Couple of things.

1. Why don't they just demolish and rebuild the existing Concourse C to better fit into the new Concourse?

2. Why isn't anything being done with Terminal 3? Won't something have to be done there eventually? The space between the new Global Terminal and the existing Concourse G seems rather tight.

3. Are the underground tunnels going to include a people mover (a la ATL, CVG, etc). It seems that would make the most sense, especially when ORD inevitably needs to expand to the west.

neomax wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

You're the one that suggested that. There's no evidence they're going to actually do that.

To your original point though, I do think it's significant. The most crucial part is that they now will have an extremely convenient connection point for popular international carriers. AF, KL, AZ, KE, MU and AM all fly to ORD and they would be able to connect domestic routes within the same concourse. I'm really surprised UA and AA are allowing this. It gives DL the chance to potentially win over some Chicago loyalty. Very few people are happy with UA or AA and would probably be impressed with DL.

I would be shocked if DL put a focus city (or even p2p flying) in ORD (though I'd be thrilled if they did), considering it is sandwiched in between their MSP and DTW hubs. At most, I see them adding LAX and that is it.

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

So what exactly would they do? Assuming they have about 8-10 gates max, how many flights could they do and what cities would you suggest them adding? And would any of this be at the expense of their MSP and/or DTW operations?

According to Chicago tribune article, it seems like the only international partners going to the Global Terminal would be BA, JL, ANA, and LH. This seems like too few, especially if ALL the OW and Star partners are supposed to relocate. I would assume at least CX, TK, QR, and EK would also join them in the Global Terminal.

Next, how will an at-capacity global hub deal with the renovation/relocation/construction madness? I’m sure lots of planners are losing sleep over this.

Finally, will the ATS be changing at all besides the extension to the Intermodal facility? The entire system looks and feels quite dated, maybe a fresh set of trains and modernized stations would give it a facelift.

ADrum23 wrote:

Couple of things.

1. Why don't they just demolish and rebuild the existing Concourse C to better fit into the new Concourse?

2. Why isn't anything being done with Terminal 3? Won't something have to be done there eventually? The space between the new Global Terminal and the existing Concourse G seems rather tight.

3. Are the underground tunnels going to include a people mover (a la ATL, CVG, etc). It seems that would make the most sense, especially when ORD inevitably needs to expand to the west.

I asked the same question twice. AA's facility is 55 years old now. I imagine they may go to the new west side terminal but that will put them at a disadvantage for travelers coming from downtown.

william wrote:

Acey559 wrote:

The Crain’s article has a nice rendering and a new graphic or two I haven’t seen. The bottom one is nice to visualize new gate useage by the airlines.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... serAgent=1

I see a way forward for UA to rebuild its T1, from the ground up when the time comes, but not AA's 55 year old facility.

If I recall a few months ago when concept plans were floating around they showed H/K being demolished and gates being put along the main building of T3, essntially making it and L a continuous concourse splitting off from G. This is probably something that will be looked at further down the road along with additional western concourses past the new D. When it gets to that point I'm sure AA will have a say in how it's approached.

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

You seriously overestimate the value of the relatively minor SkyTeam partners to DL. DL isn't going to build a new connecting hub in the shadow of its two highly lucrative domestic hubs at DTW & MSP. If MU needs access to DL's domestic network they can add service to MSP/DTW/ATL (or simply put passengers on the DL flights from PEK/PVG). There's absolutely zero sense for DL in trying to compete with UA & AA in what would be (for DL) domestic point-to-point routes from ORD in order to bolster feed for alliance partners. The key alliance partner hubs (like AMS, CDG, MEX, ICN, PVG) are already connected to several or all of DL's large hubs or likely will be.

Any expansion by DL at ORD would likely be targeted at serving ORD as a spoke from DL hubs and key focus markets; i.e. adding things like LAX/RDU/BOS-ORD. Sure, there'd probably be a handful of connections at ORD -- but I've made a connection at YYZ on a SkyTeam itinerary and I doubt anyone would argue YYZ is a SkyTeam hub.

United787 wrote:

I just read the Tribune article, very thorough and generally well covered. The graphic showing the proposed terminal layout seems to be inaccurate for the two new UA concourses.

I read the Tribune article as well and the aviation commissioner comes across as clueless and delusional. She seems to think that increasing costs at ORD by hundreds of millions of dollars a year (that's how you pay for eight billion dollars in terminals) won't be passed on to passengers "since airlines are global companies that absorb lease increases and other fee changes." Connecting passengers might not eat as much of the costs, but you can bet that ORD O&D passengers are going to see higher fares given that AA & UA aren't running charities. Then there's some blather about ORD being "the first... global alliance hub in the U.S." which is simply nonsense when you look at airports like DFW, DTW, ATL, DEN, SFO, SEA, PHL, MIA, etc. where alliance partners all share hubs or offer relatively seamless connections. She calls LHR a "global alliance hub" even though the hub carrier BA doesn't share its primary terminal with most of its alliance partners.

planespotter20 wrote:

According to Chicago tribune article, it seems like the only international partners going to the Global Terminal would be BA, JL, ANA, and LH. This seems like too few, especially if ALL the OW and Star partners are supposed to relocate. I would assume at least CX, TK, QR, and EK would also join them in the Global Terminal.

Next, how will an at-capacity global hub deal with the renovation/relocation/construction madness? I’m sure lots of planners are losing sleep over this.

