• 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
 
Planeboy17
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:18 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu May 16, 2019 3:45 pm

yeogeo wrote:
muralir wrote:
Is there any other US airport will all three ME3, TK, and RJ in one airport?


JFK - No surprise. I believe that's the end of the list.

Did a little research
1. RJ has been flying to ORD for long time, longer than any other ME airline except El Al who started in the late 60s early 70s. Of course they aren’t here now ( 2020 ) and have broken up service since their start a couple of times while RJ hasn’t left since they started. Wiki shows they began ORD service in 1986. I thought I remembered seeing them earlier than that but that’s the best info I can find on it.
2. It’s their strongest NA station, at least in terms of service.
They currently fly 8 weekly while JFK is 5 and YUL and DTW are 3.
3. They are in Oneworld so they are obviously helped by the AA hub.
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu May 16, 2019 5:15 pm

Planeboy17 wrote:
Did a little research
1. RJ has been flying to ORD for long time, longer than any other ME airline except El Al who started in the late 60s early 70s. Of course they aren’t here now ( 2020 ) and have broken up service since their start a couple of times while RJ hasn’t left since they started. Wiki shows they began ORD service in 1986. I thought I remembered seeing them earlier than that but that’s the best info I can find on it.
2. It’s their strongest NA station, at least in terms of service.
They currently fly 8 weekly while JFK is 5 and YUL and DTW are 3.
3. They are in Oneworld so they are obviously helped by the AA hub.


Interesting! Had no idea that they did a double daily so I had to check it out: I found that on Friday they fly into O'Hare at 3:30pm and again at 10:35pm. Google Flights show a one-way fare AMM> ORD at $352.00 for the later flight on Friday the 24th of this month. Cheap!
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1835
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu May 16, 2019 5:58 pm

yeogeo wrote:
kordcj wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
Also the last structure in the way of 9C/27C is nearly demolished - there'll be nothing in the way of the paving crew in short order.


That’s really great news! It’ll be a real treat to see heavies landing on the north side of the field. When 9R/27L is extended, will all runways be open for both flows of traffic, or will there still be restrictions on the use of 9L/27R and 10R/28L? I’d imagine 22L will stop being used in West flow.


jetblastdubai wrote:
Any comments, sir?


I haven't worked ATC at ORD for a number of years and am not familiar with the operational plans that ORD has in mind with the new runway configuration. I can make a few observations though:
Depending on how long the new runways are (27L/27C) having a relatively long runway available for very heavy arrivals from the north will be a benefit for making the arrival flow less complicated and therefore slightly more efficient. Most long-haul heavies arrive from the two northern arrival fixes so being able to land on a runway on the north side of the airport will reduce the need to jockey them across the skies to one of the 28s. I doubt these heavies will ever accept 27R (7,500') when there is a 10,000'+ runway available.

I don't know how long 27L/27C will be so not sure if ORD's plan is to land on 27C and double-back and cross 27L near the approach end while departures roll from a downfield intersection or if they'll need to exit 27C and then taxi westbound to join the taxiway that runs along the western boundary of the airport and wait for a gap in the 27L departures to taxi through the extended centerline. If ORD has the space to use the western taxiway unrestricted when departing 27L/27R, then life will be easier and quite efficient. If they cannot get a waiver or ruling like ATL has then landing both 27C and 27R with 27L departures becomes a bit of a pickle.

If 27L/27C are long enough for long-haul heavies to depart from, it will help with the airport departure flow somewhat as almost all TPAC and TATL traffic files over the northern fixes or the northern-most of the eastbound fixes.

In reality, I'm thinking that they won't need to use the north runways for departures very often as 28R is still a 'free-roll' and 22L is an easy gap-shot to depart from. You can run a lot of departures on that combination alone. You could depart the northbound long-haul heavies off 27L and save the wake turbulence penalty on 28R departures if you really wanted to fine-tune the operation but again that adds a little more complexity/coordination to an already busy operation.

That's just my opinion from working radar and tower there...the final operational plan(s) are probably far different. There are some very creative/sharp minds working there so I have no doubt they'll come up with something unique.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
sircygnus
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu May 16, 2019 7:31 pm

Very insightful! Thanks for posting this!

With cargo on both the north and south sides of the field Im sure the extended 9R/27L will see some heavy departures.

Anyone know if the spacing between 9/27C and 9L/27R will require the offset approach that is needed on 10R arrivals?
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1835
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu May 16, 2019 8:54 pm

sircygnus wrote:
Very insightful! Thanks for posting this!

Anyone know if the spacing between 9/27C and 9L/27R will require the offset approach that is needed on 10R arrivals?


https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publica ... ion_9.html

Check out paragraph 5-9-7

I don't know the distance between 27C and 27R but I'm willing to bet it's more than 2,500' which would be the cut-off for independent arrivals without wake turbulence restrictions. For reference, I recall that 27L and 28R are 6,100' feet apart. If you have some way of measuring the distance between centerlines using that baseline, you'll find your answer.

