stlgph wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

I floated the idea of closing 13L-31R and adding gates some time back. Glad to see others think the same. I'm not surprised this is not crossed the cities mind yet. It's too logical.

On one hand- it probably has come up many times but when it's all said and done, the end result might not add too much value to a long term solution, whatever that may be. If for example, such a closure only adds 6 gates, what's the point if the feasibility is to come up with a plan which can add 20. May as well go for the plan to add 20 than to move mountains and only achieve 6. Get what I'm saying?

On the other hand - these are the same people who thought closing the two McDonald's locations and Potbelly's was also a good idea, for whatever the purpose.

Just from looking at satellite pictures it appears you could extend the current A and B piers by 6 gates on each side for an increase of 24 gates if 13L-31R was removed. Let's say 5 gates even. That would be 20 new gates.

AA said Thursday that it will run 15 shuttle flights each weekday between Chicago's O'Hare Airport and LaGuardia Airport.

The flights are scheduled to start April 4 using dedicated gates at the two airports

The airline also promises free beer and wine in the main cabin.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyle ... story.html

nmdrdh787 wrote:

Curious to see where you heard TXL-ORD. I think its a decent add, but surprised seasonal DUS on LH or EW is not in the cards too.

I was told by someone at Willis Tower. Again, take it with a grain of salt, not sure how reliable third/fourth/fifth party information is. They just stated that LF has expressed an interest to start TXL-ORD. Since LF uses T1, that is probably why UA officials would be on notice.

As for DUS-ORD, it has been tried and failed too many times. DUS is not really a seasonal route either. It is mainly a business route and if can't be supported year round, then I don't think it's worth operating.The fact that you can land at FRA and take a train from the airport to central DUS that is less then 90 minutes makes it even harder to be successful IMO.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

AA said Thursday that it will run 15 shuttle flights each weekday between Chicago's O'Hare Airport and LaGuardia Airport.

This awesome news! As a frequent on flyer CHI-NYC, I welcome the additional shuttle service. Kudos to DL Shuttle for getting this idea started years ago (UA followed suit after, IIRC); the DL shuttle was particularly great when the LGA leg boarded at the Marine Terminal. Anyway, happy to have the added competition; the wine/drinks is a nice touch. Cheers.

ILS28ORD wrote:

Just from looking at satellite pictures it appears you could extend the current A and B piers by 6 gates on each side for an increase of 24 gates if 13L-31R was removed. Let's say 5 gates even. That would be 20 new gates.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Bummer. I will really miss seeing their A346.

Me too. I've flown the LH A346 many, many times. First time was in 2006. I always appreciated the 2-4-2 layout in Y, and the below deck bathroom was a very cool and unique touch. Happy to see A350 service come to ORD, but just wish it didn't come at the expense of the A346. I can't believe she has been gracing the airfield for over 12 years now. She will be missed. [edit: I guess ORD should still see regular A346 from IB and EY, so she won't totally be gone, but LH was certainly a classic].

EWRandMDW wrote:

If 13L-31R is closed, would it be feasible to extend current 13R-31L to at least 5000 ft x 100 feet wide to help accommodate bizjets and private planes?

When 31L opened years ago, the FAA (after the fact) determined that 31L was too close to 31C to be used simultaneously....even for VFR/GA. Not sure if that determination still holds or if MDW got a waiver or not but that was the ruling at the time. If that is still the case, closing 31R just for terminal expansion would make MDW pretty much a single-runway airport in a 31 or 13 operation. AOPA and NBAA would be there with pitchforks and torches.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1801/00081 ... ddest=(MDW)

piedmontf284000 wrote:

AA said Thursday that it will run 15 shuttle flights each weekday between Chicago's O'Hare Airport and LaGuardia Airport.

The flights are scheduled to start April 4 using dedicated gates at the two airports

The airline also promises free beer and wine in the main cabin.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyle ... story.html

Are dedicated gates feasible for this? All it takes is one delay and the whole schedule is ruined. LGA isn’t known for being the punctual airport, esp with the construction project going. I wish AA luck in this endeavour.

jetblastdubai wrote:

EWRandMDW wrote:

If 13L-31R is closed, would it be feasible to extend current 13R-31L to at least 5000 ft x 100 feet wide to help accommodate bizjets and private planes?

When 31L opened years ago, the FAA (after the fact) determined that 31L was too close to 31C to be used simultaneously....even for VFR/GA. Not sure if that determination still holds or if MDW got a waiver or not but that was the ruling at the time. If that is still the case, closing 31R just for terminal expansion would make MDW pretty much a single-runway airport in a 31 or 13 operation. AOPA and NBAA would be there with pitchforks and torches.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1801/00081 ... ddest=(MDW)

13L-31R is primarily used as a taxiway for taxiing back to the terminal after landing on 31C. I have never seen it in use for landing even for business jets. I would think removing it wouldn't cause any disruption to operations. They already use 22L-4R simultaneously with 31-13C when it's busy, just alternate takeoffs or takeoff/landing between the 2. 22R-4L however is used by business jets while 22L-4R is in operation. Not sure why the same doesn't go for 31R-13L but like I said it's normally just a taxiway.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

Curious to see where you heard TXL-ORD. I think its a decent add, but surprised seasonal DUS on LH or EW is not in the cards too.

I was told by someone at Willis Tower. Again, take it with a grain of salt, not sure how reliable third/fourth/fifth party information is. They just stated that LF has expressed an interest to start TXL-ORD. Since LF uses T1, that is probably why UA officials would be on notice.

As for DUS-ORD, it has been tried and failed too many times. DUS is not really a seasonal route either. It is mainly a business route and if can't be supported year round, then I don't think it's worth operating.The fact that you can land at FRA and take a train from the airport to central DUS that is less then 90 minutes makes it even harder to be successful IMO.

