Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What's Next For ORD Part 2  
User currently onlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4429 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7151 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, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7041 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, 2745 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7008 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 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6906 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, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6811 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 offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6708 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 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6457 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 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6453 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 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6373 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, 2975 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6321 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 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6252 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, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6132 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



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineairfinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 667 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6118 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, 1542 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6112 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, 1014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6031 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, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6012 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]


Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5985 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 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5963 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, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5916 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 offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5894 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, 2967 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5829 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 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5773 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 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5753 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, 2967 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5736 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 offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 766 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5720 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.
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 18):

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 and I know that it will probably take at least minimum another 8-10 years before we see any movement on some type of terminal additions with the exception probably being T5. My comment was looking at the future not the present of course with the current situation in DC and the political impasse that exists in that town nothing will be done for the foreseeable future because there is no money in place to pay for terminal addition. However I still believe something at some point will have to be done terminal wise at ORD and I hope that some where behind close doors at least here in Chicago there are people coming up with plans to address these issues at both AA and UA.


User currently offlineord2010 From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 25):
However I still believe something at some point will have to be done terminal wise at ORD and I hope that some where behind close doors at least here in Chicago there are people coming up with plans to address these issues at both AA and UA.

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 discussed stopping her from working on the terminal buildings. Hopefully a T5 expansion will happen soon, but I'm sure she's got something up her sleeve.

What do you guys think will happen at ORD post AA/US merger (if it happens)? Is UA building up ORD for the purpose of not leaving AA a market to grow in if the merger does happen? I believe with UA placing widebodies on some domestic routes (772 ORD-SFO/HNL/and I think I heard shifting between IAD/IAH but sounds unlikely to me, and many 764 routes) and up-gauging some international routes like BRU from a 767 to a 772 and MUC back up to a 772 and FRA to a 744, PVG / HKG I believe to a 744 again. It would be interesting to see what US CEO has planned for ORD being that he's expressed that he wants growth there post merger. what is everyone's thoughts?


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5509 times:

Quoting ord2010 (Reply 26):
What do you guys think will happen at ORD post AA/US merger (if it happens)?

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 to move from T-3 to T-2, if a swap had to be made.

On the other hand, maybe Virgin America or Spirit could be persuaded to move from their single gates in L to two gates in T-2? I haven't been in L for ages, but I assume T-2 is less desirable than L, because I know the E and F gates all too well!   

I'm curious... How many flights does US field with two gates in a day at O'Hare?

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5423 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 27):
I'm curious... How many flights does US field with two gates in a day at O'Hare?

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 at ORD. I was under the impression they provided a majority of the lift for UA to their main hubs via the codeshare especially to PHX. Looking at the matchup, AA really was pushed out by UA/US on the 3 routes. I wonder with the merger will UA maintain the same level of service to PHL, CLT, and PHX.



The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
User currently offlineRedTailDTW From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 757 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5196 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 27):
How many flights does US field with two gates in a day at O'Hare?

I thought US had gates E7, F8 and F10? Did they lose one recently or is it shared with UA?

Quoting kordcj (Reply 28):
For some reason I thought US was much bigger than this at ORD.

Their schedule to the three main hubs hasn't changed much since the merger with HP. However they did drop flights to PIT (like most other airports) and DCA not too long after the merger (can't recall exactly when)...


- Mason



Northwest Airlines. Now your flying smart!
User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5117 times:

Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 29):
I thought US had gates E7, F8 and F10?

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 number! I believe there is some gate-sharing with UA which might be at the root of the problem. Perhaps someone can chime in who actually flies US out of O'Hare regularly.

Anyway, if the merger goes through there will be some gates in T2 available for someone. They certainly are desirable even if they are in T-2, the terminal most in need of refurbishment or a complete re-construction.

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineericaasen From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4987 times:

Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 29):
I thought US had gates E7, F8 and F10? Did they lose one recently or is it shared with UA?

E7 is owned by DL and subleased to US. They also use F6 for a RON.

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 30):
Anyway, if the merger goes through there will be some gates in T2 available for someone. They certainly are desirable even if they are in T-2, the terminal most in need of refurbishment or a complete re-construction.

