Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ORD: Runways To Be Renamed This Summer  
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

I just discovered that ORD will rename its existing runways already this year, I presume to reduce confusion once new runways open. Schedule is as follows:

Current runway 9R/27L becomes 10/28 on July 5th.

Two months later, current runway 9L/27R becomes 9R/27L (30th August).

The new runway will then be named 9L/27R.

I'm wondering why there are only two months between the two first "renamings", and why the intermediate 10/28 instead of 10L/28R right away.

SailorOrion

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirfinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 667 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

Interesting news. Can you please provide a source for your information? I haven't seen anything on this locally.


ORD,MDW,IND,ARB,AMS,AUS,ANQ,DTW,DEN,PHL,PIT,MIA,GPT,SAN,PHX,LAX,SFO,OAK,SEA,LAS,SLC,SMF,ATL,MEM,BOS,MHT,JFK,EWR,LGA,NASâ
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6141 times:

http://www.flychicago.com/ohare/runways/


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

Sorry, I somehow neglected to add the source link. What puzzles me is that the link clearly says that "by the end of 2011", O'Hare will have FOUR parallel east-west runways". What about the other two? Will they just open later or are they scrapped from the plans? What about Phase II of the OMP?

SailorOrion

[Edited 2007-05-29 15:20:37]

User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6118 times:

Quoting Airfinair (Reply 1):
Interesting news. Can you please provide a source for your information? I haven't seen anything on this locally

The City of Chicago has an entire website detailing the runway changes. http://www.flychicago.com/ohare/runways/


User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3083 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 3):
...says that "by the end of 2011", O'Hare will have FOUR parallel east-west runways". What about the other two?

Looks like they will build an aditional runway east-west runway to the south of the current 9R-27L (soon to be renamed 10/28) so you will end up with 9L-27R & 9R-27L on the north side and 10L-28R & 10R-28L on the south side.

Quoting Fly Chicago link:
By the end of 2011, the Airport will have four parallel east-west runways, two on the north side of the main terminal core area and two on the south. In the future, all runways north of the terminal will be referred to as 9-27 Runways and all runways south of the terminal will be 10-28 Runways. The two north side runways will be named 9L-27R and 9R-27L, and the south side runways will be named 10L-28R and 10R-28L.


[Edited 2007-05-29 15:27:27]


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 6054 times:

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 4):
Sorry, I somehow neglected to add the source link. What puzzles me is that the link clearly says that "by the end of 2011", O'Hare will have FOUR parallel east-west runways". What about the other two? Will they just open later or are they scrapped from the plans? What about Phase II of the OMP?

All four new parallel runways are still in the plan. But the last new runway probably won't be completed until around 2015. No big deal because the majority of the delay reduction comes from the first runway. The new western terminal is still in the plan but it has not been defined or financed yet.

[Edited 2007-05-29 15:31:09]

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3307 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5945 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Some questions out of sheer curiosity.

How did they determine which direction to make the parallen runways. Why not have 14/32 and 15/33 instead, for example. Is 9/27 the most commonly used direction at ORD? Did Midway have anything to do with it? Winds? Space? Etc? I'm just curious, since it seems like 14R/32L is currently the longest runway.

Also, why put the northern-most runway so far away? Couldn't they put it much closer and still use it for parallel approaches or departures? I mean, SFO's runways are really close and they use them together anyway. I'm just surprised, since it seems useless to have a runway that far away. Reducing congestion does nothing if taxy times take longer anyway. It's like the Polderbaan at AMS.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6448 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

Are you kidding me???!!!!! I've been active around ORD for 3 days, and I've the numbers all in my head. Now I have to throw that knowledge out the window. When does the new runway open?


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5845 times:

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 6):
All four new parallel runways are still in the plan. But the last new runway probably won't be completed until around 2015.

That's good to know  Smile

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 6):
No big deal because the majority of the delay reduction comes from the first runway.

Delay reduction, of course. But the capacity enhancement will then come from the reconfiguration of the rest, right? Main idea is to have three arrival streams in bad weather with the new one. Question: Will the three parallel arrival streams also be the preferred operation during bad weather? Or will they use converging / LAHSO approaches in these conditions until the other new runways are operational. (when will 10C/28C come online?)

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
How did they determine which direction to make the parallen runways. Why not have 14/32 and 15/33 instead, for example. Is 9/27 the most commonly used direction at ORD? Did Midway have anything to do with it? Winds? Space? Etc? I'm just curious, since it seems like 14R/32L is currently the longest runway.