Thats ok, and I agree about DUS. ISsue with it is that its primarily German POS, and the fact its close to FRA..

I can't help but always have my mind float back to thinking of any possible way they could improve the airfield at MDW given the landlock issue. One thing I've noticed over the past couple years is that 22L has been used a lot more than it used to and I feel that has something to do with traffic flows at ORD going almost exclusively East-West with the reconfiguration. I have no idea if something like this would get past the FAA as far as distance from the street but in theory they could extend 4L/22R to the northeast since that space is still airport property. The terminal garage expansion could offset the loss of the red lot and while building a tunnel for 55th street wouldn't be ~easy~ but I think it's doable. The end result is parallel commercial length runways that can be used in an arrival-departure setup upping capacity/hr from the current alternating between 22L/4R and 31/13C. If they close 31R/31L and expand the concourse they could also conceivably close C and make better use of the space for queuing and deicing

United787 wrote:

Never thought that ORD-Australia/New Zealand would be a serious consideration but now that IAH/DFW seem to be going strong and with the 787, it looks like a real possibility.

Does "real possibility" imply UA (or NZ) is considering it, or that the fact that IAH/DFW are apparently successful implies that ORD is technically a possibility? (i.e. the nuance between what the plane can achieve and whether there is a market to support the route)

The CDA has created a website for the Midway expansion project; hopefully this stays updated throughout the construction process.

I didn't realize that a terminal garage expansion and new pedway were part of the original proposal, but happy to see it nonetheless. While I have thought that it was kind of cool that the existing/remaining pedway are from before the 2001 update, I think it's finally time for an update to match the terminal now. Looks like the garage will get built out East-ward and be partially over the CTA railyard tracks.

http://www.flychicago.com/sites/midwaym ... fault.aspx

jetblastdubai wrote:

EWRandMDW wrote:

If 13L-31R is closed, would it be feasible to extend current 13R-31L to at least 5000 ft x 100 feet wide to help accommodate bizjets and private planes?

When 31L opened years ago, the FAA (after the fact) determined that 31L was too close to 31C to be used simultaneously....even for VFR/GA. Not sure if that determination still holds or if MDW got a waiver or not but that was the ruling at the time. If that is still the case, closing 31R just for terminal expansion would make MDW pretty much a single-runway airport in a 31 or 13 operation. AOPA and NBAA would be there with pitchforks and torches.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1801/00081 ... ddest=(MDW)

Not sure I follow...for commercial ops, MDW is effectively a 2 runway airport, just like LGA. The other main runway being 4R/22L. As other posters have noted, there should be no material impact to commercial traffic if 13L/31R were closed to accommodate terminal expansion.

ORDfan wrote:

Not sure I follow...for commercial ops, MDW is effectively a 2 runway airport, just like LGA. The other main runway being 4R/22L. As other posters have noted, there should be no material impact to commercial traffic if 13L/31R were closed to accommodate terminal expansion.

Keep in mind that MDW is also one of the primary general aviation airports in the region. By setting up shop at secondary airports WN has to operate within the limitations that go along with it. If you close 31R (and 31L isn't usable) prop, VFR and turbojet IFR would need to be sequenced to the same 31C. Since MDW is in Class C airspace and sits BELOW the Class B, VFR arrivals are not sequenced by Chicago approach control but instead MDW tower. C90 (Chicago approach) and MDW tower could not feasibly coordinate an arrival flow, with any efficiency, to the same runway when the performance of aircraft vary so much.

VFR fixed-wings cannot not be sequenced to 22L/R while IFRs are independently sequenced to 31C because of LAHSO restrictions.

http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=41.786 ... 52&zoom=10

jetblastdubai wrote:

Keep in mind that MDW is also one of the primary general aviation airports in the region. By setting up shop at secondary airports WN has to operate within the limitations that go along with it. If you close 31R (and 31L isn't usable) prop, VFR and turbojet IFR would need to be sequenced to the same 31C. Since MDW is in Class C airspace and sits BELOW the Class B, VFR arrivals are not sequenced by Chicago approach control but instead MDW tower. C90 (Chicago approach) and MDW tower could not feasibly coordinate an arrival flow, with any efficiency, to the same runway when the performance of aircraft vary so much.

VFR fixed-wings cannot not be sequenced to 22L/R while IFRs are independently sequenced to 31C because of LAHSO restrictions.

http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=41.786 ... 52&zoom=10

I realize we're having a a discussion about what is hypothetically possible at MDW as far as terminal expansion is concerned, but when push comes to shove, I don't think the considerations of GA should come into long-term planning, particularly to the detriment of terminal space.

There are plenty of options for GA in the metro Chicago area: GYY, DPA, UGN, LOT, ARR, PWK, JOT, 1C5/Clow, 06C/Schaumburg Regional. There is simply no need to stymie potential MDW development to meet the demands of GA, period. Eventually I'm sure either the city and/or WN are going to want to look at options for expansion; if Peotone or GYY are not feasible at that time, I think the elimination of 13L/31R should be on the table.

Is something going on at midway? no flights in route to it and I have seen a few have been diverted to STL (probably other airports also)

EDIT: Nevermind, bad fog.

A suggestion was made to extend MDW's runway 4L-22R to a point NE of 55th St onto land cuurently occupied by a parking lot. That would cut access to 55th St and make it difficult to get to the economy garage on 55th near Laramie from the east. If you're going to do that, then maybe 13C-31C could be extended a couple of hundred feet or so to the NW just beyond beyond 55th and Central?

