Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's Next For ORD Part 2  
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4435 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7229 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Rolling this to part two due to length.

Previous thread: What's Next For ORD (by ORD2010 Sep 20 2013 in Civil Aviation)

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7119 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.
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7086 times:

The solid red line from the post on the previous thread is a new ATS on the concourse side - the existing ATS isn't shown...

User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6984 times:

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?

User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6889 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 2):

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?

Not to my knowledge.


User currently onlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6786 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineZBA2CGX From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6535 times:

The Mayor announced again progress on the North East Cargo Area and that construction has started
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...eal-for-chicago?r=8332G0760912C9S#


User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6531 times:

Quoting ZBA2CGX (Reply 6):

Everything but terminal additions.....


User currently offlineairstatdfw From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6451 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.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2980 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6399 times:

Quoting airstatdfw (Reply 8):
We just cant have converging approaches anymore.

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?


User currently offlineairfinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 667 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 9):
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.



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 offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 890 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6210 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  
yeo



One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
User currently offlineairfinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 667 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6196 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.

I believe you're talking about the new taxiway "Z" correct?
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1311/00166AD.PDF

And if you ever want to get the most recent FAA airport diagrams:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/diagrams/



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 offlineAcey559 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6190 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 11):

I'll have to look at my chart but I'm pretty sure it's taxiway Zulu.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1040 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6109 times:

Quoting thekennady (Reply 7):
Everything but terminal additions.....

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.


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 890 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6090 times:

Quoting airfinair (Reply 12):
I believe you're talking about the new taxiway "Z" correct?
Quoting Acey559 (Reply 13):
I'm pretty sure it's taxiway Zulu.

Right you are, thanks! And thanks for the links, airfinair. They're already in my bookmarks   

And speaking of transiting through O'Hare yesterday... I had my first observable triple parallel landing. So cool!
 airplane   airplane   airplane 

yeo

[Edited 2013-11-02 08:12:52]


One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6063 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 14):

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.


User currently offlinekyrone From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6041 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...

Does anyone know if that is true??


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5994 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 14):
Terminal additions will come in time



In my opinion, a very long time.

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.


User currently onlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5972 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 3005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 19):
Intl' arrivals to domestic departures

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.



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 18):

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.


User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5831 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 19):

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.


User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 3005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5814 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.


