Chicago Aviation News - 2018

chidino · Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:53 am

I'm also interested in folks not O&D-ing (i.e. non-area residents) and the pretty radical change coming with what the city, in its last press release, is now calling an "integrated transit center" for ATS/rental cars/shuttles. Something local press hasn't discussed too much is the fact that there will no longer be shuttle buses at terminals at O'Hare. Like, illegal. Eliminates 1.3 million annual vehicle trips, which as has been pointed out here is mandatory -- no room to expand between garage/road/terminals. (And we'll have to be worried about the crush at the most congested part, T2, which today has light traffic. Ugh.) Plus the loss of all those slow or idling diesels will help congestion and air quality.

But unless you are picked up by private vehicle (cab, rideshare, friend/family or limo) you will leave the terminals on the CTA or the ATS. Period. Off-airport hotels and rental car facilities will have to send their shuttles to the new facility. This also helps O'Hare collect taxes/fees/whatever on the off-airport lots and rentals who exist because of ORD but don't pay; now, they have to sign an "airport access agreement" that costs a minimum of 10% gross. (Without that, no shuttle pickup at O'Hare, and no business.) For locals, this seems great; cleaner, less traffic, big modern facilities we didn't pay for and never use. I'm just interested in non-locals reactions. (Please don't argue with the project itself, as it's basically finished and will be complete by the end of this year.)

(If this belongs in another section, apologies in advance to the mods.)

yeogeo · Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:49 am

Visitors to the area who are shuttling to a hotel, renting a car, or catching a train or taxi would still considered to be O&D traffic, so I think asking about what "non-O&D" passengers think of the operations involved in the remote consolidated facility is not what you're after, but simply "visitors".

My use of O'Hare is the definition of non-O&D, as I nearly always connect at O'Hare, except in the situation of irregular operations where I would have to rent or Uber away from the airport to get to my destination (and therefore become an origin/destination passenger). In that case, I am enthusiastic about using the ATS instead of a shuttle bus. Good riddance to shlepping bags out to the remote curb, loading into a bus, and all that.

ZBA2CGX · Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:50 pm

The problem with the ATS, is that there is no direct path from the baggage claim to the ATS Station. If you have multiple bags/kids it is not a fun time moving getting from baggage claim through multiple escalators / elevators (which are too small for more than 2 families with bags) to the ATS then to the rental car / remote lots.
The way finding is not that great and would be pretty easy to get lost or frustrated. For me, I've given up parking in the remote lot because it is usually cheaper to take an uber than to drive. Also, the though of moving all the luggage & kids is daunting.

Suggestions
As part of the terminal redo coming up, make a direct link to the ATS from the baggage claim & exit. Ideally, use ramps and make the elevators bigger/faster. Improve the way to the ATS with clear signs (From ORD T1-C to ATS is a convoluted mess).

United787 · Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:16 pm

chidino wrote:
And then I read forward to page 9: (I wish I could post it, but it's one huge xeroxed file) Intl pax will ascend to a third-floor corridor network that includes APC kiosks that lead to escalators that descend down to a sterile tunnel that leads to escalators that connect to the OGT (global terminal) CPB arrivals hall. There's no allocation for anything other than APC kiosks, no inspection area; obviously there's going to have to be some temp facility in place while we wait for OGT/new T2.

Thank you for providing all of the detail. After understanding this and then looking at the rendering you can clearly see that the 1st concourse and the new T2 have a 3rd floor where the 2nd concourse doesn't. Every international arrival I have had always seems to take you down to a lower level, being taken up to a 3rd level presents some really nice design possibilities for an arriving passenger... think a light filled welcome to the US rather than a dungeon...

ZBA2CGX wrote:
The problem with the ATS, is that there is no direct path from the baggage claim to the ATS Station. If you have multiple bags/kids it is not a fun time moving getting from baggage claim through multiple escalators / elevators (which are too small for more than 2 families with bags) to the ATS then to the rental car / remote lots.
The way finding is not that great and would be pretty easy to get lost or frustrated. For me, I've given up parking in the remote lot because it is usually cheaper to take an uber than to drive. Also, the though of moving all the luggage & kids is daunting.

Suggestions
As part of the terminal redo coming up, make a direct link to the ATS from the baggage claim & exit. Ideally, use ramps and make the elevators bigger/faster. Improve the way to the ATS with clear signs (From ORD T1-C to ATS is a convoluted mess).