ORDfan wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Keep in mind that MDW is also one of the primary general aviation airports in the region. By setting up shop at secondary airports WN has to operate within the limitations that go along with it. If you close 31R (and 31L isn't usable) prop, VFR and turbojet IFR would need to be sequenced to the same 31C. Since MDW is in Class C airspace and sits BELOW the Class B, VFR arrivals are not sequenced by Chicago approach control but instead MDW tower. C90 (Chicago approach) and MDW tower could not feasibly coordinate an arrival flow, with any efficiency, to the same runway when the performance of aircraft vary so much.

VFR fixed-wings cannot not be sequenced to 22L/R while IFRs are independently sequenced to 31C because of LAHSO restrictions.

http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=41.786 ... 52&zoom=10

I realize we're having a a discussion about what is hypothetically possible at MDW as far as terminal expansion is concerned, but when push comes to shove, I don't think the considerations of GA should come into long-term planning, particularly to the detriment of terminal space.

There are plenty of options for GA in the metro Chicago area: GYY, DPA, UGN, LOT, ARR, PWK, JOT, 1C5/Clow, 06C/Schaumburg Regional. There is simply no need to stymie potential MDW development to meet the demands of GA, period. Eventually I'm sure either the city and/or WN are going to want to look at options for expansion; if Peotone or GYY are not feasible at that time, I think the elimination of 13L/31R should be on the table.

I'm actually curious to what extent GA would play a role in MDW expansion discussions. Is it something that would be "protected" given its proximity to downtown? Were GA flights at Miegs prior to demolition? I can certainly see the City of Chicago/Cook County wanting to make sure corporations/private jet owners are happy to protect businesses in Chicago.

If so, it sounds like GA could really hamper MDW terminal expansion.

jbs2886 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Keep in mind that MDW is also one of the primary general aviation airports in the region. By setting up shop at secondary airports WN has to operate within the limitations that go along with it. If you close 31R (and 31L isn't usable) prop, VFR and turbojet IFR would need to be sequenced to the same 31C. Since MDW is in Class C airspace and sits BELOW the Class B, VFR arrivals are not sequenced by Chicago approach control but instead MDW tower. C90 (Chicago approach) and MDW tower could not feasibly coordinate an arrival flow, with any efficiency, to the same runway when the performance of aircraft vary so much.

VFR fixed-wings cannot not be sequenced to 22L/R while IFRs are independently sequenced to 31C because of LAHSO restrictions.

http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc&lat=41.786 ... 52&zoom=10

I realize we're having a a discussion about what is hypothetically possible at MDW as far as terminal expansion is concerned, but when push comes to shove, I don't think the considerations of GA should come into long-term planning, particularly to the detriment of terminal space.

There are plenty of options for GA in the metro Chicago area: GYY, DPA, UGN, LOT, ARR, PWK, JOT, 1C5/Clow, 06C/Schaumburg Regional. There is simply no need to stymie potential MDW development to meet the demands of GA, period. Eventually I'm sure either the city and/or WN are going to want to look at options for expansion; if Peotone or GYY are not feasible at that time, I think the elimination of 13L/31R should be on the table.

I'm actually curious to what extent GA would play a role in MDW expansion discussions. Is it something that would be "protected" given its proximity to downtown? Were GA flights at Miegs prior to demolition? I can certainly see the City of Chicago/Cook County wanting to make sure corporations/private jet owners are happy to protect businesses in Chicago.

If so, it sounds like GA could really hamper MDW terminal expansion.

Doubt it. 31R-13L is used sparingly, if at all on most days. Many business jets use the main runways 22L-4R and 31-13C. 22R-4L is also usable when 22L-4R is in use. I don't think GA will play any part in preventing hypothetical terminal expansion unless the GA ramp is removed which would serve no purpose in lengthening the current terminals. MDW has also become a major airport and is no longer a GA airport southwest chooses to use. If anything MDW is Southwests' airport that GA traffic choose to use over other regional airports. Therefor I believe the commercial operations would be given priority over GA.

Let's just play pretend for a hot second.

So if AA/UA can't come to an agreement on an O'Hare revamp, how long until a plan is unveiled to give Southwest a handful more gates at Midway....if you get what I mean.

ORDfan wrote:

I realize we're having a a discussion about what is hypothetically possible at MDW as far as terminal expansion is concerned, but when push comes to shove, I don't think the considerations of GA should come into long-term planning, particularly to the detriment of terminal space.

There are plenty of options for GA in the metro Chicago area: GYY, DPA, UGN, LOT, ARR, PWK, JOT, 1C5/Clow, 06C/Schaumburg Regional. There is simply no need to stymie potential MDW development to meet the demands of GA, period. Eventually I'm sure either the city and/or WN are going to want to look at options for expansion; if Peotone or GYY are not feasible at that time, I think the elimination of 13L/31R should be on the table.

WN currently only has nonstop service from CVG to MDW and BWI, but WN could add nonstop service from CVG to at least STL and LAS and WN could also extend CVG-PHX nonstop service to year round in order to reduce the amount of passengers who have to connect through MDW from CVG. In addition, WN could also bring back STL-IND, STL-SDF, and STL-SLC nonstop service, and WN could also add a 2nd daily nonstop in each direction to DEN and LAS from SDF.

In order to reduce the number of passengers who have to connect through MDW from MSP, WN could also add nonstop service from MSP to IND, CMH, and DCA if the demand is there for additional nonstop service to these destinations, and WN could also add a 2nd nonstop in each direction between MSP and BNA.

jplatts wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

I realize we're having a a discussion about what is hypothetically possible at MDW as far as terminal expansion is concerned, but when push comes to shove, I don't think the considerations of GA should come into long-term planning, particularly to the detriment of terminal space.

There are plenty of options for GA in the metro Chicago area: GYY, DPA, UGN, LOT, ARR, PWK, JOT, 1C5/Clow, 06C/Schaumburg Regional. There is simply no need to stymie potential MDW development to meet the demands of GA, period. Eventually I'm sure either the city and/or WN are going to want to look at options for expansion; if Peotone or GYY are not feasible at that time, I think the elimination of 13L/31R should be on the table.