Finally, will the ATS be changing at all besides the extension to the Intermodal facility? The entire system looks and feels quite dated, maybe a fresh set of trains and modernized stations would give it a facelift.

They’re completely redoing the whole system with 15 new vehicles to double the number of trains. Also software and infrastructure upgrades. I don’t know what they’re doing to stations but I imagine there will be some changes considering now all rental car traffic must take the train.

planespotter20 wrote:

According to Chicago tribune article, it seems like the only international partners going to the Global Terminal would be BA, JL, ANA, and LH. This seems like too few, especially if ALL the OW and Star partners are supposed to relocate. I would assume at least CX, TK, QR, and EK would also join them in the Global Terminal.

Next, how will an at-capacity global hub deal with the renovation/relocation/construction madness? I’m sure lots of planners are losing sleep over this.

Finally, will the ATS be changing at all besides the extension to the Intermodal facility? The entire system looks and feels quite dated, maybe a fresh set of trains and modernized stations would give it a facelift.

I thought the same thing regarding the Trib article, but it also states the goal will be to create the U.S.'s first true global alliance hub, in the mold of Heathrow and Narita. The fact the Ginger Evans realizes the importance of such a coup indicates that alliance partners are likely to be "housed" at their respective alliance terminals under this new, proposed terminal structure. It's an educated inference at this point.

Regarding ATS: I actually think it's aged quite well, and while I wouldn't be surprised if new trains are on the agenda, it wouldn't bother me if not.

ORD Boy 2 wrote:

Per Crain's (Subscription) - http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... al-planned.

A new "D" west of C, rebuilt T2 that is CUTE between UA and AA, UA gets all of 1 with Star, AA gets all of 3 with OW, DL, SkyTeam and everyone else to T5, plus a new hotel at 5, and a 10k spot Employee Lot near where Western Terminal will be.

So Delta/SkyTeam just gets the entire international terminal 5 to themselves...? Seems kind of pointless, considering that DL doesn't operate international flights from ORD...

neomax wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

You're the one that suggested that. There's no evidence they're going to actually do that.

To your original point though, I do think it's significant. The most crucial part is that they now will have an extremely convenient connection point for popular international carriers. AF, KL, AZ, KE, MU and AM all fly to ORD and they would be able to connect domestic routes within the same concourse. I'm really surprised UA and AA are allowing this. It gives DL the chance to potentially win over some Chicago loyalty. Very few people are happy with UA or AA and would probably be impressed with DL.

I would be shocked if DL put a focus city (or even p2p flying) in ORD (though I'd be thrilled if they did), considering it is sandwiched in between their MSP and DTW hubs. At most, I see them adding LAX and that is it.

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

But Delta doesn't have the domestic traffic at O'hare to feed the Skyteam partners at ORD. If the diagram is correct, they'll only have a grand total of 8 gates at T5, which cannot support a hub, even a mini-hub.

FA9295 wrote:

So Delta/SkyTeam just gets the entire international terminal 5 to themselves...? Seems kind of pointless, considering that DL doesn't operate international flights from ORD...

Well it won't be the international terminal anymore. It will be T5: the Skyteam and LCC/miscellaneous terminal....

william wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Couple of things.

1. Why don't they just demolish and rebuild the existing Concourse C to better fit into the new Concourse?

2. Why isn't anything being done with Terminal 3? Won't something have to be done there eventually? The space between the new Global Terminal and the existing Concourse G seems rather tight.

3. Are the underground tunnels going to include a people mover (a la ATL, CVG, etc). It seems that would make the most sense, especially when ORD inevitably needs to expand to the west.

I asked the same question twice. AA's facility is 55 years old now. I imagine they may go to the new west side terminal but that will put them at a disadvantage for travelers coming from downtown.

According to the article, T1, T3, and T5 will get major "architectural changes". As to what this means exactly, it's anyone's guess right now.

ual763 wrote:

They've tried ORD-CDG in the past, and it failed.

Lie.

They flew it in place of AF during off season for a few years and then stopped when AF went back to year round.

ual763 wrote:

neomax wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I would be shocked if DL put a focus city (or even p2p flying) in ORD (though I'd be thrilled if they did), considering it is sandwiched in between their MSP and DTW hubs. At most, I see them adding LAX and that is it.

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

But Delta doesn't have the domestic traffic at O'hare to feed the Skyteam partners at ORD. If the diagram is correct, they'll only have a grand total of 8 gates at T5, which cannot support a hub, even a mini-hub.

They don't need a hub or mini hub. The international partners are already there and established. Now DL will share the same terminal making connections possible if DL chooses, but probably not a priority though. Doesn't mean they couldn't connect passengers through internationally if needed from the destinations served currently. It would simply just be possible.

With the mergers, there are four domestic megacarriers. In the 3rd largest metro area - Chicago - Delta is NOWHERE. That is a major issue.
The days of being strong in one or two regions - against UA and AA in their current forms - is not tenable in the long term. Delta must raise Chicago to at least the level of a focus city.
Having said that, the gates DL are given in this plan are not enough to create a focus city. And I don't see anyplace else for international arrivals, of which there are a whole (current) T5 worth.