Shannon-Chicago
User currently onlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 797 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5798 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
25 jayunited : 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
26 ord2010 : 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
27 Post contains images yeogeo : 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
28 kordcj : 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
29 RedTailDTW : 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
30 yeogeo : 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
31 ericaasen : 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.
32 Post contains images yeogeo : 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
33 Post contains links thekennady : 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
34 Post contains links jcwr56 : 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
35 Post contains images thekennady : Something is brewing
36 sovietjet : Question, is there a list of all the international airlines flying to ORD right now? I didn't find one in part 1 of this thread. Also, wasn't there a
37 thekennady : The O'Hare Wikipedia page has a accurate listing of current carriers serving ORD, its usually a reliable source to see what airlines are coming and g
38 timberwolf24 : I just saw in the OAG thread and a tweet from Airline Routes that Air Berlin will be going to daily flights next year. Nice to see international growt
39 thekennady : Yes, 2014 looks like its shaping up to be a year of service upgrades rather than Additional airlines. CX will be going 7 to 10 times weekly OS will b
40 LFutia : T2 is a freaking dump. I've seen it congested and it is not fun whatsoever. The only thing saving T2 is the Starbucks and Quizno's after security and
41 ericaasen : Unfortunately, I have to be in that building 5 days a week so I tend to notice the appearance a bit more. Well, I guess there's nothing to save T2 no
42 LFutia : The McDonalds in T2 was the only place that would start serving lunch at 9am and its a shame that Quizno's is gone. I wonder if Jimmy John's would ev
43 Post contains links yeogeo : So here we go: the next O'Hare gate shuffle. Breaking: LCC/AMR Settle Anti-trust Suit (by stlgph Nov 12 2013 in Civil Aviation) Certainly US gates in
44 RedTailDTW : It's only two gates so it won't really be difficult. Are the T2 gates (F8, F10) used by US subleased from UA or no? If they aren't subleased then tha
45 kordcj : The rules as I understand on the gate allocations had to go to a carrier with limited or no service at the airports identified. I wonder if B6 is will
46 yeogeo : Yes two gates; I see that now. Obviously it will be US's two. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) that beyond those two their gates are leased
47 roswell41 : NK needs more gates at ORD. Much of the time they use B6 and VX's gates in addition to their two in the L concourse. I could see NK moving to T2 if th
48 RedTailDTW : Its hard to tell at the moment but I agree that NK may be interested in the two vacated T2 gates. If not NK, I could also see VX moving as they would
49 ckfred : This was probably 15 years ago, but I was on an AA flight from ATL that landed around 9:15pm, and we landed on 32L. The wind was from the north, ther
50 jayunited : How many gates does NK occupy on the L concourse? Because if they only have 2 gates on the L concourse then it makes no sense for them to move to T2
51 jcwr56 : I'm working on a few things about the common use gates. Remember, L3, 5, 7 and 9 are preferred but common use so while you see specific build outs in
52 ADent : The American announcement specifically mentions giving up 2 gates on L.
53 jcwr56 : Yes, L1 and L2. It's in the order published.
54 Post contains images yeogeo : So now I'm confused. Are the combined US/AA to loose 4 gates in total ; two by order of the court and two by default? (2 in L and 2 in E). Surely the
55 Post contains links AmricanShamrok : I understand AA have to give up L2A, L2B and L2C (all regional jet gates). They must convert these three gates into a gate capable of handling mid-siz
56 jayunited : AA won't run a split operation but what they could do is keep the US gates in T2 but decide to lease them out to another airline. Since gates space i
57 norcal : They probably also want to keep UA from getting their hands on them. I'm not sure if the CDA assigns gates based on the highest bidder or if they ass
58 ckfred : US has gates E7, F8, and F10. I believe E7 is just past the E/F split, and F8 is one gate beyond the split. So, while it isn't the same as having, say
59 Post contains links yeogeo : FYI Hainan has now scheduled its 787 service Beijing-ORD-Beijing from November 26, instead of 19 November. "The airline will operate this route twice
60 ORDTLV2414 : AA is my preffered carrier and ORD is my home airport but I always see gates not being utilized. So maybe they need to better utizlie gates.
61 Post contains images sovietjet : It's unfortunate they are replacing the A346 with the 787 I'd much prefer not seeing yet another twin.
62 LFutia : Oh is it going to be more legible and easy to understand? Like I never understood why in T3 there was a sign in the H/K corridor for the G gates goin
63 Thekennady : I wonder what will AA do with ORD after the Merger? Will AA increase domestic connectivity? Will some international routes be swaped with the likes or
64 ckfred : Parker told the unions that he felt current AA management has focused too much on DFW to the detriment of ORD. AA picked up a lot of corporate flying
65 Thekennady : All this could have been done without a merger as well. Once AA emerged from Chapter 11, and got the new pilot contracts in order they could have wor
66 timberwolf24 : What do you think the chances are of Icelandair or Norwegian starting service to ORD in the next few years? I'm a little surprised that Icelandair has
67 Thekennady : I don't remember the last time Iceland air flew to ORD. As I was telling another person, they like to target markets witha lot of O&D to Iceland,
68 Post contains links yeogeo : I don't believe Icelandair has ever flown to O'Hare. Iceland Express did briefly during the summer of 2009; perhaps that's who you are thinking of? I
69 timberwolf24 : Icelandair ended service to ORD in the early 80's when they were phasing out the DC-8s. They advertised the route as same plane service to Luxemburg.
70 Post contains links and images yeogeo : I'll be damned! Sure enough: View Large View MediumPhoto © Tom Pesch I based my assertion on the current/former routes table on Wikipedia which does
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...
What's Next For ORD? posted Sun Jan 26 2003 15:29:18 by B764
What's Next For VX? posted Mon Oct 28 2013 10:15:15 by questions
What's Next For YVR? posted Tue Sep 24 2013 15:41:30 by opethfan
After LAX/SEA What's Next For DL - Florida? posted Sat Aug 10 2013 19:41:57 by questions
What's Next For MIA? posted Thu Jun 20 2013 22:46:16 by Miami
What's Next For TPA? posted Thu Jun 13 2013 21:37:53 by avi8
What's Next For Boeing And Airbus? posted Tue Apr 2 2013 19:03:24 by lebb757
Long-range Business Jets. What Next For Dassault? posted Sat Feb 9 2013 16:58:15 by g500
What's Next For RNO? posted Thu Jan 24 2013 11:23:35 by psa1011
What's Next For LAL-Lakeland, Fla. posted Fri Mar 16 2012 10:43:53 by 727LOVER