kordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6606 times:
Quoting jcqwr56 (Reply 252):
Solid Red: ATS Extension underground
Dashed Blue: CTA Blueline extension underground
Dashed Red: Metra
Yellow: Possible underground highway to access the Western Terminal
Solid Blue: Tollway
What's not showing is the ATS between concourses on the Western Terminal and the link between the WT and the main core area.
This was from 2002..
I like the idea of an airside ATS vs a landside one. Was the plan to shutter the landside ATS with this plan? The city used to have pdfs of the entire OMP (as presented to and approved by the FAA) on their site. I wish I had downloaded those, as they were highly detailed.
Not so sure an underground highway is a good idea...one bad accident in there and everything could go downhill real fast.
Another question about the western terminal, has any airline said they would utilise it?
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
It's not shown because the assumption is it's still there. Remember, you have the new consolidated parking structure being built and the plans are to extend the current ATS out to it.
So...what you'll have is one ATS on landside and another airside. In theory making connections sterile between terminals.
Quoting kordcj (Reply 1): Not so sure an underground highway is a good idea...one bad accident in there and everything could go downhill real fast.
It was being shown as possible to build.
Quoting thekennady (Reply 3): These plans are 15-20 years out...wouldn't a addition to T5, a addition to T3 past L, and a new west concourse connected to C at terminal 1 be the best solution as of the short term?
North of L would require a new place for H&R, AT&T, ComEd and a CFR station. That's a stumbling block since all of that would need to be relocated and constructed first.
Quoting kordcj (Reply 1): Another question about the western terminal, has any airline said they would utilise it?
jetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6273 times:
Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 4): North of L would require a new place for H&R, AT&T, ComEd and a CFR station.
The relatively small number of gates gained by building north of L would not be worth the cost and mammoth hassle of moving all the above-listed facilities.
I also don't see any ROI on building a 2nd and operating two distinct ATS systems. There is very, very little passenger transfer between T1 and T3. T2 is walkable for both 1 and 2. T5 will always be a long distance where security must be addressed so the land-side ATS serves it's purpose well. If anything, T1 and T3 could offer a shuttle bus service FROM the domestic terminals to T5 for Int'l departures and stay inside security but from T5 to domestic will need to go thru security anyway so the ATS is as efficient as it gets.
Leaving 4L/22R in the airport plan blocks a lot of potential new terminal options and unfortunately, these are the best options. 4L will never be needed to land on and 22R will never be needed to depart on so if they would plan around that, they'd open up a lot of options. 4L could be designated as "departure only" and 22R could be designated as "unusable". A current ATC poster on here indicated that the only arrival configs ORD is being allowed to use is all parallel...either east or west so it appears they have no plans to ever use 22R or 4L to land on. If this is the case, it would open up a lot of valuable ramp space west of the C terminal for expansion without going all the way to the west side of the airport boundary.
airstatdfw From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5938 times:
Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 5): A current ATC poster on here indicated that the only arrival configs ORD is being allowed to use is all parallel...either east or west so it appears they have no plans to ever use 22R or 4L to land on.
We will be mostly east and west. We can still use any parallel configuration if we need to for high winds or winter weather operations. We just cant have converging approaches anymore. We could land on the 4's, 22's, 14's or 32's. They say we would only be on these parallel configurations 1% of the year.
Interesting. They have done it safely over decades and all the sudden they are unfit.
They used Runways 9R (old) & 4R and overflows on 9L (old) for east operations. For south operations, they had Runway 14R & 22R plus 14L LAHSO (good-ole turboprop days). Lastly for west operations, Runway 27L (old) & Runway 27R (old) plus Runway 22R LAHSO. I remember landing on LAHSO 22R even on a large aircraft as a 757.
Do they ever use the 32s for landings, now a days?
I live under the 32L approach, and the only time I have regularly observed any landing on 32's in the last 4 years was very early in the morning, typically 32L arrivals between 3:30am and 5:30am (I wake up early ) Mostly freighters (5X, FX), west coast early morning arrivals, and UA844 flight from GRU. I don't recall any 32L approach since mid-August or so. 32R arrivals are super rare, but I do remember a day in the last year or two in IFR conditions when I think both 32L & 32R was used simultaneously. I have only seen one 32R arrival while spotting at ORD, and that was at least 10-12 years ago.
yeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 882 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5697 times:
I passed through O'Hare yesterday landing on 27R and for the first time used the brand-new taxiway on the far west of that corner of the field. I don't know the designation - wish I did. It connects the far west end of 27R/9L with the taxiway at the western end of 14R/32L and is a much faster way in to the terminal than the snaking route used previously. We were even with terminal one in about ten minutes -but then had to wait for a gate for 20
airfinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 665 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5683 times:
Quoting yeogeo (Reply 11): I passed through O'Hare yesterday landing on 27R and for the first time used the brand-new taxiway on the far west of that corner of the field. I don't know the designation - wish I did.