Just an FYI reference: LAX 25R and 24L are 4,300' apart. 2,500' is about 6 city blocks.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
sircygnus
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:46 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu May 16, 2019 11:24 pm

Handy Dandy google maps measures the center lines of 27C and 27R at exactly a mile so it sounds like no offset approach.
Out of curiosity is there minimum separation for departures and arrivals? e.g. 27L departures and 27C arrivals. Assuming in addition to horizontal there is a “gap” component?
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1835
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 12:12 am

sircygnus wrote:
Handy Dandy google maps measures the center lines of 27C and 27R at exactly a mile so it sounds like no offset approach.
Out of curiosity is there minimum separation for departures and arrivals? e.g. 27L departures and 27C arrivals. Assuming in addition to horizontal there is a “gap” component?


In VFR conditions there is no (closely-spaced parallel runway) separation requirement between arrivals and departures. With parallel runways you always need to have a "Plan B" in the event of a go-around. No gap required.

In IFR conditions, or when the tower controller cannot provide visual separation between the arrival and departure, the departure needs to be rolling before the arrival is on a 2 NM final. We called it the "2 increasing to 3" rule. This is why (on a west flow) 22L departures are so sweet because you have course divergence built in automatically. The only restriction is to depart in the 28C/R arrival gap as well as complying with a 28C arrival wake turbulence penalty (if any).

On an east flow, 4L departures would deliver the same divergence separation rule immediately when airborne. If departures diverge by 15 degrees or more immediately after departure, and the 1st departure is not a 757/heavy, it's pretty easy to launch 2 departures on 4L between arrivals on 9R at 3-mile spacing. As the threshold for 9R moves farther west, it will become less efficient for 4L departures as arrivals will take longer to pass thru the 4L intersection as opposed to when the 9R and 4L thresholds are closer.

These were the rules when I last work in the US so if things have changed, I apologize for any mis-information.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 12:55 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
Depending on how long the new runways are (27L/27C) having a relatively long runway available for very heavy arrivals from the north will be a benefit for making the arrival flow less complicated and therefore slightly more efficient.


According to this image of many months back, 9C/27C will be 11,245' in length and 9R/27L will be 11,260' with its extension.


Image
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1835
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 1:11 am

yeogeo wrote:

According to this image of many months back, 9C/27C will be 11,245' in length and 9R/27L will be 11,260' with its extension.


I should have known ORD would have planned things right. Kudos!
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
chidino
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 9:39 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
yeogeo wrote:

According to this image of many months back, 9C/27C will be 11,245' in length and 9R/27L will be 11,260' with its extension.


I should have known ORD would have planned things right. Kudos!


Even better is how things line up on the western edge with the new runway and the extension of 9L/32R. This is an old image from Airways Magazine, but fairly accurate as to the OMP, with the exception of the new deicing pads being at the west -- NOT new terminals.

Image
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 1:27 pm

For those of you who haven't kept up with developments in the Tokyo Haneda slot allocation thread...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1415015

...its likely that United will get a slot to run ORD<>HND which means flights out of O'Hare to Tokyo will be as follows:
ORD-NRT (1x NH + 1x JL)
ORD-HND (1x UA + 1x NH + 1x JL)
 
ORDfan
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 2:12 pm

Speaking of RFD...they are going to start a 15 acre apron expansion thanks to a DOT Grain, and sounds like the expanded cargo terminal is on track for July 1 opening. Kudos to RFD for chugging along quietly yet strongly; happy to see the jobs-growth story spread out from the city to the rest of the state as well.

Sounds like they will crack the top 20 on cargo tonnage soon after the expansion.

https://www.ttnews.com/articles/rockfor ... d-500-jobs
 
User avatar
AmricanShamrok
Posts: 2055
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:03 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 2:58 pm

yeogeo wrote:
For those of you who haven't kept up with developments in the Tokyo Haneda slot allocation thread...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1415015

...its likely that United will get a slot to run ORD<>HND which means flights out of O'Hare to Tokyo will be as follows:
ORD-NRT (1x NH + 1x JL)
ORD-HND (1x UA + 1x NH + 1x JL)

Is AA giving up on ORD-TYO completely then?
 
airstatdfw
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:04 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 3:42 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
sircygnus wrote:
Handy Dandy google maps measures the center lines of 27C and 27R at exactly a mile so it sounds like no offset approach.
Out of curiosity is there minimum separation for departures and arrivals? e.g. 27L departures and 27C arrivals. Assuming in addition to horizontal there is a “gap” component?


In VFR conditions there is no (closely-spaced parallel runway) separation requirement between arrivals and departures. With parallel runways you always need to have a "Plan B" in the event of a go-around. No gap required.