From what I've read, it is a wind issue (best converage with 9/27 and 4/22), but also a question of space. Modifying the current layout to the new one takes only little additional space. would you want to build 6 parallel 14/32s things would be REALLY nasty from a land acquisition point of view.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
Also, why put the northern-most runway so far away? Couldn't they put it much closer and still use it for parallel approaches or departures?

Nope. If you did that, you'd get yet another "fair weather airport" of which the US has so many (SFO, ORD now, BOS, etc). To ensure proper capacity you need spacing. 5000ft of it if possible, but no less than 4300ft (if FMA and PRM installed afaik).

SailorOrion


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5834 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 8):
When does the new runway open?

November 2008, designated 09L/27R.

SailorOrion


User currently offlineCaspian27 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 382 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5704 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
Also, why put the northern-most runway so far away? Couldn't they put it much closer and still use it for parallel approaches or departures? I mean, SFO's runways are really close and they use them together anyway. I'm just surprised, since it seems useless to have a runway that far away. Reducing congestion does nothing if taxy times take longer anyway. It's like the Polderbaan at AMS.



Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 9):
Nope. If you did that, you'd get yet another "fair weather airport" of which the US has so many (SFO, ORD now, BOS, etc). To ensure proper capacity you need spacing. 5000ft of it if possible, but no less than 4300ft (if FMA and PRM installed afaik).

Right on the money. It greatly reduces capacity in bad weather. This is why the runways at DEN are spaced so far apart.



Meanwhile, somewhere 35,000 ft above your head...
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5602 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
Also, why put the northern-most runway so far away? Couldn't they put it much closer and still use it for parallel approaches or departures? I mean, SFO's runways are really close and they use them together anyway.

SFO is a perfect example of why you don't want them close together. Sure, they use them both, but only when the weather is good. Toss in anything lower than about a 2,100 ft. cloud ceiling or less than 4 miles of visibility, and they revert to a single runway and big delays ensue. You need 2500 feet between the runway centerlines for parallel ILS approaches (aircraft staggered on approach) and 4300 feet for simultaneous ILS approaches (aircraft wingtip-to-wingtio on approach), and that's why the new runways at ORD have to be that far apart...


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5336 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Thread starter):
I'm wondering why there are only two months between the two first "renamings", and why the intermediate 10/28 instead of 10L/28R right away.

Allows for flight crew familiarity and it follows the chart revision cycles.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
How did they determine which direction to make the parallen runways. Why not have 14/32 and 15/33 instead, for example. Is 9/27 the most commonly used direction at ORD? Did Midway have anything to do with it? Winds? Space? Etc? I'm just curious, since it seems like 14R/32L is currently the longest runway.

Winds and length have nothing to do with it other than to determine the prefered initial orientation. It's an issue of "wind coverage" and the target is generally in the 90% range. As to heading, a single, double or triple will have the same heading and be designated 9R, 9C,and 9L which would mean the actual heading is "closest or spot" on to a runway heading of 090 (ie your heading is 089 degrees = a runway heading of 9/27. When you go to four or more, you up-tick the number so that you have 9R and 9L and 10R and 10L, or if you have six parallels 9R, 9C, 9L and 10R, 10C and 10L or a combination there of, even if all runways are parallel.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4107 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
How did they determine which direction to make the parallen runways. Why not have 14/32 and 15/33 instead, for example. Is 9/27 the most commonly used direction at ORD? Did Midway have anything to do with it? Winds? Space? Etc? I'm just curious, since it seems like 14R/32L is currently the longest runway.

Well...I flew into ORD 5 times this spring, and 4/5 times landed on 27L. That extremely unscientific example provides some support that it is the most frequently used direction.

To be honest, almost every time I fly into ORD or even spot near it, 9R or 27L is being used for landings. 14s are used a lot too...

Also, the terminal layout and surrounding area would make it very difficult to have 6 parallel 14/32 runways.


User currently offlineBA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
How did they determine which direction to make the parallen runways. Why not have 14/32 and 15/33 instead, for example. Is 9/27 the most commonly used direction at ORD? Did Midway have anything to do with it? Winds? Space? Etc? I'm just curious, since it seems like 14R/32L is currently the longest runway.

14R/32L may be the longest piece of concrete, but it is virtually never used as such! When using 32L for departures, then it is only available (without special request i.e. very 'heavy' departure) from intersection T10 or W. This is essentially points N of 27L/09R. When ldg 14R then usually LAHSO (Land & Hold Short Ops) is enforced i.e. vacate before 'W'. In both cases this leaves 27L/09R clear for uninterrupted operations, and effectively makes it the longest available rwy @ ORD.
It is also the closest rwy to the international terminal. All-in-all that makes 27L/09R (soon to be 28/10) the most widely used and important rwy @ ORD.