Terminal additions will come in time, the work is still ongoing 32L 14R still has to be demolished, 27L 9R still has to be extended and there are still plans for an additional runway parallel to 27L 9R. With the demolition of 32L 14R there may be a way for the city and UA to build another concourse in such a way that it does not interfere with arriving traffic on 4L 22R.
I think if the city builds an addition onto T5, then together with UA builds another concourse that includes its own FIS facilities that has at least 20 gates that can accommodate even the largest wide bodies and once complete move all of Star and UA international flights to that concourse plus have UA move its entire operation into T1 and vacate T2 (because then the B and C concourse could become narrow body only) and UA could then add gates to the B and C concourse for instance B15 and C12 were demolished to make B16 and C10 permanent widebody gates. Those gates could be reinstated, with no widebodies on these 2 concourses other gates could be added betweenC16, C18 and C20 because all that space that is now needed for clearance would no longer be needed and with realignment a few gates could be added and UA could also realign B16, B17 and with the realignment they could fit another gate between B17 and B18 because no widebodies would be parked at these gates. And another possibility is the entire odd side of the C gates could be realigned slightly due to the fact that UA is retiring both the 757 and 767 which could allow UA to add at least one if not more gates to the odd side of the C concourse . With the reinstatement of gates lost over the years and the addition of a few more UA with a new concourse could fit their entire operation into T1. That would allow the City of Chicago to move all the airlines on the L concourse into T2 and still have some room (if AA/US merger) for more airlines and as a result AA would then have T3 all to themselves including the entire L terminal. However AA would still need their own FIS terminal and I don't know where something like that could be locate.
The major problem with terminal additions is neither AA or UA want to see more competition at ORD both of these airlines want and need more space but they want all that space for themselves while the city is saying the exact opposite the city would like to see more competitors flying into ORD.
Like you said about T1, it looks like it may be possible to locate a satilite concourse west of C that would not interfere with 4L. UA could help make this happen but like you said what would AA do at 3? SIince T3 is adjacent to T5 could AA flights arrive at T5 and then could it be possible to bus passengers over to T3 post customs but still inside a secure area? This would be great because then the need for a major addition to T3 would not be needed and with UA moving all operations to T1 then T5 and T2 would be freed up for additional carriers. I know the Chicago market is already very competitive but UA and AA are going to have to do somethimg to free up space, even if it means other carriers expanding at ORD. So UA would have all of T1 with a FIS terminal along with star carriers. AA would have All of T3 with all OneWorld carriers, T2 would be for all other domestic Airlines such as DL, VX, NK, AS, B6 ETC. T5 would be for non Star carriers, OneWorld carriers would only arrive at T5 and take the short tow over to T3, passengers will be bussed over to T3 as well. T5 could even be used for some additional domestic ops if needed. Hope someone can see this being possible.
kyrone From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5528 times:
I may be wrong but I thought someone from UA told me once that if other airlines wish to depart from T1, they either have to self handle or use UA as their ground handler instead of swissport, etcetera.. Due to union regs?
I could see where that could be a cost issue for some struggling airlines...
You do realize that it will take consensus among each of the alliances to have terminal additions built?
Star will not get their own FIS unless One World gets theirs and lets' not forget about Sky Team. Look at the amount of airlines that fly into ORD under each alliance and this will continue to grow. Also, DHS will need to sign off on multiple FIS's and all one has to do is look at the financial and political basket case in DC. There's no additional monies with the sequestration as it is now, do we realisitically foresee DHS saying we've found a few million for additional staffing.
If this was a one hub airport, ok, I could see this being done sooner than later. The reality is, this is still years away from ever being done.
In the mean time, for airlines wanting to add or start. You do like another other constrained airport (and yes, ORD is constrained) You look at shoulders. For ORD, out of Europe, that means arriving 1000-1200 in the morning and in Asia look at arriving after 1800 and departing 0000-0200. South America is fine in the early morning.
In the mean time, there are ideas being floated around to address gate capacity at T5 to handle the increase of flights over the next few years but nothing set in stone.
jetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5459 times:
Quoting thekennady (Reply 16): OneWorld carriers would only arrive at T5 and take the short tow over to T3
I don't think that the design of T3 will accomodate as many widebodies as Oneworld would want to operate during many times during the day. The "Y" concept is terrible for terminal congestion. You can do a lot of 767s in it but unless things have changed a lot recently, they can't shove too many 777s/A340s in and I've never seen a 747 in any T3 gate.