I think you should get the Understatement of the Year Award, T2 is a total armpit. The room used to leak so bad everyone had to do an OJ Hertz commercial to just walk down the hallway with all of the drip buckets everywhere. The city finally did some work on the roof so most of the leaks, not all, are gone, but the ceiling is still covered in water stains. But nothing will be done to improve the look of T2.


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

Quoting ericaasen (Reply 31):
I think you should get the Understatement of the Year Award...nothing will be done to improve the look of T2.

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 to start over.

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4867 times:

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 entrant B6 who will start SJU-ORD on Nov 20.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uni...nd-san-juan-puerto-rico-2013-11-04


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

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 from both ends.


User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4836 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 34):

Something is brewing  


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2636 posts, RR: 17
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 plan to bring back UA 747s for a few routes? What happened to that?

I spent some time these past few weeks at ORD taking photos and I noticed that there are not as many AA 777s. Maybe they all come after 4:30PM when I left because it got dark but I seem to remember there was more in the past? On the other hand there are many UA 777s.


User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4428 times:

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 36):
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.

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 going.

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 36):
Also, wasn't there a plan to bring back UA 747s for a few routes? What happened to that?

Yes, this spring UA will bring the 744s back on ORD-NRT(30 MAR), ORD-PVG(30MAR), and ORD-FRA(8 APR).

Quoting sovietjet (Reply 36):
I spent some time these past few weeks at ORD taking photos and I noticed that there are not as many AA 777s. Maybe they all come after 4:30PM when I left because it got dark but I seem to remember there was more in the past? On the other hand there are many UA 777s.

During the summer AA runs 3 daily 772s to LHR along with 1 763, but in the winter months service is reduced to 1 772 and 2 763s. AA has also reduced ORD-NRT to 5 times weekly so on some days you will only see 3 AA772s coming through ORD. The NRT reduction is temporary, and the LHR reductions are due to the slower winter season.


User currently offlinetimberwolf24 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4358 times:

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 growth continue at ORD.


Living in LA, ORD/MDW will always be home!
User currently offlinethekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting timberwolf24 (Reply 38):
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 growth continue at ORD.

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 be going from 5 times weekly to daily

HU will be going daily to PEK on a 787 in may

UA will be adding 744 service as mentioned before along with EDI


User currently offlineLFutia From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3352 posts, RR: 31
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 32):
but I don't care about the look of T-2, its the congestion that I find troublesome. I think they'll eventually have to start over.

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 Chili's and the Gyro place on the F side. Other than that, US Airways uses those super old flight monitors.

I wish T2 and T3 were more like United where underneath the gate was the destination of where the plane was going.

ORD also needs new signage. Wish it was more like the signage of Schiphol. So clear and easy to understand.

Leo/ORD



Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
User currently offlineericaasen From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4039 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 32):
but I don't care about the look of T-2, its the congestion that I find troublesome.

Unfortunately, I have to be in that building 5 days a week so I tend to notice the appearance a bit more.

Quoting LFutia (Reply 40):
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 Chili's and the Gyro place on the F side. Other than that, US Airways uses those super old flight monitors.

Well, I guess there's nothing to save T2 now since the Quizno's is gone for a Hudson News 25 feet from another Hudson News.


User currently offlineLFutia From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3352 posts, RR: 31
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ericaasen (Reply 41):
Well, I guess there's nothing to save T2 now since the Quizno's is gone for a Hudson News 25 feet from another Hudson News.

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 ever setup shop at ORD?

Leo/ORD



Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3895 times:

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 T-2 are up for grabs and perhaps some AA gates in T-3, although specifics aren't out yet.
Who will be standing in line with their hands out?
Only current gate holders who desire more or also some new entrants?

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineRedTailDTW From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 757 posts, RR: 3
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3868 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 43):
Certainly US gates in T-2 are up for grabs and perhaps some AA gates in T-3, although specifics aren't out yet.

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 that would be the two to go as they can roll the current US operation into T3 rather easily. US also subleases E7 and F6 if I remember correctly so those gates would go back to DL and UA control respectively...


- Mason



Northwest Airlines. Now your flying smart!
User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3842 times:

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 willing to give it another go in T2? They have had very little success with ORD, and I'd hate to see the gates wasted on 2 routes 4x/day each.


The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3844 times:

Quoting RedTailDTW (Reply 44):
It's only two gates so it won't really be difficult.