Delta should be screaming bloody murder over this arrangement.

jagraham wrote:

With the mergers, there are four domestic megacarriers. In the 3rd largest metro area - Chicago - Delta is NOWHERE. That is a major issue.
The days of being strong in one or two regions - against UA and AA in their current forms - is not tenable in the long term. Delta must raise Chicago to at least the level of a focus city.
Having said that, the gates DL are given in this plan are not enough to create a focus city. And I don't see anyplace else for international arrivals, of which there are a whole (current) T5 worth.

Delta should be screaming bloody murder over this arrangement.

Then let DL give up some ATL gates so UA can create the much-discussed southeastern hub.

jagraham wrote:

With the mergers, there are four domestic megacarriers. In the 3rd largest metro area - Chicago - Delta is NOWHERE. That is a major issue.
The days of being strong in one or two regions - against UA and AA in their current forms - is not tenable in the long term. Delta must raise Chicago to at least the level of a focus city.

No. Just no. Delta cannot be everything to everyone, and neither can their competitors. The 4th largest combined statistical area is Washington-Baltimore and that's (1) a bit over 2% smaller than the Chicago area and (2) likely to surpass Chicago by the end of the decade. Does that mean DL must have a hub or focus city in Washington or Baltimore? UA, AA, and WN all do. How about the S.F. Bay Area? #5 and it will probably rival Chicago by the time the new ORD terminals are completed. Does DL need a focus city there, too?

DL has far larger network issues: the complete lack of a hub in the South Central U.S. is a big one. Two of the top ten metro areas are in Texas and DL is an also-ran in those markets. But they have very strong positions in their core markets and have even turned a very shaky position in NYC into a lead in the market. Chicago is only essential to DL as a well-served spoke.

I know it's a huge no-no to criticize Delta on this website because most people here think Delta is the world's greatest, most perfect, most irresistible airline, but here goes:

I think UA and AA are gaining more from these changes than DL is.

In the 1990s, passengers making international to domestic connections on NW at DTW had to change terminals, and re clear security with locally originating passengers, just like passengers making international to domestic connections on AA and UA at ORD do. Likewise, all three airlines had to tow aircraft from international gates to domestic gates before they could be turned around for their next flights.

When NW's new terminal at DTW opened in 2002, NW / DL gained a huge competitive advantage over AA and UA. A passenger flying from PVG to PHL or AMS to MCI via DTW clears customs and security in the same terminal their onward connecting flight operates from, DL does not need to haul checked bags between terminals, and an aircraft that arrives from an international destination can be cleaned, catered, and loaded with passengers and cargo for its next flight at the same gate it arrived at.

People living in cities that are spokes for AA, UA, and DL, especially high yield passengers who are willing to pay more for a smoother connection, know that it's less of a hassle to take DL via DTW (or MSP) than it is to take AA or UA via ORD, and DL also (a) is able to get better utilization from their international aircraft because they don't need to be towed between terminals, and (b) does not need to pay people to move aircraft and checked bags between terminals like AA and UA do.

The new terminal design at ORD will give AA and UA the same international-domestic connection experience for their passengers that DL offers now.

The extra revenue DL will earn from having enough gates to fly ORD - LAX / SEA / BOS / RDU, and offer same terminal connections with their Sky Team partners at ORD, probably will not offset the loss of revenue from high yield international travelers now that AA and UA can offer a customer experience at ORD that's the same as what DL / NW have offered at DTW for 20 years.

ScottB wrote:

jagraham wrote:

With the mergers, there are four domestic megacarriers. In the 3rd largest metro area - Chicago - Delta is NOWHERE. That is a major issue.
The days of being strong in one or two regions - against UA and AA in their current forms - is not tenable in the long term. Delta must raise Chicago to at least the level of a focus city.

No. Just no. Delta cannot be everything to everyone, and neither can their competitors. The 4th largest combined statistical area is Washington-Baltimore and that's (1) a bit over 2% smaller than the Chicago area and (2) likely to surpass Chicago by the end of the decade. Does that mean DL must have a hub or focus city in Washington or Baltimore? UA, AA, and WN all do. How about the S.F. Bay Area? #5 and it will probably rival Chicago by the time the new ORD terminals are completed. Does DL need a focus city there, too?

DL has far larger network issues: the complete lack of a hub in the South Central U.S. is a big one. Two of the top ten metro areas are in Texas and DL is an also-ran in those markets. But they have very strong positions in their core markets and have even turned a very shaky position in NYC into a lead in the market. Chicago is only essential to DL as a well-served spoke.

Agreed. If anything, DL needs to address their lack of presence in Texas by opening a focus city in AUS. ORD should be the least of their worries.

The reason dl is not getting more gates is because it doesn’t need more gates.

It’s getting creamed on sea ord right now. Huge money looser. And the same will happen if it tries lax bos or rdu. It simply doesn’t have the low cost base to sustain 20% lower yield than aa and ua on highly competitive routes. With its operation size, it really doesn’t even need 8 gates.

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

none of those partner airlines are at ORD because of connections. They are there because that's where their O&D demand is. They're not about to replace higher yield O&D passengers with lower yield connecting passengers only because they happen to be under the same roof.
DL is not the airline that will benefit the most from this gate expansion. B6 is.
B6 has been desperate to get more gates at ORD for years.

Looking closely at one of the graphics, where it shows the what airlines get what gates it also says that these are the airlines that will operate from global hub (new T2).

