ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 5:54 pm

I'd like to get a serious discussion going about the future of ORD. O'Hare is lagging behind other major airports in services and the terminals are becoming tired and dated. There is a gate shortage and reducing the number of delays has not improved significantly. I have seen no progress on the new proposed Terminal 2 or the proposed expansion of Terminal 5. Chicago desperately needs to get going on rebuilding/expanding and improving the terminals. I have a few questions to get the discussion started.

1. Do you like the proposed Terminal 2 rebuild? Is that and expanding Terminal 5 enough to fix the gate shortage?

2. Whatever happened to the Western Terminal? Do you think it will ever be built?

3. Any progress on a new lease between United/American and ORD?

4. Will we see new western access into the airport (even if it is just a parking garage with a shuttle to the terminals) once IL-390 (the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway) is finished?
 
jayunited
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:50 pm

Here is a really great article that addresses most of your questions.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... -for-ohare

In short the city is still in negotiations with the airlines they expect negotiations to wrap up by the end of the year.
1. The current 30 year lease agreement United and American have expires May 2018.
2. Both airlines what to increase the overall number of gates but want the city to keep a lid on landing fees.
3. Both American and United want the city keep a firm handle on the overall cost of the expansion program.
4. The city will drop the proposed western terminal because both American and United objected to paying for a terminal neither of them would be allowed to use.
5. The city in return whats both American and United to give up their "VETO POWER" over airport capitol spending.

There are plenty of other articles out there on this subject and it does seem like progress is being made we will just have to wait till these negotiations end and an agreement is announced to see what the future of ORD will be.
 
ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:25 pm

I can't believe they are dropping the western terminal. While I agree the existing terminals first and foremost need rebuilding/expansion (I really like the proposed Terminal 2 rebuild into a "central terminal" with new customs facilities), I still think a small western terminal would be nice for LCC's.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:34 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
I still think a small western terminal would be nice for LCC's.


Which is exactly why AA and UA don't want to pay for it.
 
ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:39 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
I still think a small western terminal would be nice for LCC's.


Which is exactly why AA and UA don't want to pay for it.


Who says they have to pay for it? Doesn't the money for these projects come from fees collected from all the airlines that use the airport?

And worse case, if the city had to make a concession to allow AA/UA to use a few of the gates at the western terminal so they'd pay for it (but the majority would still be common use gates), that wouldn't be too bad.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 974
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 8:43 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
I still think a small western terminal would be nice for LCC's.


Which is exactly why AA and UA don't want to pay for it.


Who says they have to pay for it? Doesn't the money for these projects come from fees collected from all the airlines that use the airport?

And worse case, if the city had to make a concession to allow AA/UA to use a few of the gates at the western terminal so they'd pay for it (but the majority would still be common use gates), that wouldn't be too bad.


And AA/UA are the vast majority of those fees....thus, they are paying for their own competition.
 
jayunited
Posts: 1376
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:44 pm

[quote="ADrum23"
Who says they have to pay for it? Doesn't the money for these projects come from fees collected from all the airlines that use the airport?

And worse case, if the city had to make a concession to allow AA/UA to use a few of the gates at the western terminal so they'd pay for it (but the majority would still be common use gates), that wouldn't be too bad.[/quote]

I think you are missing the point here. After reading the article both the city and AA/UA are on the same page that ORD needs to modernize. Both American and United are the anchor tenants their main concern is controlling cost, making sure this project doesn't get out of control financially causing landing fees to rise exponentially which could perhaps cause some LCC's to leave ORD. By axing the western terminal they have potentially cut $1 - $2 billion dollars from the project, because according to the article that is what it could cost to build a terminal. The city is fairly certain that neither AA or UA is going to abandon ORD any time soon I'm not so sure the city has the same confidence in the LCC's that you say should be allowed to use the western terminal. As far as I know DL has not stepped up to the plate and offered to help pay for a western terminal so if some of these LCC's go belly up or abandon ORD both AA and UA would have to step up and pay for this unnecessary terminal. From a business a financial perspective both AA and UA are doing the right thing by demanding the western terminal be dropped. It's not about blocking competition because their will be increased competition at ORD once the the main terminals are done. Axing the western terminal is about controlling cost and I think the city finally gets this point which is why if the article is correct the city has finally given up on the western terminal.
 
ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:02 pm

jayunited wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Who says they have to pay for it? Doesn't the money for these projects come from fees collected from all the airlines that use the airport?

And worse case, if the city had to make a concession to allow AA/UA to use a few of the gates at the western terminal so they'd pay for it (but the majority would still be common use gates), that wouldn't be too bad.


I think you are missing the point here. After reading the article both the city and AA/UA are on the same page that ORD needs to modernize. Both American and United are the anchor tenants their main concern is controlling cost, making sure this project doesn't get out of control financially causing landing fees to rise exponentially which could perhaps cause some LCC's to leave ORD. By axing the western terminal they have potentially cut $1 - $2 billion dollars from the project, because according to the article that is what it could cost to build a terminal. The city is fairly certain that neither AA or UA is going to abandon ORD any time soon I'm not so sure the city has the same confidence in the LCC's that you say should be allowed to use the western terminal. As far as I know DL has not stepped up to the plate and offered to help pay for a western terminal so if some of these LCC's go belly up or abandon ORD both AA and UA would have to step up and pay for this unnecessary terminal. From a business a financial perspective both AA and UA are doing the right thing by demanding the western terminal be dropped. It's not about blocking competition because their will be increased competition at ORD once the the main terminals are done. Axing the western terminal is about controlling cost and I think the city finally gets this point which is why if the article is correct the city has finally given up on the western terminal.