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, from info up-thread.

So who'll apply?

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3812 times:

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 they could net additional one or two gates in the process. I'm sure AA would prefer their two gates at the end of L.

User currently offlineRedTailDTW From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 757 posts, RR: 3
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 47):
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 they could net additional one or two gates in the process. I'm sure AA would prefer their two gates at the end of L.

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 gain a gate or two as well.

For some reason I think JetBlue will stay behind and pick up a gate or two that VX or NK vacates although I could be wrong. Time will tell I guess...


- Mason



Northwest Airlines. Now your flying smart!
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5293 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3806 times:

Quoting airfinair (Reply 10):
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.

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, there was light rain, and the temperature was only a few degrees above freezing. A friend of mine who has been ORD crew base since 1990 said that at that time, ORD could operate with 32L for arrivals and 32R for departures. The last flights going west left around 10pm, and arrivals after 8:30 were such that one runway could handle them.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 14):
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.

But the question remains as to who would use all of the gates that the City could potentially build? WN seems perfectly content to control MDW. That leaves VX and B6. Yes, they both would like to offer more service to Chicago, but how much more? Are they sitting on enough aircraft orders to create a substantial operation at ORD?

Considering that the corporate base in Chicago seems to be split between UA and AA, it seems it would take either carrier some time to start pulling business travel from UA and AA. Not to mention that a fair amount of travel at ORD is O&D for smaller cities in the Midwest, which VX won't serve, and B6 might be a bit choosy.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 47):
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 they could net additional one or two gates in the process. I'm sure AA would prefer their two gates at the end of L.

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 due to the the fact that US only has 2 gates in T2 the other gates US uses actually belong to both DL and UA. It's probably better for VX to move to T2 as they would gain a gate.


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

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 the terminal itself by VX, B6 and NK the city could add carriers in there. Not that they're going too. Volaris is going into T5. Hawaiian might be one with a 330 that would end up on L. L7 and L9 can handle widebodies...it was done when T4 was operating and Delta handled several of the carriers there.

IThere's a leadin line painted beyond L9 that NK parks an aircraft on. This is why Air Choice One was moved over next to L10. The city could add an L11 bridge to add another gate.

The Echo gates are another story....those are more politically charged and don't be surprised to see DL take those over. This would allow them to shift their own flights around and bring their CDG flight back to T2.



Quoting LFutia (Reply 40):
ORD also needs new signage. Wish it was more like the signage of Schiphol. So clear and easy to understand.

This is actually taking place...there's a small task force starting at T5 and working it's way around over to the domestic core.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1396 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 week 3 days ago) and read 3615 times:

The American announcement specifically mentions giving up 2 gates on L.

User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 52):
The American announcement specifically mentions giving up 2 gates on L.

Yes, L1 and L2.

It's in the order published.


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 51):
The Echo gates are another story... don't be surprised to see DL take those over.
Quoting ADent (Reply 52):
The American announcement specifically mentions giving up 2 gates on L.

 

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 new AA would not want to run an operation with two orphan gates in E. Or do they loose those gates simply because US will no longer exist?

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlineAmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2967 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

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-sized jets (737s/A32S) and keep one for the RJs. So in short, AA are losing three gates, new tenants are gaining two.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...ion=news/national_world&id=9323011



Shannon-Chicago
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1014 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 54):
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 new AA would not want to run an operation with two orphan gates in E. Or do they loose those gates simply because US will no longer exist?

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 is extremely limited ORD if AA chooses to lease those gates out they could demand top dollar for them.


User currently offlinenorcal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3208 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 56):

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 assign them strategically to diversify the airlines.

In any case, L gates would not be attractive to UA at all, while they would salivate over E gates.

I'm sure the idea of more Spirit at ORD isn't thrilling to AA, but they go after a much different market than AA does.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5293 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3192 times:

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 E7, E9, and E11 or F8, F9, and F10, they are relatively close together.

It seems to me that If NK wanted to increase it's operation by 1/3, taking the US gates would do that. That way, NK could have a 3rd gate, and then VX and B6 could both add a gate on L.