AA (and core partners):
BA
IB
JL
CX

UA (and core partners):
LH
ANA
CA
AC

airbazar wrote:

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

none of those partner airlines are at ORD because of connections. They are there because that's where their O&D demand is. They're not about to replace higher yield O&D passengers with lower yield connecting passengers only because they happen to be under the same roof.
DL is not the airline that will benefit the most from this gate expansion. B6 is.
B6 has been desperate to get more gates at ORD for years.

I believe DL has actually stated they would like more space/gates at ORD. Their partners are at ORD already because of O&D, but they have never been in the same terminal as DL. That is about to change. What DL does with this is up to them, I too don't see ORD becoming a hub or focus city, or DL even replacing high yield passengers with low yield ones on intl partner flights, but isn't it possible they can contribute SOME passengers to these flights to help fill them and isn't it POSSIBLE having more space and gates and access to partners could spur future expansion to some degree? I agree with previous posters DL is the weak link in Chicago, and needs to do something. This is a step in the right direction. Only time will tell if they keep the same # of flights/gates/destinations once they move into T5.

planespotter20 wrote:

Looking closely at one of the graphics, where it shows the what airlines get what gates it also says that these are the airlines that will operate from global hub (new T2).

AA (and core partners):
BA
IB
JL
CX

UA (and core partners):
LH
ANA
CA
AC

Exactly!! I went back and reread all the articles on this expansion deal and several articles mention which airlines will be using the new global hub and there was a graphic in one of the articles that showed the airlines and you are correct AA and UA will only allow their core partners to use the global terminal every other airline even those in Star and One World will still be housed at Terminal 5 along with Sky in the end a lot of international carriers will still be housed at T5. The Delta fan club on this thread believes they are gaining a ton of gates in this deal are simply focusing on the graphic that shows DLat T5 in green with 13 gates however that same graphic shows DL is sharing those gates with international carriers the rest of the gates at T5 will be used for domestic low cost carriers. Of the 13 green gates on the one graphic it wouldn't surprise me once construction is done if DL only has permanent access to only 5 or 6 of those gates.

planespotter20 wrote:

Looking closely at one of the graphics, where it shows the what airlines get what gates it also says that these are the airlines that will operate from global hub (new T2).

AA (and core partners):
BA
IB
JL
CX

UA (and core partners):
LH
ANA
CA
AC

I saw that. I would be surprised though if SAS and LOT weren't allowed to operate into T2 as a well. They both (moreso SAS) get a ton of feed from UAL at ORD. You'd think Turkish would be in T2 as well, since they're SA and all. Who know though.

neomax wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

Theoretically yes but I doubt AA and UA will sign off on any deal that will let DL massively expand at ORD.

Well, their first mistake was letting DL get this far in the first place! ORD will never be anything like DTW/MSP for DL, but it will almost certainly be a lot bigger than it is now. The most precious real estate in aviation are gates, and DL is being handed them on a silver platter in a high yield city. DL would be beyond stupid to not take all of them and add as many flights as possible, including LHR, CDG, AMS at an absolute minimum. I would not be surprised to see DL overtake WN as the third biggest airline in Chicago once this is all said and done. I personally think the DL/T5 part of this deal has gone completely unnoticed under the radar, and is underrated beyond belief. I don't know if people simply don't understand the significance of it or just don't know to begin with. In my opinion, the biggest winner in the entire thing is DL but surprisingly few people have realized that. While DL will never be anything next to UA and AA at ORD, it will be enough to make a noticeable dent. T5 is nothing but widebody gates, and has all the infrastructure to support int'l flights, so there is no way DL is going to give that up. I can realistically see ORD becoming something a bit bigger than your average focus city, and enough to make ORD the first three-way hub city in the US. If DL adds a few TATL flights, it will already be on par with MSP, and with a SEA style buildup, it could become something worth keeping.

I disagree. First off, both DL and NW (and predecessors) at one time had "hubs" in Chicago. They both gave up the position to focus on other midwest cities where they could be dominant and strong. TWA ended up doing the same thing...in its case giving up a "strong #3" position because it wasn't profitable to focus on STL. Being a weak #3 at ORD (#4 overall in CHI) in a market that isn't really capacity controlled (beyond # of gates) doesn't let you build a local franchise given that the other guys can match and/beat you route for route and they have transfer traffic too. DL isn't going to draw down great hubs in DTW or MSP to build up CHI nor are they going to dump a lot of connecting traffic into the network that waters down their profits elsewhere (the market share game is over).

Is Chicago an important business market? YES. Good service to CHI is critical to selling a corporate travel agreement.
Is it a high-yield market? I'm not sure I agree with that...lots of competition means it can be pretty easy to get a great or decent fare to Chicago if you're flexible on times.
Do they use this move to put in some effort on building a strong brand with great customer service a la SFO? Probably. My guess is that they add service enough service to be viable to business travel in places like LAX plus RDU and BOS maybe AUS as they build AUS up as their Texas focus city. I would suspect that we see a higher-quality lounge (a la the SFO SkyClub). And from there, they will build some opportunity connections--especially onto CDG, AMS, ICN, MEX--and if they do have a kick-ass lounge some very savvy SkyMiles members will route themselves through there. But at the end of the day, DL's CHI business will be O&D with a focus on the D. It will be all about selling good, reliable service to Chicago from NYC, ATL, CVG, MSP, DTW, SLC, SEA plus whatever other cities they add.

ADrum23 wrote:

Couple of things.

