait and see what kind of car-based developments happen in the future and if there is something the airport might need that we haven't thought of yet (construction personnel or employee parking?).

I could see the rental lots being an expanded cell lot, an Uber/ride-sharing lot, EV charging stations for cars and/or airport-service vehicles, etc, possibly some sort of small-scale solar field/farm? Or any combination thereof.

Personally, I think the rental lots would be ripe for EV-charging of buses, trucks, etc. I'd like to see more charging stations added to the garages and lots in general, as well.

Or a United Airlines Aviation Museum w/ Aircrs ft Spotting Area! Just throwing the idea out there

Now that's really an awesome idea! I would totally get behind that... let's send some letters to the CDA office, haha.

On another note, the whale arrives for regularly scheduled service starting on Friday. No special fanfare planned, just business as usual for BA. I suppose a water cannon salute may be in order, at least?

Btw, am really impressed with the cabin: looks much sharper than the 744 I flew on last year.

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... o-jet.html

ORDfan wrote:

On another note, the whale arrives for regularly scheduled service starting on Friday. No special fanfare planned, just business as usual for BA. I suppose a water cannon salute may be in order, at least?

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... o-jet.html

Hopefully we have some spotters out there with cameras and that the weather is good!

Also, on Saturday LO flights to Budapest are scheduled to begin if I'm not mistaken.

ORDfan wrote:

ual763 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

We're still a couple years out from the city planners needing to decide what to do with those lots; if anything, it probably behooves them to wait and see what kind of car-based developments happen in the future and if there is something the airport might need that we haven't thought of yet (construction personnel or employee parking?).

I could see the rental lots being an expanded cell lot, an Uber/ride-sharing lot, EV charging stations for cars and/or airport-service vehicles, etc, possibly some sort of small-scale solar field/farm? Or any combination thereof.

Personally, I think the rental lots would be ripe for EV-charging of buses, trucks, etc. I'd like to see more charging stations added to the garages and lots in general, as well.

Or a United Airlines Aviation Museum w/ Aircrs ft Spotting Area! Just throwing the idea out there

Now that's really an awesome idea! I would totally get behind that... let's send some letters to the CDA office, haha.

On another note, the whale arrives for regularly scheduled service starting on Friday. No special fanfare planned, just business as usual for BA. I suppose a water cannon salute may be in order, at least?

Btw, am really impressed with the cabin: looks much sharper than the 744 I flew on last year.

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... o-jet.html

In all seriousness though, I really do wish that the CDA will eventually build a dedicated aircraft spotting park somewhere on the O’hare grounds. Something along the lines of DFW, MSP, or even FLL. Would really be something special for all of us I’m sure. I already sent them the idea. Hope you all will send hem a message too. Would be awesome!

ual763 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

ckfred wrote:

That still doesn't answer the question of what the City plans to do with Lot E and the rental car lots. I can't see them just being vacant areas of asphalt, with fading parking stripes.

That said, it seems to me that the City ought to keep E as overflow for when parking becomes a premium. A couple of times, I wanted to park in the main garage, and it was marked as closed. I had to park at T5, take the ATS to Terminal 3 to meet relatives, then take the ATS back to T5.

While traveling this past spring break, I got directed to Lot H, because Lot E was full. Even though it sounds like the rental car garage, G, and H have more spaces than E, G, and H, I still think there are days when parking could max out, especially around 3-day weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and spring break. To connect G and E, so that buses can traverse both lots, would not be that difficult.

But, here is the concern that, I wager, planners haven't thought. Getting from westbound I-190 to northbound Mannheim isn't that easy, because getting to the exit ramp means cutting across the lanes from the toll both for cars exiting southbound I-294. Then, there is the issue of the extra lane needed for eastbound I-190.

We're still a couple years out from the city planners needing to decide what to do with those lots; if anything, it probably behooves them to wait and see what kind of car-based developments happen in the future and if there is something the airport might need that we haven't thought of yet (construction personnel or employee parking?).

I could see the rental lots being an expanded cell lot, an Uber/ride-sharing lot, EV charging stations for cars and/or airport-service vehicles, etc, possibly some sort of small-scale solar field/farm? Or any combination thereof.

Personally, I think the rental lots would be ripe for EV-charging of buses, trucks, etc. I'd like to see more charging stations added to the garages and lots in general, as well.

Or a United Airlines Aviation Museum w/ Aircrs ft Spotting Area! Just throwing the idea out there

Here's my suggestion; put a new United Club in one of the new satellite concourses with a (seasonal) outdoor skydeck.

ORDfan wrote:

ckfred wrote:

That still doesn't answer the question of what the City plans to do with Lot E and the rental car lots. I can't see them just being vacant areas of asphalt, with fading parking stripes.

That said, it seems to me that the City ought to keep E as overflow for when parking becomes a premium. A couple of times, I wanted to park in the main garage, and it was marked as closed. I had to park at T5, take the ATS to Terminal 3 to meet relatives, then take the ATS back to T5.

While traveling this past spring break, I got directed to Lot H, because Lot E was full. Even though it sounds like the rental car garage, G, and H have more spaces than E, G, and H, I still think there are days when parking could max out, especially around 3-day weekends, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and spring break. To connect G and E, so that buses can traverse both lots, would not be that difficult.

But, here is the concern that, I wager, planners haven't thought. Getting from westbound I-190 to northbound Mannheim isn't that easy, because getting to the exit ramp means cutting across the lanes from the toll both for cars exiting southbound I-294. Then, there is the issue of the extra lane needed for eastbound I-190.

We're still a couple years out from the city planners needing to decide what to do with those lots; if anything, it probably behooves them to wait and see what kind of car-based developments happen in the future and if there is something the airport might need that we haven't thought of yet (construction personnel or employee parking?).

I could see the rental lots being an expanded cell lot, an Uber/ride-sharing lot, EV charging stations for cars and/or airport-service vehicles, etc, possibly some sort of small-scale solar field/farm? Or any combination thereof.

Personally, I think the rental lots would be ripe for EV-charging of buses, trucks, etc. I'd like to see more charging stations added to the garages and lots in general, as well.

Why doesn't it just become more remote parking in the interim until something new is figured out?

Old rental lots will be hotels, maybe some restaurants etc. More tax revenue for the City.

The Terminal Plan doesn't have anything about the lots; actually, there's no reference at all. Since this was an earlier project and the airlines aren't involved with long-term parking, not a surprise.

sircygnus wrote:

Old rental lots will be hotels, maybe some restaurants etc. More tax revenue for the City.

That I think we can assume can't happen; the drawing of the new facility posted by yeogeo in #415 above has most of the northern part of E under the Object Free Area required by 9C/27C.