In IFR conditions, or when the tower controller cannot provide visual separation between the arrival and departure, the departure needs to be rolling before the arrival is on a 2 NM final. We called it the "2 increasing to 3" rule. This is why (on a west flow) 22L departures are so sweet because you have course divergence built in automatically. The only restriction is to depart in the 28C/R arrival gap as well as complying with a 28C arrival wake turbulence penalty (if any).

On an east flow, 4L departures would deliver the same divergence separation rule immediately when airborne. If departures diverge by 15 degrees or more immediately after departure, and the 1st departure is not a 757/heavy, it's pretty easy to launch 2 departures on 4L between arrivals on 9R at 3-mile spacing. As the threshold for 9R moves farther west, it will become less efficient for 4L departures as arrivals will take longer to pass thru the 4L intersection as opposed to when the 9R and 4L thresholds are closer.

These were the rules when I last work in the US so if things have changed, I apologize for any mis-information.


Due to new rule changes where you have to treat runway extended center lines out to one mile as a intersecting Rwy. We cant efficiently depart 4L and land 9L anymore. That is why we depart 9R and 10L, land 10R, 10C and 9L. When the wx drops below 800ft and 2 miles we have to land 9R due to protecting the ILS critical areas of 10C and 10R. Rwy 4L is really only used in adverse wx/wind configs now, it is also clsd until fall for resurfacing and tie in to 27C.
 
ual763
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 3:56 pm

yeogeo wrote:
For those of you who haven't kept up with developments in the Tokyo Haneda slot allocation thread...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1415015

...its likely that United will get a slot to run ORD<>HND which means flights out of O'Hare to Tokyo will be as follows:
ORD-NRT (1x NH + 1x JL)
ORD-HND (1x UA + 1x NH + 1x JL)


I thought United said they were going to keep the NRT frequencies in addition to the new HND frequency?
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 4:20 pm

Planeboy17 wrote:
Fargo wrote:
Any word on the ATS reopening date? Has anyone seen them test the new system?

No concrete information but I did see some of the new trains sitting at the T5 station a couple of weeks ago so I’m guessing they are doing some limited testing?


I was at ORD an Monday and saw an empty train running northeast between T3 and T5 over the highway. hard to believe they need another 4-6 months...
 
ORDfan
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

United787 wrote:
Planeboy17 wrote:
Fargo wrote:
Any word on the ATS reopening date? Has anyone seen them test the new system?

No concrete information but I did see some of the new trains sitting at the T5 station a couple of weeks ago so I’m guessing they are doing some limited testing?


I was at ORD an Monday and saw an empty train running northeast between T3 and T5 over the highway. hard to believe they need another 4-6 months...


I flew back home yesterday afternoon landing on 9R 27L, flying over the tracks connecting to the CONRAC, and it looks like the supports between the main columns for some of the track getting closer to garage are not in place yet. Not sure what the technical term is, but it was clear that underneath the rail, it was not quite as robust as the older part of the track before Mannheim. Should've got my phone out, but don't know how to upload on here anymore :(
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 9:35 pm

ual763 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
For those of you who haven't kept up with developments in the Tokyo Haneda slot allocation thread...

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1415015

...its likely that United will get a slot to run ORD<>HND which means flights out of O'Hare to Tokyo will be as follows:
ORD-NRT (1x NH + 1x JL)
ORD-HND (1x UA + 1x NH + 1x JL)


I thought United said they were going to keep the NRT frequencies in addition to the new HND frequency?


AmricanShamrok wrote:
Is AA giving up on ORD-TYO completely then?


Sorry for the confusion guys - I went back and looked at my source. The Poster (FSDan - post #591) is speculating as to the state of US<>Tokyo service by next summer. The only news relevant to this post is that United is odds-on to get a ORD-HND allocation.

As to your point, ual763, you can see United's statement on their likely route allocations at post #616 where they do state their intentions to serve both Tokyo airports, but they don't specifically say that they will serve both from O'Hare... we'll see.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1415015&start=550
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 pm

New introduction for American:

"Chicago O’Hare – Charleston WV eff 04SEP19 1 daily CRJ200 (Skywest)"

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20190517
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat May 18, 2019 1:20 pm

Some reporting coming out on new mayor Lightfoot's agenda...

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hi ... ix-chicago

...which includes staying the course at O'Hare and Midway, thank goodness.

"Among key things that stand out in a quick review (the document runs 232 pages) are staying the course with the $8.5 billion pending expansion and modernization of O’Hare International Airport’s terminals."

Also mentioned: seeking money for work at Midway Airport.
 
midway7
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:24 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat May 18, 2019 1:57 pm

Lightfoot is going to be something else. I do not think the old salts in Chicago have seen a possible shake up of this level since Harold Washington tried in the 80's. Be interesting to watch.