It sounds like the O'Hare21 plan will making some changes on how the ATS is accessed from the terminals. At a minimum, I would bet the access from T2 to the ATS is streamlined and possibly from T1 and T3. T5 is already pretty good.

chicawgo · Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:15 pm

ZBA2CGX wrote:
The problem with the ATS, is that there is no direct path from the baggage claim to the ATS Station. If you have multiple bags/kids it is not a fun time moving getting from baggage claim through multiple escalators / elevators (which are too small for more than 2 families with bags) to the ATS then to the rental car / remote lots.
The way finding is not that great and would be pretty easy to get lost or frustrated. For me, I've given up parking in the remote lot because it is usually cheaper to take an uber than to drive. Also, the though of moving all the luggage & kids is daunting.

Suggestions
As part of the terminal redo coming up, make a direct link to the ATS from the baggage claim & exit. Ideally, use ramps and make the elevators bigger/faster. Improve the way to the ATS with clear signs (From ORD T1-C to ATS is a convoluted mess).

Actually, since the facade renovation some years ago, T2 and T3 actually are pretty easy to get to the ATS walkway. There are 2 huge elevators that go directly from baggage claim to the walkway. Plus there are several escalators that easily go up as well. I agree that the elevator on the ATS station side will be a huge choke point. That I'm very concerned about with families with bags. T1, however, hasn't changed since its inception and there's only one super slow and small elevator that goes up to the ATS walkway. I was really hoping they would update it like they did for T2 and T3 now that they're sending 5x the people on the ATS. Even with clear signage it will be a disaster.

Honestly, what I do when I'm with family is just have the rest wait in the terminal while I get the car and then I go pick them up.

yeogeo · Fri Apr 13, 2018 5:30 pm

Compared to Moody's, Fitch has a somewhat less pessimistic bond rating commentary for the O'Hare 21 project:
https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/how-debt ... l-makeover

Fitch Ratings offered a positive review of the lease, calling it “an essential step to allow the airport to address both the modernization and the expansion of the airport to serve long-term growth for domestic and international service, as well as hub activities for United Airlines and American Airlines.” The new agreement runs through 2033.

Airline support offsets some concerns over leverage as it highlights the carriers' recognition of “both the value and the cost implications to maintain service in a strong Chicago market.”

chidino · Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:19 pm

Something seemingly unimportant that I'm becoming somewhat fascinated about is the tunnel to the new satellites. That can't be some small ditch. Allowance for an APM, which wouldn't be installed til Phase II but they have to plan for; somehow the APM has to keep secure passengers separate with their own corridor. (Satellite 2 is domestic/precleared only, but additional int'l gates can always be added to Phase II.) Also, the stations, which are to be installed and listed as the basements, are desired to have "natural daylight into the APM station platform", which will be a neat trick if the architects figure it out.

So, in the tunnel: two APM guideways and emergency access; a separate secure corridor with walkways in both directions and a physical aisle for hoofers/APM failures (for some reason, width not specified but it will take up "approximately 55,300 sq ft"); a main passenger corridor with twin walkways in both directions and ground space ("approx.170,000 sq ft"); baggage tug/system tunnel, not less than 26' wide and 16' high; a separate baggage conveyor tunnel only as far as Satellite 1 that's another 21' x 16'; separate dry and wet utility tunnels and separate fireproof emergency egress tunnels.

Another "small" thing holding construction up is the central basin elimination and south basin expansion. I can clearly see how that has to proceed immediately; what I don't have the knowledge for is how much can go on at one time without screwing up operations. But basin, tunnel, then we start to see something above ground is how it seems to read to me.

yeogeo · Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:57 pm

chidino wrote:
Something seemingly unimportant that I'm becoming somewhat fascinated about is the tunnel to the new satellites. That can't be some small ditch.

O'Hare's Chunnel:
the Ordunnel!

nomorerjs · Sat Apr 14, 2018 12:55 am

Thanks for the updates! I was so focused on the new T2 that I didn’t notice then International gates on the satellite.

Now the illustrations of T5 seem to have too many international gates, but that can easily be adjusted. SkyTeam: DL / AF / AM / AZ (seasonal if they survive), KE, MU, plus non-affiliated.

