Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Chicago, UA And AA Reach Deal On ORD Expansion  
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2745 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9336 times:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...e-runways-20110314,0,6475217.story

Looks like they have reached an interim deal of sorts to allow the south runway to be built. I assume the "additional south runway" they are talking about is 10R/28L? It is my understanding that 10C/28C is already under construction?

Unfortunately nothing decided on completing the rest of the plan. That would leave only the new runway 9C/27C and the lengthened 9R/27L for the undetermined future, correct?

Map for reference, I can't find it on the City's crappy website anymore: http://www.oharenoise.org/PDFs/maps/OMP_Chart.Feb2011.pdf

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en..._and_newairfieldconfiguration.html

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinerl757pvd From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4707 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9104 times:

This looks a hell of a lot harder to build

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
I assume the "additional south runway" they are talking about is 10R/28L?

Than this...

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
That would leave only the new runway 9C/27C and the lengthened 9R/27L for the undetermined future, correct?

Any reason why they'd do that one first?



Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2745 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
It is my understanding that 10C/28C is already under construction?

I just looked at Google Maps and confirmed 10C/28C is infact under construction, starting at the east and west ends.

Quoting rl757pvd (Reply 1):
Any reason why they'd do that one first?

I think it is better they build the tougher project first...that way the easier ones are more likely to happen in the uncertain future. I think some initial preparation work has begun already. Plus, I think 10R/28L was always planned to be next.


User currently offlineMexicana757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3047 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8836 times:

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
I assume the "additional south runway" they are talking about is 10R/28L? It is my understanding that 10C/28C is already under construction?

You are correct the runway they speak of building is the southern most runway planned which is 10R/28L. And yes 10C/28C is currently under construction. This runway should be nearing the end of construction soon.

Pictures by the CDA of construction at ORD: http://picasaweb.google.com/OHareMod...rnization/OMPConstructionPhotos02#


User currently offlinekbmiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8639 times:

Quoting rl757pvd (Reply 1):
Any reason why they'd do that one first?

These are strictly guesses:

9C - 27C will be more disruptive tp build, interferring with both of the 14 - 32 parallels, as well as the United / American maintinance areas and 9L - 27R taxing. I am guessing that once 28C -10C and 10R -28L are built, they will close the 14's?

10R - 28L construction "only" disrupts the Cargo ramp south cargo ramp. Also, 10R - 28L will allow 4 simultaneous landings (I think), while 9C - 27C basically just increases takeoff capacity.

Again, these are guesses.


User currently offlineWROORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 963 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7857 times:

I wish they spend some money on updating terminals - all are crowded and lack facilities. Even the latest T5 has very little space at check in counters and nothing really to do afterwards - only a handful of restaurants and a couple of shops.

User currently offlineflyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6794 times:

As a pilot based at ORD, this new configuration is HORRIBLE. Expect major delays when the wind is out of the north or south and during low vis/cigs. This layout already has controllers and pilots complaining.


Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineKDCA From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5218 times:

As a pilot based at ORD, this new configuration is HORRIBLE. Expect major delays when the wind is out of the north or south and during low vis/cigs. This layout already has controllers and pilots complaining.

I find that difficult to believe. The new layout is designed to INCREASE capacity during low vis/cigs. The addition of 9L/27R allowed ORD to conduct triple simultaneous ILS approaches in IFR conditions without any LAHSO needed like on 22R arrivals.

I don't believe there is enough centerline separation between future 10R/28L and 10C/28C to allow for simultaneous IFR approaches. Is ORD going to get some kind of exemption to allow for four simultaneous ILS approaches?

It is rare that ORD experiences winds that exceed crosswind tolerances for the E/W runways. Yes, this can happen in the spring with strong SW winds coupled with a warm low-pressure front and it will be slow on those days.

ATL manages to be the worlds busiest airport airport with an all E/W runway layout.