WN currently only has nonstop service from CVG to MDW and BWI, but WN could add nonstop service from CVG to at least STL and LAS and WN could also extend CVG-PHX nonstop service to year round in order to reduce the amount of passengers who have to connect through MDW from CVG. In addition, WN could also bring back STL-IND, STL-SDF, and STL-SLC nonstop service, and WN could also add a 2nd daily nonstop in each direction to DEN and LAS from SDF.

In order to reduce the number of passengers who have to connect through MDW from MSP, WN could also add nonstop service from MSP to IND, CMH, and DCA if the demand is there for additional nonstop service to these destinations, and WN could also add a 2nd nonstop in each direction between MSP and BNA.

What does any of this have to do with expanding mdw? This would decrease MDW traffic and passenger loads, which is not what needs to happen. I'm sure if other routes were viable from other airports they would have tried them already. MDW is the most convenient point to connect Midwest traffic for them. It's southwests busiest airport. Why would you disconnect cities from it? Or circumvent it and prevent connections to other destinations. I'm not saying CVG wont get more destinations eventually but they have a lot more going for them if they can offer 1 stop connections from mdw to 60 other destinations.

ILS28ORD wrote:

What does any of this have to do with expanding mdw? This would decrease MDW traffic and passenger loads, which is not what needs to happen. I'm sure if other routes were viable from other airports they would have tried them already. MDW is the most convenient point to connect Midwest traffic for them. It's southwests busiest airport. Why would you disconnect cities from it? Or circumvent it and prevent connections to other destinations. I'm not saying CVG wont get more destinations eventually but they have a lot more going for them if they can offer 1 stop connections from mdw to 60 other destinations.

One of the big differences between CVG and the surrounding airports is that Southwest has not yet served any destination other than MDW or BWI nonstop from CVG, even though WN will be operating seasonal nonstop service between CVG and PHX from March 8th through April 7th. In addition to that, ICT, DSM, and MKE, which are all located in the Midwest, do have nonstop service to STL on WN but do not have any nonstop service to MDW on any airline. MKE is too close to MDW for Southwest to even consider serving MKE nonstop from MDW, but ICT and DSM were both served nonstop from MDW on WN prior to Southwest discontinuing MDW-ICT and MDW-DSM nonstop service almost 2 years ago.

All 9 of the airports served by WN other than CVG that are within a 300 mile radius of CVG (MDW, CLE, CMH, DTW, GRR, IND, SDF, BNA, and PIT) also have nonstop service to at least DEN and MCO on WN, and WN can already connect passengers from MDW, CLE, CMH, DTW, GRR, IND, SDF, BNA, and PIT to destinations west of the Rocky Mountains through DEN.

I agree with your point with respect to Midwestern destinations other than CVG, and I agree that WN will continue to serve CVG, CLE, CMH, DTW, GRR, IND, SDF, BNA, and PIT nonstop from MDW. Additionally, all of the WN destinations west of the Mississippi that are served nonstop from MDW on WN also have nonstop service to either STL or LAS on WN, and in addition to that, CLE, CMH, DTW, IND, BNA, and PIT all already do have nonstop service to both STL and LAS on WN. WN can already connect passengers to destinations further west from CLE, CMH, DTW, IND, BNA, and PIT through STL and LAS.

I also agree that WN will continue to use MDW to connect passengers from SEA, PDX, and MSP to destinations east of MDW, and I also agree that WN will continue to use MDW to connect passengers to destinations west of MDW from IND, SDF, GRR, DTW, CVG, CLE, CMH, and destinations further east.

stlgph wrote:

Let's just play pretend for a hot second.

So if AA/UA can't come to an agreement on an O'Hare revamp, how long until a plan is unveiled to give Southwest a handful more gates at Midway....if you get what I mean.

I’m not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying that the city will divert airport funds allocated for ORD to MDW if AA/UA don’t agree to additional gates? I believe that would be illegal.

If official: another record year for Chicago's airports, with over 102 millions papssengers combined at ORD and MDW in 2017, beating the previous record from 2016. ORD just shy of 80m passengers; cargo tonnage up an extraordinary 12% y-o-y. With Chicago's record-breaking tourist numbers, this shouldn't be a huge shock.

As some posters have noted, flights have decreased slightly, so planes are fuller and/or bigger. With a 6% yearly growth in foreign pax, it's become increasingly clear that international growth is being constrained by T5's lack of gates: the terminal expansion can't come fast enough.

With UA and AA both promising additional seat capacity, I look forward to seeing what 2018 and beyond brings!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ger-record

EWRandMDW wrote:

A suggestion was made to extend MDW's runway 4L-22R to a point NE of 55th St onto land cuurently occupied by a parking lot. That would cut access to 55th St and make it difficult to get to the economy garage on 55th near Laramie from the east. If you're going to do that, then maybe 13C-31C could be extended a couple of hundred feet or so to the NW just beyond beyond 55th and Central?

For any theoretical runway extension the most significant engineering challenge would be dealing with the perimeter roadways. Either tunneling or rerouting 55th west of Cicero wouldn't be the easiest job but I do think it's doable. Depending on how they were to go about it there will be options for how to handle to the entrance to the garage and maintenance ramp. As it stands there's not much to be gained from attempting to extend 13/31C or 4R/22L because it doesn't solve anything in terms of traffic. No one is chomping at the bit to bring in larger planes than a 738 so what would be the point of trying to kick people out of their homes and messing with Cicero or Central for a few hundred extra feet. 4L/22R on the other hand could be done without displacing residents and would have the benefit of allowing paired arrival/departure operation with 4R/22L to improve flow, especially if they were to close 13L/31R.