1. Why don't they just demolish and rebuild the existing Concourse C to better fit into the new Concourse?

Two big reasons, I would imagine. First, demolishing it and replacing it would be very expensive and wouldn't gain you any space. They're preserved the option to do so in the future if warranted, but if you were to do so you'd need more gates elsewhere in the airport to swing that capacity while constructing it.

Second, it's not clear how much further west you could move C without pinching the taxiways around the end of Runway 4.

2. Why isn't anything being done with Terminal 3? Won't something have to be done there eventually? The space between the new Global Terminal and the existing Concourse G seems rather tight.

I'll bet they're doing something, but it's not clear that a massive redevelopment really opens up many options. Because of the arrangement of the taxiways, if you demolished everything, you wouldn't massively gain by reconfiguring that space.

3. Are the underground tunnels going to include a people mover (a la ATL, CVG, etc). It seems that would make the most sense, especially when ORD inevitably needs to expand to the west.

I would expect so. I'm also curious to see if a people mover would be capable of sterile transport from the new satellite for UA to the new T2 for international arrivals.

I'd also expect they could/should leave open the option to expand to the east and connect the people mover to T5 (behind security). It wouldn't be a high priority, but they ought not to foreclose on that option.

ILS28ORD wrote:

airbazar wrote:

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

none of those partner airlines are at ORD because of connections. They are there because that's where their O&D demand is. They're not about to replace higher yield O&D passengers with lower yield connecting passengers only because they happen to be under the same roof.
DL is not the airline that will benefit the most from this gate expansion. B6 is.
B6 has been desperate to get more gates at ORD for years.

I believe DL has actually stated they would like more space/gates at ORD. Their partners are at ORD already because of O&D, but they have never been in the same terminal as DL. That is about to change. What DL does with this is up to them, I too don't see ORD becoming a hub or focus city, or DL even replacing high yield passengers with low yield ones on intl partner flights, but isn't it possible they can contribute SOME passengers to these flights to help fill them and isn't it POSSIBLE having more space and gates and access to partners could spur future expansion to some degree? I agree with previous posters DL is the weak link in Chicago, and needs to do something. This is a step in the right direction. Only time will tell if they keep the same # of flights/gates/destinations once they move into T5.

. I honestly don't think they'll fill any seats for heir partners at ORD. For example, a passenger booking international on Delta's website... Let's say they live in a smaller midwestern town. The booking system is going to route them through one of Delta's hubs and then connect them to either a Delta flight or one of their partner airlines from the hub, such as DTW or MSP. Delta doesn't connect passengers through ORD. It is the sole definition of a spoke. All of Delta's ORD flights come from their other hubs, which mostly already have the partners except for maybe SLC. But then again, SLC passengers would be better served by connecting at a large Delta hub such as JFK and/or ATL. Delta's not going to route connecting passengers away from their hubs.

tphuang wrote:

The reason dl is not getting more gates is because it doesn’t need more gates.

It’s getting creamed on sea ord right now. Huge money looser. And the same will happen if it tries lax bos or rdu. It simply doesn’t have the low cost base to sustain 20% lower yield than aa and ua on highly competitive routes. With its operation size, it really doesn’t even need 8 gates.

Could you provide evidence?

airbazar wrote:

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

none of those partner airlines are at ORD because of connections. They are there because that's where their O&D demand is. They're not about to replace higher yield O&D passengers with lower yield connecting passengers only because they happen to be under the same roof.
DL is not the airline that will benefit the most from this gate expansion. B6 is.
B6 has been desperate to get more gates at ORD for years.

Why would b6 want more gates? They aren't likely to expand, they truely serve ORD as a spoke and cater to their east coast customer base primarily. Don't they operate less than 10 daily flights at ORD, all without any premium service? I think 1-2 gates should be able to handle that.

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The reason dl is not getting more gates is because it doesn’t need more gates.

It’s getting creamed on sea ord right now. Huge money looser. And the same will happen if it tries lax bos or rdu. It simply doesn’t have the low cost base to sustain 20% lower yield than aa and ua on highly competitive routes. With its operation size, it really doesn’t even need 8 gates.

Could you provide evidence?

For q3,

Aa 262
As 243
Dl 213
Ua 276

On sea ord

For q2
Aa 271
As 253
Dl 241
Ua 297

Q2 is a little skewed since it only started near the end.

ILS28ORD wrote:

airbazar wrote:

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

none of those partner airlines are at ORD because of connections. They are there because that's where their O&D demand is. They're not about to replace higher yield O&D passengers with lower yield connecting passengers only because they happen to be under the same roof.
DL is not the airline that will benefit the most from this gate expansion. B6 is.
B6 has been desperate to get more gates at ORD for years.

Why would b6 want more gates? They aren't likely to expand, they truely serve ORD as a spoke and cater to their east coast customer base primarily. Don't they operate less than 10 daily flights at ORD, all without any premium service? I think 1-2 gates should be able to handle that.

B6 is going up to 5 daily on BOS in addition to 4 daily on JFK in summer and once to FLL. That's really stretching it for one gate. They are mostly going to get into LGA-ORD market at some point which means they'd need at least 5 daily out of nyc market. That's at least 11 flights and probably will end up more. They really just 2 gates or 1 gate with a second gate shared with someone else.

It looks to me as if the far western satellite concourse would turn Runway 4L into a departure-only runway and Runway 22R into an arrival-only runway.