I would still bet that AA does some shopping around of the US gates, finds a taker from one of the carriers on L, and then possibly looks to modify the terms of the settlement to include this. At every other airport that AA has to give up gates only, it's clear that AA is giving up US gates, such as LAX and MIA. Having to give up gates on L, which AA has had for some time, is like telling AA that at MIA, it has to keep the US gates on J while giving up a couple of gates on D, or keeping the US gates at LAX while giving up a couple of gates at Terminal 4.


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

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 a week, and increases to 4 weekly from 10DEC13"
http://www.routesonline.com/news/29/...o-service-till-late-november-2013/

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently onlineORDTLV2414 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2636 posts, RR: 17
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2885 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 59):
Hainan has now scheduled its 787 service Beijing-ORD-Beijing from November 26, instead of 19 November.

It's unfortunate they are replacing the A346 with the 787  I'd much prefer not seeing yet another twin.


User currently offlineLFutia From Netherlands, joined Dec 2002, 3352 posts, RR: 31
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 51):
This is actually taking place...there's a small task force starting at T5 and working it's way around over to the domestic core.

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 going straight when in fact you have to turn left or right to go back to the top of the concourse and turn left.

Looks like I have more and more to look forward to for my departure from T5 in February.

Leo/ORD



Leo/ORD -- Groetjes uit de VS! -- Heeft u laatst nog met KLM gevlogen?
User currently offlineThekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

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 PHL and CLT? Will AA push do be more competitive at ORD?

User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5293 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting Thekennady (Reply 63):

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 PHL and CLT? Will AA push do be more competitive at ORD?

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 out of Chicago and the upper Midwest, after the UA pilot sick-out in 2000. My understanding is that AA has lost all of that gain and then some, as it has cut back at AA, both in terms of total flying and shifting mainline to Eagle.

Now, some of that was because the FAA put the operations cap in place in 2003 and 2004, when ORD was getting so that it was seeing significant delays, even on clear days with light winds that weren't changing directions much. But, when the 3rd east-west runway opened in 2008, AA didn't shift much flying back from DFW.

That is what Parker wants to do, shift some flying from other hubs to ORD and take business away from UA and WN.


User currently offlineThekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 64):

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 worked towards a better cost structure and with all the new Aircraft on Order AA was prepared to reinvent itself as the new livery represented. This merger seems to only create a larger version of the same issues, no change of culture, just 1 less competitor to worry about. If anything AA/US employees are in for a painful intergration period that will lead to poor costumer service and a bland atmosphere. Consumers benefit not one bit from this, i know AA could have done better than this but its much easier to merge, make cuts, and raise prices. ORD itself might see increased service but i believe that would have enventually happened merger or not.


User currently offlinetimberwolf24 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (11 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

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 not returned to ORD.


Living in LA, ORD/MDW will always be home!
User currently offlineThekennady From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1917 times:

Quoting timberwolf24 (Reply 66):
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 not returned to ORD.

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, or smaller markets with less service to Europe so they can connect traffic through their hub. I'm sure if they believed ORD could work they would most likely be there. ORD has a heavy amount of service to Europe and Chicago does not have significant demand to Iceland, so it might be hard for FI to catch on at ORD. Personally id think UA or AA would be better off flying to Iceland from ORD because of the strong connectivity to their hubs there.

As far as DY, id love to see them maybe to OSL seasonally to ORD, their 737ngs could not do that route. The 787 might be too much capacity, but twice a week could work during the summer months.


User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 68, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Quoting timberwolf24 (Reply 66):
I'm a little surprised that Icelandair has not returned to ORD.

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?
Iceland Express Comes To ORD (by yeogeo Jun 6 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Icelandair would be a great addition, however... and they do interline with AA, for what its worth.

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
User currently offlinetimberwolf24 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 68):
I don't believe Icelandair has ever flown to O'Hare.

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.

Quoting Thekennady (Reply 67):
As far as DY, id love to see them maybe to OSL seasonally to ORD

I could see seasonal service to OSL from ORD, I wonder if they would try LGW-ORD.



Living in LA, ORD/MDW will always be home!
User currently offlineyeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 887 posts, RR: 14
Reply 70, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Quoting timberwolf24 (Reply 69):
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.

I'll be damned! Sure enough:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tom Pesch




I based my assertion on the current/former routes table on Wikipedia which does not show ORD...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandair_destinations
...but should have checked the Airliners.net phto database instead!

yeo



Yokoso! to my world
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