I like the passenger bussing option between T3 and T5. That could go both ways too....Intl' arrivals to domestic departures as well as domestic arrivals to Int'l departures...regardless of airline. If someone flies in from a domestic city and connects outbound to KAL, AFR, KLM etc, not having to exit security and take the ATS train to T5 and reclear security would be very handy.
Quoting jayunited (Reply 14): there may be a way for the city and UA to build another concourse in such a way that it does not interfere with arriving traffic on 4L
4L arrivals block more space than you think. The penalty box is unusable so I would imagine that a terminal filled with parked planes and hundreds of people would have even more restrictions placed on it for location/obstruction clearance. Not sure about the use of taxiways J and T, but there would definitely be restrictions getting to/from any terminal west of C. If the winds were that strong out of the N/NE, it would probably be just as efficient to land on 4R with normal IFR space and save 4L for departures only. Far more efficient and you wouldn't have to deal with the restrictions that landing 4L involve. 4L is a localizer only approach anyway so it's got relavitely high minimums if the ceiling/vis were an issue as well.
Again, all international arriving passengers that have not been precleared must clear immigration, claim their baggage to clear customs and go through TSA security. This is a requirement by the Dept. of Homeland Security so passengers may as well just use the current system of arriving at T5 and getting the ATS to their connecting flights at T1/T2/T3.
I do agree though that on the reverse (domestic > international connections), it's not ideal in its current form and the shuttle bus system between the secure areas of T3 and T5 should be expanded where possible.
Yes, in the short term something needs to be looked at, ORDs lack of terminal space is going to start holding its potential back if nothing is done. UA at T1 is tight on space but AA at T3 does not utilize gates as much as it could. Like was said before, a short term solution could be to move all One Word departures to T3, but the wide body gates at T3 are just not there for all of AA and OneWord. RJ, BA, CX would all have to move and i know BA and CX turn around rather quick as it is. Even if this could be done, how much would these free up T5? The Only place i could see that overall has room to fit more flights realistically is AA at T3, just not enough Widebody gates though.
As far as T3 with One World. IB has gone to a A330 so it can park at a gate other than L10 or K19. RJ is a A342 and not always daily, that could fit inside the Y at the K concourse. CX would have to be L10 Or K19 and may conflict with AAs gate needs or QR. BA could use K or L as well. I could still see a outside chance with some tweeks that it could work but it would be tight and there would be no more room for Additional OneWorld carriers.
AmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5301 times:
Is there any possibility of opening up non-contact, remote gates ("bus gates") for the regional jets? This would allow for more widebody stands to be built at T3 and to a lesser extent, T1. This could be a temporary solution.
jetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5285 times:
Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 23): Is there any possibility of opening up non-contact, remote gates ("bus gates") for the regional jets?
The only parking area where planes could park and not have busses interfere or drive on active taxiways would be up in the hangar area and I doubt there's any room up there that'd be large enough to make any difference.
Any holding pad or penalty box would be out of the question as you'd have to access active taxiways with busses, fuel trucks, catering, lav etc...simply not going to happen. The area east of the current T5 has big space but I believe they park overflow Int'l traffic there so you're only solving one problem by creating another one.
Maybe they should think about reducing the ground time for the smaller aircraft instead or start planning for more realistic flying times so planes don't arrive at the airport 30 minutes before they're schedule arrival time. With ORD getting more efficient with the new runways, there's less of a need to plan STL-ORD at 1:10 when actual flying time is around :45.
: I wasn't saying that things were going to change overnight look at how long it took to get ORD to the point were it is at right now. I am a realist a
: Andolino is a smart woman really striving to get ORD up there with the best in the world facility wise, however there are a few things previously dis
: If the merger does happen and current US flights are absorbed into terminal one, I can't imagine any small operator would be too happy about having t
: Today's schedule shows 7 to PHL 4xA321, 3xA320 8 to CLT 7xA321, 1xA320 5 to PHX 4xA321, 1xA320 For some reason I thought US was much bigger than this
: I thought US had gates E7, F8 and F10? Did they lose one recently or is it shared with UA? Their schedule to the three main hubs hasn't changed much
: You may be right; I'm not really sure how many gates US uses. The US web site lists 5 gates, Wikipedia says two... I guess I just as soon trust your
: E7 is owned by DL and subleased to US. They also use F6 for a RON. I think you should get the Understatement of the Year Award, T2 is a total armpit.
: Thank you! I accept your prize! but I don't care about the look of T-2, its the congestion that I find troublesome. I think they'll eventually have t
: UA resumed ORD-SJU daily Nov 5th on a 739, they will also add a additional seasonal flight. This is no doubt to better compete with AA and the new ent
: Then there was this PR. http://www.marketwired.com/press-rel...ncrease-business-trade-1849378.htm Yes, there is a hard push to get service to Quito fr