I know that this is not an ideal plan. But, let's compare this to ATL. The old terminal complex was on the north side of the field. So, the current configuration was done in two phases. First, the runways were reconfigured into the east-west set-up. Then, the midfield terminal complex was built.

ORD was built with the terminal complex in the center of the property, and two of the old-style runway triangles were built on either side of the terminal complex

About the only way that a new Terminal 3 could be built is to do what ORD did, when it built Terminals 1 and 3. It put international arrivals and departures on a remote hard stand. International arrivals and departures were put into the first floor of the parking garage. The original Terminal 1, for international flights, was torn down. UA built its terminal, and then Terminal 5 was built.

There is no way that AA would go along with some sort of temporary terminal, with buses ferrying passengers to and from remote hard stands.

blockski wrote:

I would expect so. I'm also curious to see if a people mover would be capable of sterile transport from the new satellite for UA to the new T2 for international arrivals.

Wouldn't that be the entire reason for it? Of course it will be sterile for those transferring domestic to international. For International arrivals to domestic, pax would have to go through customs and then back through security.

N717TW wrote:

neomax wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

Theoretically yes but I doubt AA and UA will sign off on any deal that will let DL massively expand at ORD.

Well, their first mistake was letting DL get this far in the first place! ORD will never be anything like DTW/MSP for DL, but it will almost certainly be a lot bigger than it is now. The most precious real estate in aviation are gates, and DL is being handed them on a silver platter in a high yield city. DL would be beyond stupid to not take all of them and add as many flights as possible, including LHR, CDG, AMS at an absolute minimum. I would not be surprised to see DL overtake WN as the third biggest airline in Chicago once this is all said and done. I personally think the DL/T5 part of this deal has gone completely unnoticed under the radar, and is underrated beyond belief. I don't know if people simply don't understand the significance of it or just don't know to begin with. In my opinion, the biggest winner in the entire thing is DL but surprisingly few people have realized that. While DL will never be anything next to UA and AA at ORD, it will be enough to make a noticeable dent. T5 is nothing but widebody gates, and has all the infrastructure to support int'l flights, so there is no way DL is going to give that up. I can realistically see ORD becoming something a bit bigger than your average focus city, and enough to make ORD the first three-way hub city in the US. If DL adds a few TATL flights, it will already be on par with MSP, and with a SEA style buildup, it could become something worth keeping.

I disagree. First off, both DL and NW (and predecessors) at one time had "hubs" in Chicago. They both gave up the position to focus on other midwest cities where they could be dominant and strong. TWA ended up doing the same thing...in its case giving up a "strong #3" position because it wasn't profitable to focus on STL. Being a weak #3 at ORD (#4 overall in CHI) in a market that isn't really capacity controlled (beyond # of gates) doesn't let you build a local franchise given that the other guys can match and/beat you route for route and they have transfer traffic too. DL isn't going to draw down great hubs in DTW or MSP to build up CHI nor are they going to dump a lot of connecting traffic into the network that waters down their profits elsewhere (the market share game is over).

Is Chicago an important business market? YES. Good service to CHI is critical to selling a corporate travel agreement.
Is it a high-yield market? I'm not sure I agree with that...lots of competition means it can be pretty easy to get a great or decent fare to Chicago if you're flexible on times.
Do they use this move to put in some effort on building a strong brand with great customer service a la SFO? Probably. My guess is that they add service enough service to be viable to business travel in places like LAX plus RDU and BOS maybe AUS as they build AUS up as their Texas focus city. I would suspect that we see a higher-quality lounge (a la the SFO SkyClub). And from there, they will build some opportunity connections--especially onto CDG, AMS, ICN, MEX--and if they do have a kick-ass lounge some very savvy SkyMiles members will route themselves through there. But at the end of the day, DL's CHI business will be O&D with a focus on the D. It will be all about selling good, reliable service to Chicago from NYC, ATL, CVG, MSP, DTW, SLC, SEA plus whatever other cities they add.

True that why Concourse L was built for Delta. I think TWA had a number of gates on concourse G between T2 and T3. Regards NW, I just remember them being at the old international Terminal 1

ILS28ORD wrote:

Why would b6 want more gates? They aren't likely to expand, they truely serve ORD as a spoke and cater to their east coast customer base primarily. Don't they operate less than 10 daily flights at ORD, all without any premium service? I think 1-2 gates should be able to handle that.

Why would DL want more gates? Why would anyone want more gates?
The reason B6 has so fewer flight to ORD is because they can't get more gates.

neomax wrote:

None of DL's hubs (DTW and MSP included) have as many SkyTeam partners as ORD does. If DL and its partners are under a single roof, it would blow the doors off anything they have right now both in terms of ease and the actual number of partners. Connecting from DL to any one of a wide array of SkyTeam partners would be a piece of cake compared to what you have to do to connect to the same airlines at JFK or LAX. This would be a massive win for Delta.

So which hubs and their connecting flows is DL going to sacrifice to build up ORD? DTW, MSP, or ATL. Because I doubt there are enough natural connections today to support a hub

Everything is not a win for Delta.

airbazar wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Why would b6 want more gates? They aren't likely to expand, they truely serve ORD as a spoke and cater to their east coast customer base primarily. Don't they operate less than 10 daily flights at ORD, all without any premium service? I think 1-2 gates should be able to handle that.