Although in the end this is still just a theoretical idea *if* there would be a need for more airfield capacity if they expanded the terminal. If they just kick out the GA it might not even be necessary.

ORDfan wrote:

If official: another record year for Chicago's airports, with over 102 millions papssengers combined at ORD and MDW in 2017, beating the previous record from 2016. ORD just shy of 80m passengers; cargo tonnage up an extraordinary 12% y-o-y. With Chicago's record-breaking tourist numbers, this shouldn't be a huge shock.

As some posters have noted, flights have decreased slightly, so planes are fuller and/or bigger. With a 6% yearly growth in foreign pax, it's become increasingly clear that international growth is being constrained by T5's lack of gates: the terminal expansion can't come fast enough.

With UA and AA both promising additional seat capacity, I look forward to seeing what 2018 and beyond brings!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... ger-record

Good for ORD. I wish they could have topped 80 million, but barring unforeseen circumstances, they should this year.

Can't they get going on the Terminal 5 gate expansion independent of the United/American Terminal 2 demolition/rebuild, since the gates will be common use? At least then international traffic can grow faster.

Just think of what ORD could become if new gates are built! Passengers increasing on fewer flights.

I’m sure all the growth is due to leakage from neighboring states. And I’m sure the usual trolls will be posting soon.

Congrats Chicago! A great year for aviation! And UA plans to expand ORD and I’m sure AA will follow!

CHI2DFW wrote:

Just think of what ORD could become if new gates are built! Passengers increasing on fewer flights.

I’m sure all the growth is due to leakage from neighboring states. And I’m sure the usual trolls will be posting soon.

Congrats Chicago! A great year for aviation! And UA plans to expand ORD and I’m sure AA will follow!

Lol. I'm sure it's mostly leakage from michigan...

If 102 million is the new combined record what was 2016s? 100 million is a lot!

ILS28ORD wrote:

CHI2DFW wrote:

Just think of what ORD could become if new gates are built! Passengers increasing on fewer flights.

I’m sure all the growth is due to leakage from neighboring states. And I’m sure the usual trolls will be posting soon.

Congrats Chicago! A great year for aviation! And UA plans to expand ORD and I’m sure AA will follow!

Lol. I'm sure it's mostly leakage from michigan...

If 102 million is the new combined record what was 2016s? 100 million is a lot!

I can certainly believe SW Michigan, but it's been well-documented that Western IL and Eastern IA continue to bypass Quad Cities Intl Airport as well. I can't say I'm shocked given the relatively low price of fuel these days and the high cost of airfare from MLI origin. When I've checked flights a few times to/from MLI, I couldn't believe how exorbitant they have been. That corridor certainly needs to be connected via rail/Amtrak, but that is a thread for another site....

http://qctimes.com/business/study-shows ... 7205f.html

The ORD ET flights seem to be more official now! ORD is on a roll!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1383779&p=20133081#p20133081

ORDfan wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

CHI2DFW wrote:

Just think of what ORD could become if new gates are built! Passengers increasing on fewer flights.

I’m sure all the growth is due to leakage from neighboring states. And I’m sure the usual trolls will be posting soon.

Congrats Chicago! A great year for aviation! And UA plans to expand ORD and I’m sure AA will follow!

Lol. I'm sure it's mostly leakage from michigan...

If 102 million is the new combined record what was 2016s? 100 million is a lot!

I can certainly believe SW Michigan, but it's been well-documented that Western IL and Eastern IA continue to bypass Quad Cities Intl Airport as well. I can't say I'm shocked given the relatively low price of fuel these days and the high cost of airfare from MLI origin. When I've checked flights a few times to/from MLI, I couldn't believe how exorbitant they have been. That corridor certainly needs to be connected via rail/Amtrak, but that is a thread for another site....

http://qctimes.com/business/study-shows ... 7205f.html

This is was sarcasm. Read the DTW thread and you'll understand. On a serious note, you're probably correct about MLI.

kordcj wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Let's just play pretend for a hot second.

So if AA/UA can't come to an agreement on an O'Hare revamp, how long until a plan is unveiled to give Southwest a handful more gates at Midway....if you get what I mean.

I’m not sure I get what you mean. Are you saying that the city will divert airport funds allocated for ORD to MDW if AA/UA don’t agree to additional gates? I believe that would be illegal.

You don't pay much attention to how Chicago works, do you?

I just found out that I could join this site for free. I thought you had to pay a fee to join the forum. I posted the following message on another transportation discussion site, but this site is the best suited for this discussion.

Over time, I look at ways to reconfigure O'Hare to add additional gates. I'm not impressed with the proposals put forward by the city, so I started to think about what else could be done. I've come up with the following proposal:


For larger versions of these images, you can see them at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36457406@N07/24902722807/in/album-72157692394231255/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36457406@N07/24902725787/in/album-72157692394231255/

Moved Runway
I've taken runway 4L-22R from its current location near Concourse C going northeast and moved it to west in between the fuel tanks and maintenance area. I shortened this runway from its current 7500ft to 7000ft. I've shortened new runway 9C-27C (under construction) on the west end to accommodate the new runway shift.

Pros:

• Runway 4L-22R no longer intersects the main runways of 9C-27C (under construction) and 9R-22L which will be lengthened to handle jumbo jets.
• New (moved) runway 4L-22R can now be used for northeast takeoff and landing. Currently this runway is not used, but not decommissioned either.
• By moving the runway, the center of the airport space becomes open for development. Other diagrams proposed by the city usually show building structures accommodating this runway, which is not efficient.
• There is now a nice symmetry with the airfield.