User currently offlinetjwgrr From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2491 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4911 times:

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
. That would leave only the new runway 9C/27C and the lengthened 9R/27L for the undetermined future, correct?

Looks like that to me too.

Quoting KDCA (Reply 7):
ATL manages to be the worlds busiest airport airport with an all E/W runway layout.


Here's the final configuration if all goes as planned- 6 E/W parallels, retain 4R/22L & 4L/22R, close both 14R/32L and 14L/32R:




Direct KNOBS, maintain 2700' until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway 26 left approach.
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7323 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tjwgrr (Reply 8):
Here's the final configuration if all goes as planned- 6 E/W parallels, retain 4R/22L & 4L/22R, close both 14R/32L and 14L/32R:

This was the best they could come up with?   


User currently offlineThePinnacleKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 731 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting flyingbronco05 (Reply 6):
As a pilot based at ORD, this new configuration is HORRIBLE. Expect major delays when the wind is out of the north or south and during low vis/cigs. This layout already has controllers and pilots complaining.

Really? You don't like it?

I'm ORD based and I personally wish the full thing was done sooner! I look forward to multiple parallels with less crossing runways... The current configuration is a disaster waiting to happen to me... while ORD ATC is awesome and does some incredible work.. their layout is like LGA with the traffic levels they deal with.. it's only a matter of time... I think the short term construction phases will make ORD a nightmare but, once it's done.. it'll be just like ATL and DFW... a really really smoothly running airport... the only bad part left that would need to go is the horrible ramp/terminal layouts... efficiency for high volume aircraft movements was obviously not thought of when the terminals were built...



"Sonny, did we land? or were we shot down?"
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2702 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4075 times:

It looks like 4 simultaneous ILS approaches could be made in either east of west flow as there is 6900 ft, 5400 ft and 4400 feet between runways.
1.) Is there volume for 4 arrivals or four departure streams? Is this configuration overkill?
2.) What does ATC have to do to line up the four parallel approach paths? If in west flow, it would seem flights from the north/west arrive on 27R, flights from the east on 27L and 28R while flights form the south arrive on 28L. Once the flights are lined up, is there room for the center two paths to allow for S turns for spacing, etc.? Are their more than two towers (one north and one south complex)?

There are limitations - if 4 arrivals were used in the prevailing west flow (27R, 27L, 28R & 28L) both 22L and 22R could not be used for departure limiting takeoffs to 27C and 28C. With east flow, maybe 4R could be used for takeoff, but go arounds could be a problem.

More likely would be triple approaches (27R, 27L & 28R), allowing takeoffs on 27C, 28C, 28L & 22L.

Comparing airports (assumes runways are only used for either departures or arrivals),
ATL has the capability of triple approaches/double departures or triple departures/double arrivals without airspace conflicts between any of runways in use
DFW has the capability of triple ILS and triple departures without airspace conflicts between any of runways in use
DIA looks like under normal wind conditions they can run triple ILS approaches and double departures with one runway's departures crossing the extended landing alignment of one arrival.
IAH looks like triple ILS with double departures
LAX double ILS and double departures
Top 25 airports in U.S.
There are lots of airports out there with huge volume without the capability of the above:
JFK, LAS, PHX, SFO, EWR, BOS, DCA,LGA, SAN, SEA, PHL
And some that may have the capacity to operate within their market
CLT, PHX, MCO, MIA, MSP, DTW, BWI, FLL, SLC, HNL


User currently offlineKDCA From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3890 times:

The one thing you mention above that seems odd is having departures off of 28C in a west flow. That means departures would have to cross 28R. This has always seemed to be the odd thing about the south complex.

Departures off of 10R/28L would have a long, long taxi from the terminal area.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2702 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

Quoting KDCA (Reply 12):
The one thing you mention above that seems odd is having departures off of 28C in a west flow. That means departures would have to cross 28R. This has always seemed to be the odd thing about the south complex.