Glad to see some money for work at MDW. That facility has seen an amazing transformation over the past 20 years. Would like to see it continue, although I think it is reaching its capacity limits in many ways.
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue May 21, 2019 2:47 pm

Hopefully the money they're seeking for MDW is to remove 13L/31R and extend concourse A&B further to the southwest. Could squeeze another 20 gates in.
 
CleSyrRoc
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue May 21, 2019 3:00 pm

Longtime Anet reader...First time poster.

A Couple questions about the ongoing construction at the airport:
1) Is there a plan to build out the third phase of the NE cargo development? What is the timeline there?
2) What is the timeline for the completion of the LL taxiway? Am I right that there will ultimately be three parallel taxiways between T5 and 10L-28R?

Also, here's a great video from Mid-March showing the new de-icing pad, progress on the north airfield construction, and even some roadway work on the west side of O'hare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBjlZUi ... =22&t=677s
 
jplatts
Posts: 2419
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue May 21, 2019 5:42 pm

ILS28ORD wrote:
Hopefully the money they're seeking for MDW is to remove 13L/31R and extend concourse A&B further to the southwest. Could squeeze another 20 gates in.


While WN already has nonstop service out of MDW to most of its domestic destinations, there are a few more nonstop routes such as MDW-ELP, MDW-LIT, MDW-RIC, and MDW-SNA that could be added by WN out of MDW.

WN likely has enough room at MDW to add MDW-ELP/LIT/RIC/SNA nonstop service without acquiring additional gates at MDW as WN will only be operating 249 daily departures out of MDW in Summer 2019 compared to 265 daily departures out of MDW in Summer 2017.

While WN will be temporarily discontinuing MDW-PDX nonstop service due to the plane shortage arising from the 737 MAX grounding, WN will bring back MDW-PDX nonstop service once WN has more planes back in service.
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue May 21, 2019 10:55 pm

jplatts wrote:
ILS28ORD wrote:
Hopefully the money they're seeking for MDW is to remove 13L/31R and extend concourse A&B further to the southwest. Could squeeze another 20 gates in.


While WN already has nonstop service out of MDW to most of its domestic destinations, there are a few more nonstop routes such as MDW-ELP, MDW-LIT, MDW-RIC, and MDW-SNA that could be added by WN out of MDW.

WN likely has enough room at MDW to add MDW-ELP/LIT/RIC/SNA nonstop service without acquiring additional gates at MDW as WN will only be operating 249 daily departures out of MDW in Summer 2019 compared to 265 daily departures out of MDW in Summer 2017.

While WN will be temporarily discontinuing MDW-PDX nonstop service due to the plane shortage arising from the 737 MAX grounding, WN will bring back MDW-PDX nonstop service once WN has more planes back in service.


I'm sure they wouldn't deny them if they were built, I keep reading on this forum MDW is at capacity so adding gates fixes that. Could also create enough room for NK
or allegiant if either wanted to add routes. And it would eliminate a runway that is not used by commercial jets and barely is used even by GA traffic and maximizes the small amount of airfield space. If WN wants more gates at DEN, I'd assume they'd want more gates at their largest hub.
 
ORDfan
Posts: 524
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue May 21, 2019 11:33 pm

ILS28ORD wrote:

I'm sure they wouldn't deny them if they were built, I keep reading on this forum MDW is at capacity so adding gates fixes that. Could also create enough room for NK or allegiant if either wanted to add routes. And it would eliminate a runway that is not used by commercial jets and barely is used even by GA traffic and maximizes the small amount of airfield space. If WN wants more gates at DEN, I'd assume they'd want more gates at their largest hub.


ILS28ORD wrote:
Hopefully the money they're seeking for MDW is to remove 13L/31R and extend concourse A&B further to the southwest. Could squeeze another 20 gates in.


Totally agree...I've been throwing that idea out there about 13L/31R as well for years...so far, it's fallen on deaf ears haha.

But seriously: I'm 100% with you, and don't think it'd be just WN that could benefit. Additional gates could open the door for more DL, NK, B6, and F9 off the top of my head, and perhaps some others we haven't though of: possibly Air Canada Express?
 
elbandgeek
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed May 22, 2019 2:26 am

Image

I'm all for it but if they do they're gonna they'll need to do something about the walking distance because it's already a hike and an extension would be pushing it into "we need a people mover" territory. At minimum they'd need a pedestrian tunnel between the concourses for connections. An APM could run from below the food court area down underneath the central alley and then have tunnels going outward to each concourse. I'm not entirely sold on Lightfoot yet but it she wants to make it happen.....

On a sidenote, does anyone have any idea what they're doing as far as re-configuring the exit from customs with the new security setup. I'm going to Toronto in August and at least a part of the bridge is supposed to be open by then.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos