nomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 630 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2645 times:
T5 at O'Hare is clearly in need of additional capacity during 12 pm and 6pm, or T1 and T3 need to have US CBP to relieve T5. Will T5 ever be expanded or will T1 and T3 get CBP? I know the airlines are under contract until 2018, but ORD won't make it that long at current gate capacity while the runway capacity is increasing. AA obviously has no commitment to ORD given the amount of $ they spend at MIA and JFK, while ORD doesn't get much except new RJs (but they are better than the 319). DFW is AA home, hub, and is fortunate to be on the Barnett Shale to pay for things. But given Chicago's tax & spend reputation, why are new gates at ORD and issue?
United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3030 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2162 times:
IMHO...gate congestion is building rapidly at ORD and something is going to give in the next 1-2 years...and I think that will be AA and UA agreeing to terminal expansions. There are lots of different plans that have been discussed recently here.
ORD Boy 2 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 307 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1674 times:
Bring back the World Gateway expansions?? (AA gets a new T4 built around the power plant), T6 next to T5?
If you did that with FIS in every terminal, you could have:
UA/Star could have Terminals 1 and 2...
AA/oneworld/Alaska would be at Terminals 3 and 4
Delta/Skyteam, Spirit, JetBlue and Unaligned carriers at Terminals 5 and 6....
ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter): AA obviously has no commitment to ORD given the amount of $ they spend at MIA and JFK, while ORD doesn't get much except new RJs (but they are better than the 319).
When Parker was courting the unions to get on board with merging with US, he said that ORD had been ignored by management and called it a mistake. He believed that UA and WN should both get a run for their money. What you're seeing now (i.e., more large RJs and no A319s) was the plan that was devised under Horton, and probably it was in the works, when the Airbus/Boeing order was placed in the summer of 2011, when Arpey was CEO.
Part of the issue goes back to the operations caps that the FAA imposed. That made DFW the primary east-west hub, while ORD became more focused on O&D and connections within the Midwest. DFW had room to expand, especially when Terminal D opened, which gave AA a lot more space.
Over time, I expect to see AA to be more aggressive at ORD.
Yes, AA built a nice terminal at JFK, but it's not as large as envisioned, and I don't think it will be expanded for some time
Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter): But given Chicago's tax & spend reputation, why are new gates at ORD and issue?
Traditionally, the cost of daily operations and all capital projects at ORD and MDW have been paid by landing fees, gate rentals, concessions, parking fees, and so on. Every mayor since Richard J. Daley has said repeatedly that no taxpayer money goes into the cost of running, expanding, and modernizing ORD and MDW.
So, you have to get AA and UA on board for further expansion, since they are the primary tenants. They have balked at paying for a western terminal, since that would be used by competitors.
The original plan had T1 being UA domestic. T2 would be UA/Star international. T3 would be AA domestic. A new T4 would be AA/Oneworld international. T5 would be for international not aligned with Star or Oneworld. A new T6 would be for all non AA/US/codeshare domestic. So, at the time the plan was announced, it would have been DL, NW, TW, CO, and US. Today, it would be NK, B6, DL, VX, and anyone else who wanted to fly domestic out of ORD.
I don't think 1, 3, or 6 would have customs and immigration under the original plan. But, this makes more sense than a western terminal, since linking the terminal for Terminals 1-5 and remote parking would present issues, as well as trying to move connecting bags, cargo, and mail.
jayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1172 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
Quoting United787 (Reply 1): IMHO...gate congestion is building rapidly at ORD and something is going to give in the next 1-2 years...and I think that will be AA and UA agreeing to terminal expansions.
I agree I think both AA and UA will soon drop their objections and support new terminals at ORD. The new question is will the City of Chicago allow both of these airlines to retain the type of control they currently have over ORD. IMHO both of these airlines would have agreed years ago to support terminal expansion if they get control over the gates and not a competitor because for both AA and UA it is about keeping the competition out of ORD. But I think both these airlines now realize that their tactics are having an effect on their current and future operations at ORD. So its only a matter of time before both these airlines get on board and stop holding ORD back.