Departures off of 10R/28L would have a long, long taxi from the terminal area.

the same would happen on the north side with departures taxiing across 27R. This is done at many airports. Arrivals would cross active runways as well.

Yes, this ORD arrangement will create huge taxi distances. I'm sure some of those taxis will be up there with the favorites of:
IAH 26R/8L
HNL Reef Runway
ATL 28/10
AND CURRENT: Denver - International (DEN / KDEN), USA - Colorado">DEN 35R/17L
DFW 35R/17L AND 31L/13R
STL 11/29 (Why did they build it?)
AMS 36L/18R (My favorite)


User currently offlineMSPNWA From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1993 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 13):
Yes, this ORD arrangement will create huge taxi distances.

You can say that again. The new 9L/27R owns a very long taxi time. I suppose it's better than waiting for a runway in the air, but it certainly doesn't feel like it.


User currently offlineKDCA From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3107 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 13):
the same would happen on the north side with departures taxiing across 27R. This is done at many airports. Arrivals would cross active runways as well.

Wouldn't it make more sense to run the south complex with arrivals on 10R/28L and 10C/28C and the departures off of 10L/28R?

10L/28R is ORD's longest runway and is best suited for heavy departures. In a west flow, some departure could also likely be sent off of 22L.

Until future 9C/27C is built would they use 9R/27L in a mixed mode or dedicate that to departures while using 9L/27R for arrivals? Has anyone ever departed from 9L/27R?

Doesn't LAX typically run departures off of the "inside" runways and accept arrivals on the "outer runways".


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2702 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2982 times:

Quoting KDCA (Reply 15):
Wouldn't it make more sense to run the south complex with arrivals on 10R/28L and 10C/28C and the departures off of 10L/28R?

You could do that in good weather, but there isn't 4300ft between 10R/28L and 10C/28C for dual ILS operations.

Quoting KDCA (Reply 15):
10L/28R is ORD's longest runway and is best suited for heavy departures. In a west flow, some departure could also likely be sent off of 22L.

It looks like 28C/10C will be 10,000 ft. which is probably long enough for most departures. If 28R/10L were needed for a specific flight, I'm sure ATC can arrange it without changing the main flow.

Quoting KDCA (Reply 15):
Until future 9C/27C is built would they use 9R/27L in a mixed mode or dedicate that to departures while using 9L/27R for arrivals? Has anyone ever departed from 9L/27R?

My guess is mixed flow as arrivals would desire the closer runway and 27R/*L would be used as an arrival runway as an overflow. Using the far north runway for departures would probably be rare.


Quoting KDCA (Reply 15):
Doesn't LAX typically run departures off of the "inside" runways and accept arrivals on the "outer runways".

Yes, that provides a shorter taxi for departures and a wider spread for approaches. At night, they run something different with contra-flow arriving and departing over the ocean and I'm not sure which runways are used.


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...
DL And Pbgc Reach Deal On Pilot Pensions posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:06:43 by WorldTraveler
EU And US Reach Deal On Passenger Data posted Fri Oct 6 2006 08:37:28 by Leskova
UA And AA Threaten To Walk From ORD Expansion Talk posted Tue Feb 9 2010 17:51:26 by 777fan
Apfa And AA, No Deal After 3 Days Of Negotiations posted Thu Jan 6 2011 15:48:30 by Super80DFW
AA/Eagle Back On ORD-PNS posted Mon Mar 22 2010 09:45:34 by commavia
UA And AA From LHR To BRU posted Mon Oct 5 2009 11:09:03 by SK736
DL And AA Crew Commuting On B6 posted Fri Jan 30 2009 21:09:41 by MHTripple7
F9 And Pilots Reach Deal posted Tue Dec 23 2008 18:07:16 by MKE22
BMI And LH Reach Deal.. posted Wed Oct 29 2008 02:00:50 by Beaucaire
UA And AA Ground Handling At LHR posted Wed May 2 2007 17:10:33 by B742