ADrum23 · Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:42 am

chidino wrote:
Something seemingly unimportant that I'm becoming somewhat fascinated about is the tunnel to the new satellites. That can't be some small ditch. Allowance for an APM, which wouldn't be installed til Phase II but they have to plan for; somehow the APM has to keep secure passengers separate with their own corridor. (Satellite 2 is domestic/precleared only, but additional int'l gates can always be added to Phase II.) Also, the stations, which are to be installed and listed as the basements, are desired to have "natural daylight into the APM station platform", which will be a neat trick if the architects figure it out.

So, in the tunnel: two APM guideways and emergency access; a separate secure corridor with walkways in both directions and a physical aisle for hoofers/APM failures (for some reason, width not specified but it will take up "approximately 55,300 sq ft"); a main passenger corridor with twin walkways in both directions and ground space ("approx.170,000 sq ft"); baggage tug/system tunnel, not less than 26' wide and 16' high; a separate baggage conveyor tunnel only as far as Satellite 1 that's another 21' x 16'; separate dry and wet utility tunnels and separate fireproof emergency egress tunnels.

Another "small" thing holding construction up is the central basin elimination and south basin expansion. I can clearly see how that has to proceed immediately; what I don't have the knowledge for is how much can go on at one time without screwing up operations. But basin, tunnel, then we start to see something above ground is how it seems to read to me.

I don’t understand why they just can’t install the people mover now and simply extend it when Phase II is built.

chidino · Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:25 am

ADrum23 wrote:

I don’t understand why they just can’t install the people mover now and simply extend it when Phase II is built.

I agree. The new concourses are wider and also spaced further apart than B & C; plus the tunnel comes in at the north end of Sat 2 (and the middle of Sat 3 & 4); given the dimensions, it's likely that, if you're like me, you will still be facing a 1500 ft walk to the gate! My very rough guesstimate is that Sat 1 will be about 40% further west than C currently ends; now double that distance to Sat 2. They're going to need it fairly quickly.

ADrum23 · Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:47 pm

Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?

ADrum23 · Sat Apr 14, 2018 1:49 pm

chidino wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

I don’t understand why they just can’t install the people mover now and simply extend it when Phase II is built.

I agree. The new concourses are wider and also spaced further apart than B & C; plus the tunnel comes in at the north end of Sat 2 (and the middle of Sat 3 & 4); given the dimensions, it's likely that, if you're like me, you will still be facing a 1500 ft walk to the gate! My very rough guesstimate is that Sat 1 will be about 40% further west than C currently ends; now double that distance to Sat 2. They're going to need it fairly quickly.

Exactly. CVG has a people mover for a much shorter distance. They really should just install it now.

chidino · Sat Apr 14, 2018 3:51 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?

Right. One ADG VI gate at OGT, one at Sat 1, and existing M11a. So, basically one per alliance with the solos sharing T5. It's one of the "changes in project scope requiring review", i.e. we all share the ball and nobody gets any more -- or else we renegotiate everything. Between that and the, um, 'non-24-hour' basis of 380 residency at ORD, I wouldn't count on more VI gates unless there's long-term changes in traffic. (And since Tim Clark isn't getting the stretch 380 he wanted, they won't be "popping in twice a day" with 850 seats/3 class, as he said in 2014. http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-ohare- ... olumn.html )

chidino · Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:23 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Exactly. CVG has a people mover for a much shorter distance. They really should just install it now.

Trying to read between the lines: Phase II seems to be set up much more along the lines of what I'll call "independent development"; yes, in there are Satellites 3 & 4, but so also are the reconstructions of existing T1 and T3 facilities. There IS a little money in Phase I for existing but it seems to be for gate relocation (that's why the pictures show every single jetbridge in white; all gates are being reconfigured -- remember, 25% more space). But as to rebuilding Concourses C (especially with wide, comfortable Sat 1 attached), H or K into the new standard of at least 120' wide, etc seems to be up to UA and AA. There's really very little money for existing facilities in the plan, and no reference to reconstruction at all until Phase II.

The new baggage system better be pretty good (I'm trying to figure out the tech stuff, but it sounds very cutting-edge both handling-wise as well as its integration with security) at $690 mil. To put that in perspective, I think they're looking at $900 mil for the whole new airport (minus airfield) at "KCI".

United787 · Mon Apr 16, 2018 1:50 am

nomorerjs wrote:
Now the illustrations of T5 seem to have too many international gates, but that can easily be adjusted. SkyTeam: DL / AF / AM / AZ (seasonal if they survive), KE, MU, plus non-affiliated.