Cons:

• Cost of moving the runway is expensive. However, perhaps with the new national infrastructure proposal, ORD can get some money for this move.
• More land must be purchased and displace businesses.
• The moved runway intersects 9L-27R, which isn't necessarily bad. The intersection happens near the express ramp off 27R, so some engineering is needed to fix this. I don't expect this to be a showstopper.
• The new traffic route takes the planes over Maine West High School and several houses. Naturally there will be more noise from airplanes taking off, and politicians will need to address a solution.
• At least one outdoor maintenance area space will need to be decommissioned to provide clearance for the runway protection zone.
• Some oil tanks may need to be moved too.

Core Taxiway changes
Now that runway 4L-22R has been moved, and runway 14R-32L will be decommissioned, we can use those pieces to create new taxiways for the core terminals. The taxiways below concourses G and F will continue to extend toward taxiway and runway 14R-32L to form the new A and B taxiways for the core terminal. The inner taxiway will go northwest, and then curve to meet the end of the "former" 4L-22R runway. The outer taxiway will take the same course along former 14R-32L, and meet up at a proposed taxiway as designed during the O'Hare modernization program. Now new apron space is available for terminals 1 and 2 expansion.

Terminal 1
The following changes happen here:

• There is enough apron space to create another through-taxiway system of the same size between concourses B and C to place on the west end of C. These taxiways are 400ft wide, allowing 2x200ft taxiways.
• There is enough space to create a new concourse D. This will house several jumbo jets. I estimate you can get 20+ planes at this concourse.
• Concourse C loses its jumbo jets in the middle to accommodate the new taxiways. Maybe some smaller planes can fit in that space.
• Concourse C can extend north some more to create more gates. Perhaps another 6+ gates.
• Concourse D would link up to concourse C via tunnel. D is now distant from B, so you may need a tram system to carry people faster. Concourse C may want a northern tunnel to go to B.
• The RJ's in concourse F move to concourse B (see Terminal 2 plans). This makes some passengers who use RJs to go quicker from curb to plane. Now United is all in one terminal.
• (Optional) If Concourse B is used primarily for RJs, you may be able to shrink the apron to allow expansion of the terminal facility and baggage area by 25-50ft. I presume the terminal building needs to expand at the ends to allow a couple more baggage carousels.

Terminal 2
The following changes here:

• The taxiway change allows concourse E to extend further. I tried to maximize the apron space, and created another "Y". The outsides of the "Y" have 200ft aprons (standard), and the inner "Y" has a 150ft apron, usable for Delta Connection's RJs.
  In between concourses E and F will be straight 150ft taxiways as opposed to the angular taxiways.
• Concourse E gets 10+ new gates. This is enough to move Jet Blue, Frontier, Spirit, and maybe another carrier to concourse E. Now terminal 2 is used for all "other" airlines. Concourse L frees up for American to use.
• The taxiways between concourses F and G can really only allow RJs or very small mainline aircraft. So, you really can't use concourse F for anything other than RJs. I propose that American can move many of its RJs (not in G) to F. This now frees up other gates for American to reconfigure for mainline or jumbo jets (jumbo only applies at the extremities of H, K, and L)

Takeaways:

• If you look at the latest proposal from the city where they add a new concourse west of runway 14-32, you'll see that they keep the core intact, but don't address how the facilities will handle the new remote concourses. My guess is that the airport doesn't want to undertake a radical change away from the core infrastructure as that would be too costly. I like my proposal as it keeps the core intact, but just adds on.
• United and American get large increases in gate expansion for both airlines. Theoretically, American gets more gates, but both may get the same apron space.
• American gets 5 gates at L (airline moves), plus 5 gates currently being built. American also gets 20+ gates at concourse F, for a total of 30+ gates. American may reconfigure some gates to handle larger planes, which may mean a loss of gates at some concourses.
• United gets 20-22 new gates at concourse D, plus 5-8 gates in C expansion for about 30 gates or more. United will have to manipulate its gates to move the RJs, and the jumbo gates at C are changed to handle smaller planes.
• United gets a nice new concourse, concourse D. They will have to solve the increase in passenger traffic and security flow in the terminal.
• American may not exclusively like the idea that concourse D and E are new, whereas their facilities still look old. It is possible that the modernization program will redo all of Terminal 2, at a large expense, so that American gets a new concourse F.
• American will need to start a shuttle bus service from concourse F to its other concourses.
• All the other airlines are consolidated at Terminal 2.
• I couldn't figure out a way to make an international customs terminal at Terminal 2 to allow lots of traffic and apron space for American and United. I suppose you can reconfigure the Concourse E extension to handle jumbo jets, but you do so at the expense of apron space, which takes away opportunities to add gates for other airlines.

Thoughts?

Haven’t posted in a while but glad to be back! For the airport plan above, the space between the new remote concourse and the new taxiway seems tight. If they were to give terminal 1 an added remote concourse, it would probably push further west, and have more apron space. Ideally if something like that we’re to happen it would be an all wide body concourse for star alliance carriers and UA, with extra gates for growth, and an ATL style underground train connecting to the main terminal, which would need an expanded check in area and baggage claim like you said, hopefully 1 or 2 A380 capable gates for carriers like LH and maybe even NH in the future. It would be nice if AA could do something similar with an all OW terminal. Now we could always go the route of massive redesign, shut down the central parking and Hilton, build a massive remote parking garage ATL style, improve and add more trains to the inner airport transit, and build a new massive central terminal and hotel where the lot is now, with large outdoor spaces and an airline museum, with connections over the roadways to purely concourses on the other side and increase the capacity of all of them, T5 being the straggler.

On a different note, BA confirmed A380 service will begin 4 days earlier than planned. Along with ET and DY and the additions by LO and AA were looking at a robust summer. If we could get HU and AV to firm up their perspective new routes, we’d really be onto something. And that high speed connector train downtown Elon musk signed up for.