Any new NW'ly rwy would have to be well to the NW of the terminals, and arranged so that T/O and LDG paths do not interfere with 28/10 (for above reasons). Any new rwy to the E of 14L/32R, would be miles away from any proposed terminal development, and IIRC would be in a fairly built up area towards the city.

Overall, the most effective and prevailing configuration at ORD, in my experience is: LDG - 22R/27L/27R and T/O - 22L,27R,32L (T10), and 32R, and the new rwy 09L/27R would IMHO enhance that configuration, and not impede it.

Cheers
 Smile



Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4901 times:

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 15):
Overall, the most effective and prevailing configuration at ORD, in my experience is: LDG - 22R/27L/27R and T/O - 22L,27R,32L (T10), and 32R, and the new rwy 09L/27R would IMHO enhance that configuration, and not impede it.


I'm sorry, but that's not entirely correct, it "only" the most efficient arrival configuration. Most used configuration is Plan X (about 40%), then Plan Weird (about 35%) and then Plan B (15%). The rest are the parallel 27s (used for CAT I) and parallel 14s (used for CAT II/III). Today, parallel 27s are used for all IFR conditions. I'm not sure how often the Modified Plan B is used nowadays; the percentages above are "historic" data.

Plan ; Main Arrival Runways, Overflow Arrival Runways, Main Departure Runways, Overflow Departure Runways, LAHSO options, long runways

X , 4R + 9R, 9L, 32L (T10) + 9L + 4L, 32R, 9R H/S TWY S, 32R + 32L full length (problematic)
Weird, 27L / 27R, 22R, 22L + 32L (T10), 32R, 22R H/S 27R, 32R + 32L full length (not so nice)
B, 14R + 22R, 22L, 27L + 22L, 14L, no LAHSO (afaik), 14L + 14R full length + 27L
B Modified, 14R + 9R, 22R, 14L + 22L, 9L, 14R H/S 9R + 22R H/S 9L, 14L + 14R full length (problematic)
27s, 27L + 27R, none, 32L (T10) + 32R + 22L, none, no LAHSO, 32R + 32L full length (not so nice)

Just to spit in some numbers.
Plan; max AAR, max ADR, max TOTAL (all number simulated)
X, 112, 136, 216
Weird, 118, 112, 213
B, 105, 123, 206
B Mod, 117, 107, 213
27s, 83, 109, 183 (CAT I)

SailorOrion


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4884 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 14):
Also, the terminal layout and surrounding area would make it very difficult to have 6 parallel 14/32 runways.

Plenty for the 9/27's:

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/w...ation+Program&deptMainCategoryOID=


User currently offlineBimmerkid19 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4842 times:

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 7):
it seems useless to have a runway that far away.

Look at the Polderbaan at AMS , When you land/take off from that runway, you either have a long ways to taxi to the runway or to the terminal. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0799658/L/
Big version: Width: 580 Height: 580 File size: 46kb


[Edited 2007-05-30 11:09:32]

User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3845 times:

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 15):
14R/32L may be the longest piece of concrete, but it is virtually never used as such!

That much is certain. In the most used configuration, Plan X, getting 32L in full length is nothing short of nasty. First of all, you need to get to the runway which results in a not-so-nice runway crossing at F (for example). Not so nice, because 9R has all those beautiful high-speed taxiways that allows a 2.5nm spacing on 9R finals, so crossing windows are tight, especially for a widebody that needs 13000ft of concrete. Now if there are lots of arrivals (like most of the time  Smile), you have a bunch of arrivals to 9L as well. Now with the 32L departure in place, the approach and tower ATC must make sure that there's an increased gap in the 9R approaches (because you've got to take 300tons of stuff from the 32L threshold to the 32L/9R intersection BEFORE the next arrival is too close) plus synchronize that gap with a gap on the 9L arrivals. Plus you need to check for wake turbulence issues as the 32L departure might be airborne before crossing the 9L centerline.

That's why pilots are "encouraged" to make every effort to find out whether 13000ft are really needed. In Plan X, 32R is a departure runway anyway and 9R can be used for a heavy departure as well. Both are 10000ft in length. Also, 32L from M is 10000ft.

I think the example above shows why ORD badly needs the extension to 9R/27L: It greatly adds to operational flexibility, and one heavy departure to the Pacific Rim won't wreak havoc on overall airport performance.