T5 won't be too many gates if they plan to put the One World and Star Alliance "non-core" partners over there, TK, LO, AY, QR etc! All documents so far seem to point in that direction including the diagrams showing the quantities of widebodies at T2 vs T5, I really hope not... I think it would be a huge mistake to not put all of the airlines for the two alliance at T2.

chidino · Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:39 am

United787 wrote:
nomorerjs wrote:
Now the illustrations of T5 seem to have too many international gates, but that can easily be adjusted. SkyTeam: DL / AF / AM / AZ (seasonal if they survive), KE, MU, plus non-affiliated.

T5 won't be too many gates if they plan to put the One World and Star Alliance "non-core" partners over there, TK, LO, AY, QR etc! All documents so far seem to point in that direction including the diagrams showing the quantities of widebodies at T2 vs T5, I really hope not... I think it would be a huge mistake to not put all of the airlines for the two alliance at T2.

I was told (by someone on the legal teams, and yes, it's not privileged) that the bridges are there in white to give some sort of idea as to reallocation of existing space but that the artists were just winging it, since the airlines are nowhere near deciding anything more than quantity and footage needed -- layout to follow (I was curious as to the gate placement accuracy but was told "that's about as accurate as the drawing of the OGT" which of course is just a blob at this point). Also -- the intention is all Star and oneworld partners exchange with each other at T2/satellites. Even non-affiliated but cooperating, like AS and AA, mgmt seems to be leaving up to the big lessee (if AA wants them in 3, then they stay). So far this whole cooperative thing is very new to everyone.

yeogeo · Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:26 am

chidino wrote:
...the intention is all Star and oneworld partners exchange with each other at T2/satellites. Even non-affiliated but cooperating, like AS and AA...

Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.

chidino · Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:36 pm

yeogeo wrote:

Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.

They heard you. That's exactly the point; even SkyTeam will have that ability in T5. Delta was a big participant in the signing, their VP/Facilities, Wayne Aaron, said in the city's puff piece, "We are excited about the opportunity to move to Terminal 5, where colocating with our Sky team Partners in a modern and spacious facility will improve our ability to connect passengers." FWIW (I'm sure this is incredibly obvious to most), but the feedback was that originally DL had no choice because of blowback from their frequent fliers unable to get to ORD w/o hubbing, but now they think they can leverage their int'l partners into a reasonable level of service, dictated by the incoming connections and their big $$ frequents. Makes sense.

In other words, if your airline switches alliances, it will switch terminals at the new O'Hare...

CHI2DFW · Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:10 am

chidino wrote:
yeogeo wrote:

Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.

They heard you. That's exactly the point; even SkyTeam will have that ability in T5. Delta was a big participant in the signing, their VP/Facilities, Wayne Aaron, said in the city's puff piece, "We are excited about the opportunity to move to Terminal 5, where colocating with our Sky team Partners in a modern and spacious facility will improve our ability to connect passengers." FWIW (I'm sure this is incredibly obvious to most), but the feedback was that originally DL had no choice because of blowback from their frequent fliers unable to get to ORD w/o hubbing, but now they think they can leverage their int'l partners into a reasonable level of service, dictated by the incoming connections and their big $$ frequents. Makes sense.

In other words, if your airline switches alliances, it will switch terminals at the new O'Hare...

It may be a few years from now, but I can see ORD to LAX, RDU, BOS and possibly AUS in the long-term.

yeogeo · Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:44 pm

Elon Musk's developing hyperloop project, linking O'Hare to downtown, has raised more than 110 million (mostly his own $)

http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/apr/ ... hyperloop/

"Musk earlier sold Boring Co (not a typo) hats and flamethrowers to raise funds. The company says tunnel-digging projects can cost as much as $1 billion per mile, but its goal is to lower these costs by a factor of 10 or more."

United787 · Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:58 pm

yeogeo wrote:
chidino wrote:
...the intention is all Star and oneworld partners exchange with each other at T2/satellites. Even non-affiliated but cooperating, like AS and AA...

Thank you! That's what we were all hoping for: no more transiting between T-5 and T-1/2/3 for inter-alliance connections.

That is great news, I hope it is true.

yeogeo wrote:
Elon Musk's developing hyperloop project, linking O'Hare to downtown, has raised more than 110 million (mostly his own $)

http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/apr/ ... hyperloop/

"Musk earlier sold Boring Co (not a typo) hats and flamethrowers to raise funds. The company says tunnel-digging projects can cost as much as $1 billion per mile, but its goal is to lower these costs by a factor of 10 or more."

He is still one of two finalists, correct? No decision yet.

globalcabotage · Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:43 am

There have been “discussions” of HA at ORD, but I’m hearing AA is more likely, but not anytime soon.

Now that ET and NZ have announced service, getting QF as well as service to ATH, BOG (will happen), EZE, GYE/UIO, LIM, LIS, MXP, OSL, and TLV are top priorities.

ADrum23 · Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:32 am

globalcabotage wrote:
There have been “discussions” of HA at ORD, but I’m hearing AA is more likely, but not anytime soon.

Now that ET and NZ have announced service, getting QF as well as service to ATH, BOG (will happen), EZE, GYE/UIO, LIM, LIS, MXP, OSL, and TLV are top priorities.

Why hasn't AA restarted at least seasonal ORD-HNL? That seems like a no-brainer.

Of those foreign destinations you listed, TLV has to be the top priority of those. I still can't believe LY choose SFO when they already have TLV service on UA. Either LY or UA have to start ORD-TLV soon.

ADrum23 · Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:34 am

United787 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
Elon Musk's developing hyperloop project, linking O'Hare to downtown, has raised more than 110 million (mostly his own $)

http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/apr/ ... hyperloop/

"Musk earlier sold Boring Co (not a typo) hats and flamethrowers to raise funds. The company says tunnel-digging projects can cost as much as $1 billion per mile, but its goal is to lower these costs by a factor of 10 or more."

He is still one of two finalists, correct? No decision yet.

1. Is this a serious proposal? I'm having a hard time taking this seriously (that goes for pretty much anything Mr. Musk says).

2. How in the heck are they going to build this without massive disruption and expensive costs?

3. What is the point of an express ORD-Loop train? Is the Blue Line not sufficient?

4. When would construction even start?

yeogeo · Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:50 am

ADrum23 wrote:
1. Is this a serious proposal? I'm having a hard time taking this seriously (that goes for pretty much anything Mr. Musk says).
2. How in the heck are they going to build this without massive disruption and expensive costs?
3. What is the point of an express ORD-Loop train? Is the Blue Line not sufficient?
4. When would construction even start?

1: seems pretty serious - $$ and time is being committed world-wide
2: Musk's proposal is underground, so "massive disruption"? Perhaps not. Expensive? definitely!
3: The point, I guess, is time. Whether that makes enough of a difference to make this project viable, I don't know.
4: unknown

Here's some reading:
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/el ... ncna855041
https://www.wired.com/tag/hyperloop/
https://electrek.co/2018/04/16/elon-mus ... -projects/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -hyperloop

jcwr56 · Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am

For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.

AAplat4life · Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:01 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
There have been “discussions” of HA at ORD, but I’m hearing AA is more likely, but not anytime soon.

Now that ET and NZ have announced service, getting QF as well as service to ATH, BOG (will happen), EZE, GYE/UIO, LIM, LIS, MXP, OSL, and TLV are top priorities.

Some routes mentioned such as ATH, BOG and EZE involve markets where the local economy can be volatile and so investments in those markets from ORD may not make sense. For AA and given how its management views things, ATH is best served out of PHL and BOG and EZE from MIA.

Why hasn't AA restarted at least seasonal ORD-HNL? That seems like a no-brainer.

With which aircraft? AA previously flew the route with 767s, but ORD is not really a 767 base anymore and the 788s seem like too much aircraft to fly on this route. AA would probably look for an extra 772 or 330 to fly ORD-HNL, but the question for management is whether that aircraft could be used more profitably elsewhere.

Of those foreign destinations you listed, TLV has to be the top priority of those. I still can't believe LY choose SFO when they already have TLV service on UA. Either LY or UA have to start ORD-TLV soon.

I agree. This is a market that AA has shown little interest in having.

ORDfan · Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:43 pm

Great conversation guys... every time I come on here now I learn something new about the ORD expansion. Still don't think I've wrapped my head around all the changes!

Just today, I noticed the expanded gate/lounge area at T5 in the updated renderings between gates M12 and M7. I'm guessing this is going to be some combination of lounges, retail, and general waiting area?