It's official, folks:

The Chicago Department of Aviation and its newest air carrier partner, Ethiopian Airlines, announced today that new nonstop service between Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) and Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Bole International Airport (ADD) will begin on June 9, 2018. The addition of this new service represents the first-ever direct scheduled passenger service between Chicago and Africa, and the eighth new international service to Chicago that is planned to launch in 2018.

http://www.flychicago.com/business/medi ... ewsid=1447

Looking forward to seeing those ET tails at T5! Hopefully, get to fly this route one day soon.

What's interesting is that the city press release hints at 8 new international destinations coming this year. So far we know ADD, LGW, BUD, and VCE. Have I missed a few others recently, or is this referring to yet-to-be announced routes? Seems like AKL and MEL both are well-rumored, but they are just that: rumors. Impressive streak nonetheless and looking forward to what's coming!! Ya Chicago

Jenner43201 wrote:

Thoughts?

Very impressive analysis. Thanks for joining and sharing. I don't have much to add other than I hope someone from the CDA is reading here, haha.

I do have admit that I think such extensive airfield/taxiway reworkings are unlikely at this stage of the game, as I believe the city will focus on gate expansion or T2 reconfiguration first, possibly simultaneously with a T1 expansion. Personally, I think the core of T1, T3, ad T5 are fine as they are, and really T2 needs to the most attention. T1 will need to be expanded to accommodate UAL of course, but the basic terminal infrastructure I think is still very usable. I mild refresh refresh (new carpets, trim, etc) should suffice. T5 has aged incredibly well, and the gate expansion will only help.

Western Access and Western terminals would be nice, but I believe that is at least a decade or more from realization.

ORD2010 wrote:

On a different note, BA confirmed A380 service will begin 4 days earlier than planned. Along with ET and DY and the additions by LO and AA were looking at a robust summer. If we could get HU and AV to firm up their perspective new routes, we’d really be onto something. And that high speed connector train downtown Elon musk signed up for.

Fantastic news on the A380. There was chatter on the forum that the big bird had been axed, but happy to hear it's not the case.

I don't believe the "Musk train" is official, however - I believe Elon simply stated he would be submitting his proposal to the city's official RFQ.

I like the Terminal Plan...not so much the relocation of 4L/22R. I believe the new runway cuts across Touhy Ave on the north end which of course cause its relocation...UA's hangars would have to be moved...somewhere...and as you mentioned, more noise for a few suburbs that don't get much now....MAJOR political issues there.

I really do admire the effort you expended here and there are a lot of great features I like very much!

Congrats to ORD and ET!!!

Imagine if we get AKL or MEL, ORD would then join the rare 6 continents club!

Four firms have submitted responses to the City's RFQ for the ORD to Loop express train:

https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/2/7/169 ... press-loop

I think extending the Brown Line under Lawrence and to ORD is better money spent. Why? How many Chicago based business travelers actually leave from their office. Most I know leave from home and return home, they don’t goto the office on days they travel. At best, they hit the office either before or after work. River North, Lincoln Park and Lakeview (Brown Line) would capture a lot of where that demographic lives. This would be much more cost effective.

I don’t oppose the high-speed line… just not sure the numbers will work out. But hey, let some private consortium build it and then when they go belly up, the City can take it over for pennies on the dollar and make the numbers work.

Would be amazing if ORD got an express line + the existing local Blue Line before NYC even gets one direct line to it's airport.

United787 wrote:

Four firms have submitted responses to the City's RFQ for the ORD to Loop express train:

https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/2/7/169 ... press-loop

I think extending the Brown Line under Lawrence and to ORD is better money spent. Why? How many Chicago based business travelers actually leave from their office. Most I know leave from home and return home, they don’t goto the office on days they travel. At best, they hit the office either before or after work. River North, Lincoln Park and Lakeview (Brown Line) would capture a lot of where that demographic lives. This would be much more cost effective.

I don’t oppose the high-speed line… just not sure the numbers will work out. But hey, let some private consortium build it and then when they go belly up, the City can take it over for pennies on the dollar and make the numbers work.

Would be amazing if ORD got an express line + the existing local Blue Line before NYC even gets one direct line to it's airport.

Wow. Those are all very serious bidders. Great to see.

It'd be awesome to see the Brown Line extended to Montrose for a connector to the Blue Line.

stlgph wrote:

It'd be awesome to see the Brown Line extended to Montrose for a connector to the Blue Line.

I think Jefferson Park would be better because the Brown Line wouldn't have to track back south and JP is a fairly major transit hub for Metra, CTA Trains and CTA Buses.

I've said this before: but I think the fastest/easiest/least expensive option for ORD train service is a heavy-rail option with Metra or Metra-like service, just EWR has with NJ Transit. Another option would be Blue Line Express trains. The track is mostly in-place, and I think it'd be way easier for the RTA to negotiate with existing rail lines than starting a new service from scratch.

I think the new Joint Rental Car facility is already going to have a connection to Metra.

ORDfan wrote:

I've said this before: but I think the fastest/easiest/least expensive option for ORD train service is a heavy-rail option with Metra or Metra-like service, just EWR has with NJ Transit. Another option would be Blue Line Express trains. The track is mostly in-place, and I think it'd be way easier for the RTA to negotiate with existing rail lines than starting a new service from scratch.

I think the new Joint Rental Car facility is already going to have a connection to Metra.

I agree, that it could be heavy rail on an existing Metra line but two issues I see with that:

1) The Metra line that is most direct is the Milwaukee West (MD-W) / North Central (NCS). It has a lot of problematic grade crossings through River Grove, Elmwood Park and Franklin Park...it seems like people and cars are hit through that stretch often. A high speed rail should be grade separated - doesn't have to be, but always preferred. Also, I believe that it is a congested route already and shares the tracks with freight trains. That said, it already has three tracks and could have enough r.o.w. for 4 which means you could make two center tracks express trains. If you could elevate or sink 2-3 miles of that stretch, you might be onto something.