Why would DL want more gates? Why would anyone want more gates?
The reason B6 has so fewer flight to ORD is because they can't get more gates.

Exactly! I don't understand how this isn't obvious. They couldn't build more of a name in Chicago because they only have 1 gate!!

If you only move AA and UA's core partners to the new global terminal, there will not be enough space at T5 with the addition of DL, B6, NK, etc evenif you account for new additional gates.

The final arrangement will probably look something like this:

T1- UA

T2 Global- UA, AA, LH, AC, OZ, NH, EI, BA, IB, LO, SK, OS, LX, TK, AY, JL, AI, AV, ET, QR, CX, RJ, CM, BR etc

T3- AA

T5- DL, B6, F9, NK, AS, WS, EK, EY, FI, AM, KL, AF, KE, Y4, AZ, MU, HU, 4O, WW

WA707atMSP wrote:

I know it's a huge no-no to criticize Delta on this website because most people here think Delta is the world's greatest, most perfect, most irresistible airline, but here goes:

I think UA and AA are gaining more from these changes than DL is.

How can saying that AA & UA gain more from changes at ORD be a criticism of DL? Delta doesn't have the necessary clout at ORD to be able to slow down or block the project. If anything, they can leave that to AA & UA who seem likely to delay the redevelopment in a squabble over whether AA's new gates on L count toward against their allocation in the new terminal!

Moreover, the new terminal will be expensive. With $8 billion in debt to service, cost per enplanement is likely to increase by roughly $10 per passenger (about $400 million in annual debt service with 40 million passengers boarded annually). In contrast, the McNamara Terminal at DTW was built at a cost of $1.2 billion and serves about a third that number of passengers. So DL will enjoy an operating cost advantage, albeit in a smaller, but less competitive market.

But there's absolutely no doubt that some sort of expansion at ORD is necessary, and the current situation with international operations separate from the main terminal complex is inconvenient for passengers and inefficient for the hub carriers.

I'm pretty sure nobody knows which Star/OW carriers will end up at T2 vs T5. The airlines have the next 8 years to decide this and a lot will change over that time. The names being thrown around in the article are probably not worth the pixels their written on, especially considering one of the mentioned airlines doesn't even serve ORD. (perhaps this is indicative of an upcoming service announcement?)

kngkyle wrote:

I'm pretty sure nobody knows which Star/OW carriers will end up at T2 vs T5. The airlines have the next 8 years to decide this and a lot will change over that time. The names being thrown around in the article are probably not worth the pixels their written on, especially considering one of the mentioned airlines doesn't even serve ORD. (perhaps this is indicative of an upcoming service announcement?)

Which one? They all look correct to me.

airbazar wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Why would b6 want more gates? They aren't likely to expand, they truely serve ORD as a spoke and cater to their east coast customer base primarily. Don't they operate less than 10 daily flights at ORD, all without any premium service? I think 1-2 gates should be able to handle that.

Why would DL want more gates? Why would anyone want more gates?
The reason B6 has so fewer flight to ORD is because they can't get more gates.

You mean beside the fact that DL is a major network carrier with major international partners and b6 is LCC that is primarily east coast centric with few international partners?

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The reason dl is not getting more gates is because it doesn’t need more gates.

It’s getting creamed on sea ord right now. Huge money looser. And the same will happen if it tries lax bos or rdu. It simply doesn’t have the low cost base to sustain 20% lower yield than aa and ua on highly competitive routes. With its operation size, it really doesn’t even need 8 gates.

Could you provide evidence?

For q3,

Aa 262
As 243
Dl 213
Ua 276

On sea ord

For q2
Aa 271
As 253
Dl 241
Ua 297

Q2 is a little skewed since it only started near the end.

That doesn't prove at all the route is a "huge money looser" - it just shows its getting less revenue per flight, which isn't really surprising given that it is new and up against established competitors. You are also assuming Delta doesn't want to take that revenue hit in order to get contracts for SEA-based customers.

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Could you provide evidence?

For q3,

Aa 262
As 243
Dl 213
Ua 276

On sea ord

For q2
Aa 271
As 253
Dl 241
Ua 297

Q2 is a little skewed since it only started near the end.

That doesn't prove at all the route is a "huge money looser" - it just shows its getting less revenue per flight, which isn't really surprising given that it is new and up against established competitors. You are also assuming Delta doesn't want to take that revenue hit in order to get contracts for SEA-based customers.

I totally agree that they are doing this to build their SEA hub. And they may do so to build LAX/BOS/RDU operation. But it's expensive to maintain an operation where cost is higher (given they run smaller operation at ORD than AA/UA) and revenue is 20 to 30% less. There are reasons why DL runs the size of operation that they do in ORD and gate constraints is not the main reason.

ILS28ORD wrote:

airbazar wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Why would b6 want more gates? They aren't likely to expand, they truely serve ORD as a spoke and cater to their east coast customer base primarily. Don't they operate less than 10 daily flights at ORD, all without any premium service? I think 1-2 gates should be able to handle that.

Why would DL want more gates? Why would anyone want more gates?
The reason B6 has so fewer flight to ORD is because they can't get more gates.

You mean beside the fact that DL is a major network carrier with major international partners and b6 is LCC that is primarily east coast centric with few international partners?

Except DL already has all the gate it needs and outside of may one or two flights to LAX/BOS, it simply won't be more flights.