One minor potential quibble/concern is that I've always loved how the arrivals/passport control hall has a ton of natural light from the skylight windows...I hope that new section betwen M11 and M8 doesn't crowd out all the light

.

United787 · Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:48 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.

I am interested! That is awesome news even though I rarely fly AA anymore.

But why is no one talking about this? Nothing on the CDA or AA websites! Nothing in the news anywhere. I think the CDA need to step up it's PR machine.

jcwr56 · Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:59 pm

ORDfan wrote:
Great conversation guys... every time I come on here now I learn something new about the ORD expansion. Still don't think I've wrapped my head around all the changes!

Just today, I noticed the expanded gate/lounge area at T5 in the updated renderings between gates M12 and M7. I'm guessing this is going to be some combination of lounges, retail, and general waiting area?

One minor potential quibble/concern is that I've always loved how the arrivals/passport control hall has a ton of natural light from the skylight windows...I hope that new section betwen M11 and M8 doesn't crowd out all the light .

It shouldn't, the green roof there will go as it's making M8/9-M10/11 one massive hold room.

jcwr56 · Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:13 pm

United787 wrote:
jcwr56 wrote:
For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.

I am interested! That is awesome news even though I rarely fly AA anymore.

But why is no one talking about this? Nothing on the CDA or AA websites! Nothing in the news anywhere. I think the CDA need to step up it's PR machine.

I have no clue, but regional's have been coming and going all day. L21 and L22 have been the two primarily ones used.

chicawgo · Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:10 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
United787 wrote:
jcwr56 wrote:
For those interested, the new AA 5 gate concourse opens up today. First flight scheduled to arrive at 0626 gated to L22.

I am interested! That is awesome news even though I rarely fly AA anymore.

But why is no one talking about this? Nothing on the CDA or AA websites! Nothing in the news anywhere. I think the CDA need to step up it's PR machine.

I have no clue, but regional's have been coming and going all day. L21 and L22 have been the two primarily ones used.

"Soft" open?

Midway737 · Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:53 am

ORDfan wrote:
glbltrvlr wrote:
Airside - It ran from the low end of the C gates under E and over to the middle of F. A good idea in theory, as it's a long walk, but in practice it was faster to walk.Not obvious as the line for the shuttle got mixed in with nearby gates, and there was only one small floor sign..

Bummer! I would've loved to have taken that...must've been a really cool view of the apron from the bus.

I remember that. it was several years ago, maybe 10 years ago, i was flying out on US Airways from ORD to BWI. I remember my flight was delayed , so i was rebook to United. Interesting at the time US Airways using F gates. so i was heading over to the C concourse, saw a free bus to the C Concourse. Judging from the long line waiting for the shuttle, i opted to walk over there which took me about 10 minutes walks while waiting for the shuttle is 30 minutes walks. smh

Midway737 · Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:57 am

ADrum23 wrote:
Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?

it should!! or two.

chidino · Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:00 am

Midway737 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?

it should!! or two.

One in Satellite 1, one in OGT/new T2, and existing M11a in T5. Technically, they're common-use (as are all gates as of May 12, 2018) but they line up as Star's in Sat 1/long Concourse C, oneworld's in OGT/new T2 and SkyTeam/unaffiliateds T5. This specific quantity and layout is actually a deal-breaker in that no more are allowed without everyone's lease being torn up (fat chance), so between that and the likelihood of a sudden purchase of 380s by AA or UA, very doubtful we would see more Group VI gates for the 15-year term of the leases.

jcwr56 · Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:21 pm

chidino wrote:
Midway737 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Also, I would assume the new global terminal will have to have at least one A380 compatible gate, right?

it should!! or two.

One in Satellite 1, one in OGT/new T2, and existing M11a in T5. Technically, they're common-use (as are all gates as of May 12, 2018) but they line up as Star's in Sat 1/long Concourse C, oneworld's in OGT/new T2 and SkyTeam/unaffiliateds T5. This specific quantity and layout is actually a deal-breaker in that no more are allowed without everyone's lease being torn up (fat chance), so between that and the likelihood of a sudden purchase of 380s by AA or UA, very doubtful we would see more Group VI gates for the 15-year term of the leases.

Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.

yeogeo · Fri Apr 20, 2018 2:39 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.

Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:

Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar

Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.

CHI787ORD · Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:32 pm

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.

Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.

ZBA2CGX · Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:00 pm

CHI787ORD wrote:
[Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.]

I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.

chicawgo · Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:12 pm

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.

BA is so 'likely' that it starts in a few weeks!

jetblastdubai · Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:55 pm

ZBA2CGX wrote:
I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.

I've offloaded at a remote gate in Dubai in mid-summer. I would say it's equally unpleasant. 1st World problems.

CHI787ORD · Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:19 pm

ZBA2CGX wrote:
CHI787ORD wrote:
[Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.]

I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.

So you could have a BA and LH A380s unloading at the same time at T2, and an EK A380 unloading at T5 at the same time.

A KE flight would be at T5 and likely wouldn't overlap with EK based on the current timings.

OZ, EY, and QR A380s are probably unlikely to come to ORD.

So barring a new A380 airline starting service, or a sudden increase in demand for A380s by existing airlines, at most you'd have 3 A380s parked at gates at ORD at the same with 4 available gates so I doubt the hardstand would ever be used in the nearish future.

CHI787ORD · Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:21 pm

CHI787ORD wrote:
ZBA2CGX wrote:
CHI787ORD wrote:
[Generous, but really easy to see how the A380 times could overlap and you'd need multiple gates. This has been a problem in BOM and JNB.]

I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.

So you could have a BA and LH A380s unloading at the same time at T2, and an EK A380 unloading at T5 at the same time.

A KE flight would be at T5 and likely wouldn't overlap with EK based on the current timings.

EY, and QR A380s are probably unlikely to come to ORD. More likely we'd see 2x 777s. OZ has only recently started going daily to ORD and AF can't keep a 777 filled on the route.

So barring a new A380 airline starting service, or a sudden increase in demand for A380s by existing airlines, at most you'd have 3 A380s parked at gates at ORD at the same with 4 available gates so I doubt the hardstand would ever be used in the nearish future.

CHI787ORD · Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:21 pm

CHI787ORD wrote:
CHI787ORD wrote:
ZBA2CGX wrote:

I would love to see how they unload A380 from a hardstand in the middle of the winter. If I was a passenger I would not be happy.

So you could have a BA and LH A380s unloading at the same time at T2, and an EK A380 unloading at T5 at the same time.

A KE flight would be at T5 and likely wouldn't overlap with EK based on the current timings.

EY and QR A380s are probably unlikely to come to ORD. More likely we'd see 2x 777s. OZ has only recently started going daily to ORD and AF can't keep a 777 filled on the route.

So barring a new A380 airline starting service, or a sudden increase in demand for A380s by existing airlines, at most you'd have 3 A380s parked at gates at ORD at the same time with 4 available gates so I doubt the hardstand would ever be used in the nearish future.

ADrum23 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 12:09 am

yeogeo wrote:
jcwr56 wrote:
Actually T5 will have two A380 gates. With the T5 expansion comes another one and hardstand. So overall there will be 5 airport wide.

Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:

Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar

Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.

Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.

Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?

jcwr56 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:47 am

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?

Because I know and lets leave it at that.

CHI787ORD · Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:27 am

jcwr56 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:

Pretty generous considering the current crop of likely/possible/unlikely ORD A-380 operators:

Likely: Lufthansa, British, Emirates
Possible? Korean, Etihad, Asiana
unlikely: Air France, Qatar

Perhaps you'd arrange them differently... and thinking ahead there could be more possible I suppose.

Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.

Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?

Because I know and lets leave it at that.

EK.

And when the new T2 is built, LH.

ADrum23 · Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:47 am

CHI787ORD wrote:
jcwr56 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

Why is a second A380 gate needed in T5? What would it serve that the other couldn't? I don't think there is likely to be a huge rush of A380's coming into ORD once they get more A380 gates. Right now, only BA is scheduled to bring the A380 into ORD, and I really can't see anyone else bringing it in.

Also, how do we know that the T5 expansion will have a second A380 gate and that the global terminal will have two?

Because I know and lets leave it at that.

EK.

And when the new T2 is built, LH.

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

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

chidino · Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:53 am

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?

There is only one Group VI gate to be built in the OGT, and one at Satellite 1. Those are the only Group VI gates authorized in the O'Hare 21 TAP. I don't know about T5; I don't have that redevelopment plan (I would love a copy...) I had heard -- where, of course, I can't remember -- that another VI gate was part of the T5 expansion, as yeogeo said -- I just couldn't prove it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net