2) Forget the Metra stop at the rental car facility. If the express train doesn't go all the way to the terminal complex, it will be all for nothing. A transfer to the ATS system would easily add 15-20 minutes, negating any savings earned by the express train. The heavy rail would have to split off from the Metra line around Balmoral and head underground to the terminals.

The rail tunnels into the CTA station in O'Hare are for CTA-sized cars, not for Metra sized cars.

The "rail is mostly in place," yes, for the service it has now, not for an express type of service. You would need a third line, and in portions, perhaps a fourth. Express operations, in conjunction with what you have now, would have to be similar to how the 7-train runs its express service in New York City. You'd need a third line and then during parts of the day, the express runs in only one direction. You must take into account other possible prohibitions of just starting an express service - such as the signal system. Overloading the system by just suddenly slapping 8 or more trains per hour one it will trip the signals and stop the trains.

For the airport plan above, the space between the new remote concourse and the new taxiway seems tight. If they were to give terminal 1 an added remote concourse, it would probably push further west, and have more apron space. Ideally if something like that we’re to happen it would be an all wide body concourse for star alliance carriers and UA, with extra gates for growth, and an ATL style underground train connecting to the main terminal, which would need an expanded check in area and baggage claim like you said, hopefully 1 or 2 A380 capable gates for carriers like LH and maybe even NH in the future.

The concourse spacing can be fixed by moving my proposed taxiways A and B around concourse D to be moved further west, which would give more taxiway space between C and D and allow D to have more apron space. I'll have to create a picture for that. An all jumbo jet concourse? How many jumbo jets does UA need at O'Hare?

ordpark wrote:

I like the Terminal Plan...not so much the relocation of 4L/22R. I believe the new runway cuts across Touhy Ave on the north end which of course cause its relocation...UA's hangars would have to be moved...somewhere...and as you mentioned, more noise for a few suburbs that don't get much now....MAJOR political issues there.

The runway relocation doesn't cut across Tuohy Ave, with the exception of the approach lights and landing system. I was using runway 9L-27R as a guide. Runway 9L-27R has fairly close distances to the railroad tracks to the west and Higgins/Lee St to the east. If 4L/22R is really too long, the runway can be shortened by 100-200 feet.

Given where I have the runway right now, UA shouldn't need to move its north hangars, as they should be away from the required runway protection zone (500ft, as I remember reading). I did see that there is a southern pavement area where there are cars and trailers (according to the current satellite photo) which would need to be used for the new taxiway and runway protection zone. Maybe the hangar to the northeast of this pavement area could be affected -- I'm not sure. I wouldn't see this as a holdup to the runway placement. The south cargo area is really close to the taxiways and runways, so I don't think the hangars are in too much trouble.

I do have admit that I think such extensive airfield/taxiway reworkings are unlikely at this stage of the game, as I believe the city will focus on gate expansion or T2 reconfiguration first, possibly simultaneously with a T1 expansion. Personally, I think the core of T1, T3, ad T5 are fine as they are, and really T2 needs to the most attention. T1 will need to be expanded to accommodate UAL of course, but the basic terminal infrastructure I think is still very usable. I mild refresh refresh (new carpets, trim, etc) should suffice. T5 has aged incredibly well, and the gate expansion will only help.

I agree that the city will most likely not perform this type of work anytime soon. The problem is that they propose these grandiose plans for the airport reconfiguration, all of which have their own set of problems. Then we see that nothing gets done. The latest proposal is from UA and AA to make modifications to the airport for more gates for themselves as well as a combined customs area for their aircraft. Their remote concourse design seemed to create more problems than needed. I thought I would head off that idea with my own proposal. Yes, I wish someone more official would be able to see the plans. I know there are some aircraft pilots and master planners who visit this site, so who knows if they can provide recommendations.

How would ORD reconfigure T2?

I'd leave Terminal 2 the way it is, let American/Eagle, United/Express, Air Canada, Alaska Airlines, and Westjet have at it.

Build a smaller new terminal east of Terminal 5, right on top of the current police department with international arrivals capabilities. Shove Delta, JetBlue, Aeromexico, Copa Airlines, Frontier, Spirit, InterJet, Viva Aerobus, Icelandair, etc. etc. in there, freeing up gates from T5 from being (mostly) crowded up with narrow body arrivals outside of American and United.

Aer Lingus can move over to Terminal 3.

Massively far from perfect given the long taxi times if you're coming in on say 27R, and it's an immediate chemical solution, but does little to really position the airport for 50 years down the road and just gives you much more infrastructure to dig around when the next generation decides to *really* change things - but it's a idea.

Anyone know what gate Cape Air will be using for the ORD-DEC flights? Terminal 3?

Frontier 14

Frontier14 wrote:

Anyone know what gate Cape Air will be using for the ORD-DEC flights? Terminal 3?

Frontier 14

At L11 a/b where ACO operates from currently. They'll be sharing the hardstands and ticket counter.

stlgph wrote:

The rail tunnels into the CTA station in O'Hare are for CTA-sized cars, not for Metra sized cars.

The service might need it's own station parallel to the other... if they can fit it between the parking garage pylons.

OR

They could share the same station. Metra and CTA have the same standard track gauge. I don't think the ORD express trains would use the same double decker Metra trains. They would likely have their own dedicated rolling stock that is designed for people with baggage. It could be a train set that is designed to fit in the existing ORD station tunnels but maybe with overhead wires.

Also, I could see a west loop stop or park and ride stop near Western Ave.