Whereas B6 operation actually is gate constrained and really need another gate so it's not constantly overflowing to NK gates.

chicawgo wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

I'm pretty sure nobody knows which Star/OW carriers will end up at T2 vs T5. The airlines have the next 8 years to decide this and a lot will change over that time. The names being thrown around in the article are probably not worth the pixels their written on, especially considering one of the mentioned airlines doesn't even serve ORD. (perhaps this is indicative of an upcoming service announcement?)

Which one? They all look correct to me.

CA - Air China doesn't serve ORD.

Here is an article from today that talks about what DL gains and loses in the expansion.

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... n.amp.html

The article mentions passengers seamlessly moving between skyteam partners and DL flights.

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Could you provide evidence?

For q3,

Aa 262
As 243
Dl 213
Ua 276

On sea ord

For q2
Aa 271
As 253
Dl 241
Ua 297

Q2 is a little skewed since it only started near the end.

That doesn't prove at all the route is a "huge money looser" - it just shows its getting less revenue per flight, which isn't really surprising given that it is new and up against established competitors. You are also assuming Delta doesn't want to take that revenue hit in order to get contracts for SEA-based customers.

An additional assumption is that $241 average fare is a money losing fare. Not necessarily.

And flying ORD to SEA is not just about SEA based customers. DL is building an Asian gateway at SEA. Internationally that means competing with the likes of EK. Which has proven that there is significant demand connecting Asia to Europe thru Dubai. EK is now building that model in the US as they are able to get route authorities.

So unless DL wants to be a domestic only airline, they must provide a lot of nonstop destinations from their gateways. To 15 or 20 metro areas. Including all of the top ten. And it does not have to be widebodies - they can do it using a couple of 717 if that is all the route can handle at this time.

That is in addition to UA/CO and AA/US now being national behemoths. AA/US has hubs in 7 of the top ten metro areas, and focus cities in 2, leaving only Houston as a top ten metro area without a significant AA/US presence. Eventually AA/US will rationalize their domestic network such that each hub and focus city has multiple nonstops to every other hub and focus city. And since over 80% of domestic travel is between top ten metro areas, AA customers will be able to fly nonstop for most of their travel needs. Even most of the small city flying will be only one stop. It is going to happen. UA is already starting to respond (see UA at LAX).

DL will have to make moves in this regard. Not a hub at ORD, but nonstop service from their hubs. And yes they have other holes such as Texas. Which they abandoned before all these megamergers. Things have changed since then.

CHI787ORD wrote:

The final arrangement will probably look something like this:

T1- UA
T2 Global- UA, AA, LH, AC, OZ, NH, EI, BA, IB, LO, SK, OS, LX, TK, AY, JL, AI, AV, ET, QR, CX, RJ, CM, BR etc
T3- AA
T5- DL, B6, F9, NK, AS, WS, EK, EY, FI, AM, KL, AF, KE, Y4, AZ, MU, HU, 4O, WW

I hope so but I am not so sure... the articles allude to it being just UA and AA's core partners... not everyone in their two alliances. Hopefully we get more information when this is officially announced.

One last thing - a lot of a.netters said that DL was an also ran in NYC about a decade ago. And DL couldn't do anything about it.

And that DL was an also ran in LAX. And couldn't do anything about it.

Recently people have been saying that what DL is doing in SEA would amount to nothing.

And some of you want to add ORD to this list . . .

jagraham wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

For q3,

Aa 262
As 243
Dl 213
Ua 276

On sea ord

For q2
Aa 271
As 253
Dl 241
Ua 297

Q2 is a little skewed since it only started near the end.

That doesn't prove at all the route is a "huge money looser" - it just shows its getting less revenue per flight, which isn't really surprising given that it is new and up against established competitors. You are also assuming Delta doesn't want to take that revenue hit in order to get contracts for SEA-based customers.

An additional assumption is that $241 average fare is a money losing fare. Not necessarily.

And flying ORD to SEA is not just about SEA based customers. DL is building an Asian gateway at SEA. Internationally that means competing with the likes of EK. Which has proven that there is significant demand connecting Asia to Europe thru Dubai. EK is now building that model in the US as they are able to get route authorities.

So unless DL wants to be a domestic only airline, they must provide a lot of nonstop destinations from their gateways. To 15 or 20 metro areas. Including all of the top ten. And it does not have to be widebodies - they can do it using a couple of 717 if that is all the route can handle at this time.

That is in addition to UA/CO and AA/US now being national behemoths. AA/US has hubs in 7 of the top ten metro areas, and focus cities in 2, leaving only Houston as a top ten metro area without a significant AA/US presence. Eventually AA/US will rationalize their domestic network such that each hub and focus city has multiple nonstops to every other hub and focus city. And since over 80% of domestic travel is between top ten metro areas, AA customers will be able to fly nonstop for most of their travel needs. Even most of the small city flying will be only one stop. It is going to happen. UA is already starting to respond (see UA at LAX).

DL will have to make moves in this regard. Not a hub at ORD, but nonstop service from their hubs. And yes they have other holes such as Texas. Which they abandoned before all these megamergers. Things have changed since then.

The more relevant number to looking at is q3 since it’s for the full quarter. My point is that if they are yielding 25 to 30% less than ua on a flight to a non fortress hub like sea, how much worse would they do if they try adding a non hub route out of ord? Things to think about before banging on the door that delta will be a large player in Chicago.