SailorOrion


User currently offlineBA777ER236 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 16):
I'm sorry, but that's not entirely correct, it "only" the most efficient arrival configuration. Most used configuration is Plan X (about 40%), then Plan Weird (about 35%) and then Plan B (15%). The rest are the parallel 27s (used for CAT I) and parallel 14s (used for CAT II/III). Today, parallel 27s are used for all IFR conditions. I'm not sure how often the Modified Plan B is used nowadays; the percentages above are "historic" data.

OK, I accept your comprehensive figures, I was only going on my own experience of operating in and out over the last 3 yrs.

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 19):
Also, 32L from M is 10000ft.

And despite the above, you are absolutely right, wherever I said 'W' in my post, I meant 'M'. Must be getting old!

Cheers
 Smile



Flying would be easy if it wasn't for the ground
User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3775 times:

Quoting Bimmerkid19 (Reply 18):
Look at the Polderbaan at AMS , When you land/take off from that runway, you either have a long ways to taxi to the runway or to the terminal.

Well, yes. But neither does AMS have triple or even quadruple parallel arrivals, nor does it have nearly as many operations as ORD (950k vs 450k)  Smile

Quoting BA777ER236 (Reply 20):
And despite the above, you are absolutely right, wherever I said 'W' in my post, I meant 'M'.

Hehe, thought so, as I didn't see 'W' intersecting 32L in the first place  Smile

SailorOrion


User currently offlineBimmerkid19 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 21):
nearly as many operations as ORD (950k vs 450k)

oh really, i thought there would be tons more people flying to AMS to walk the streets in Amsterdam and "enjoy" life and feel "good" after having a few "special brownies" or something of the sort ..  Wink


User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4281 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 16):
Just to spit in some numbers.
Plan; max AAR, max ADR, max TOTAL (all number simulated)
X, 112, 136, 216
Weird, 118, 112, 213
B, 105, 123, 206
B Mod, 117, 107, 213
27s, 83, 109, 183 (CAT I)

Those may be simulated, but they are also highly optimistic. Here is what the actually AARs are that ATC uses.

X: 100
Weird: 96 with LAHSO, 80 without LAHSO
B: 90
B Mod: 92 I think
27's: 80
IFR: 60


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3386 times:

Quoting Apodino (Reply 23):
Those may be simulated, but they are also highly optimistic. Here is what the actually AARs are that ATC uses.

Of course the real world numbers are slightly different. First of all, I'm not sure whether the "actual" AAR have some operations to spare for delays, then there's always the question of aircraft mix and finally, the very high AARs given always have a negative effect on the departure rates.

SailorOrion


25 SailorOrion : There's something else I've noticed: There were talks about "relocating" the current 9L/27R a couple of feet to the north in order to be able to const
26 Post contains images WestJetYQQ : Ahhh, Interesting news. The main runway here at YQQ was renamed last year. It was 11/29 and is now 12/30. I think things like this effect flight simme
27 Post contains links A342 : A little bit off-topic, but looking at the current airport diagram, where's runway 18/36? The great circle mapper still lists ORD as having seven runw
28 AirportPlan : 18/36 was downgraded to a taxiway in the late 1990s.
29 A342 : Already in the 1990s? Ok, thanks.
30 SailorOrion : 18/36 is "temporarily" downgraded to GG. It will be decomissioned as soon as 10C/28C is put into service (2010 or the like). SailorOrion
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
JNB To Be Renamed posted Fri Dec 30 2005 10:25:21 by Andz
Air Luxor To Be Renamed posted Fri Oct 7 2005 23:30:52 by Breiz
BA Citiexpress To Be Renamed "BA Red"? posted Sat Aug 13 2005 17:29:47 by Demoose
Hapag-Lloyd To Be Renamed "Hapagfly" posted Thu Apr 28 2005 18:57:32 by TriStar500
Baltimore Airport To Be Renamed? posted Tue Feb 1 2005 05:31:06 by Aa777jr
Report: 747ADV To Be Launched This Spring posted Sun Jan 16 2005 19:46:00 by 2H4
Britannia To Be Renamed "Thomson Fly" posted Thu Sep 30 2004 18:07:21 by Thowman
EasyJet To Operate 747 This Summer! posted Sat Mar 6 2004 13:28:01 by Tombezza
MEA Will Return To DUS Again This Summer posted Wed Jan 7 2004 00:23:17 by Yegbey01
Flamingo Airport To Be Renamed posted Wed Dec 10 2003 13:38:30 by HansieAMS
Iberia To Washington DC This Summer. It's Official posted Sat Feb 24 2007 11:15:43 by IBERIA747
JNB To Be Renamed posted Fri Dec 30 2005 10:25:21 by Andz
Air Luxor To Be Renamed posted Fri Oct 7 2005 23:30:52 by Breiz