My concern is the new Terminal 2 rebuild (which I am very much in support of) is not going to create enough common use gates, because UA/AA will gobble up the space (they both stated they want more capacity). That is why I still think some sort of western terminal is needed, to ensure there is enough gates for LCC's. I hope I'm wrong.

Even if there is no western terminal, they still need to create western access from the new IL-390 tollway. I think some sort of Transportation Center with connections to the terminals would be nice here.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 12344
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:16 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Who says they have to pay for it? Doesn't the money for these projects come from fees collected from all the airlines that use the airport?

And worse case, if the city had to make a concession to allow AA/UA to use a few of the gates at the western terminal so they'd pay for it (but the majority would still be common use gates), that wouldn't be too bad.


I think you are missing the point here. After reading the article both the city and AA/UA are on the same page that ORD needs to modernize. Both American and United are the anchor tenants their main concern is controlling cost, making sure this project doesn't get out of control financially causing landing fees to rise exponentially which could perhaps cause some LCC's to leave ORD. By axing the western terminal they have potentially cut $1 - $2 billion dollars from the project, because according to the article that is what it could cost to build a terminal. The city is fairly certain that neither AA or UA is going to abandon ORD any time soon I'm not so sure the city has the same confidence in the LCC's that you say should be allowed to use the western terminal. As far as I know DL has not stepped up to the plate and offered to help pay for a western terminal so if some of these LCC's go belly up or abandon ORD both AA and UA would have to step up and pay for this unnecessary terminal. From a business a financial perspective both AA and UA are doing the right thing by demanding the western terminal be dropped. It's not about blocking competition because their will be increased competition at ORD once the the main terminals are done. Axing the western terminal is about controlling cost and I think the city finally gets this point which is why if the article is correct the city has finally given up on the western terminal.


My concern is the new Terminal 2 rebuild (which I am very much in support of) is not going to create enough common use gates, because UA/AA will gobble up the space (they both stated they want more capacity). That is why I still think some sort of western terminal is needed, to ensure there is enough gates for LCC's. I hope I'm wrong.

Even if there is no western terminal, they still need to create western access from the new IL-390 tollway. I think some sort of Transportation Center with connections to the terminals would be nice here.


If Terminal 6 happens, they may not need a western terminal. That would also solve the problem of the split DL operation.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:18 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
jayunited wrote:

I think you are missing the point here. After reading the article both the city and AA/UA are on the same page that ORD needs to modernize. Both American and United are the anchor tenants their main concern is controlling cost, making sure this project doesn't get out of control financially causing landing fees to rise exponentially which could perhaps cause some LCC's to leave ORD. By axing the western terminal they have potentially cut $1 - $2 billion dollars from the project, because according to the article that is what it could cost to build a terminal. The city is fairly certain that neither AA or UA is going to abandon ORD any time soon I'm not so sure the city has the same confidence in the LCC's that you say should be allowed to use the western terminal. As far as I know DL has not stepped up to the plate and offered to help pay for a western terminal so if some of these LCC's go belly up or abandon ORD both AA and UA would have to step up and pay for this unnecessary terminal. From a business a financial perspective both AA and UA are doing the right thing by demanding the western terminal be dropped. It's not about blocking competition because their will be increased competition at ORD once the the main terminals are done. Axing the western terminal is about controlling cost and I think the city finally gets this point which is why if the article is correct the city has finally given up on the western terminal.


My concern is the new Terminal 2 rebuild (which I am very much in support of) is not going to create enough common use gates, because UA/AA will gobble up the space (they both stated they want more capacity). That is why I still think some sort of western terminal is needed, to ensure there is enough gates for LCC's. I hope I'm wrong.

Even if there is no western terminal, they still need to create western access from the new IL-390 tollway. I think some sort of Transportation Center with connections to the terminals would be nice here.


If Terminal 6 happens, they may not need a western terminal. That would also solve the problem of the split DL operation.


Terminal 6? What is that?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 12344
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:23 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

My concern is the new Terminal 2 rebuild (which I am very much in support of) is not going to create enough common use gates, because UA/AA will gobble up the space (they both stated they want more capacity). That is why I still think some sort of western terminal is needed, to ensure there is enough gates for LCC's. I hope I'm wrong.

Even if there is no western terminal, they still need to create western access from the new IL-390 tollway. I think some sort of Transportation Center with connections to the terminals would be nice here.


If Terminal 6 happens, they may not need a western terminal. That would also solve the problem of the split DL operation.


Terminal 6? What is that?


The Daley terminal modernization plan from the early 00s called for roughly a mirror image of Terminal 5 immediately east of and connected to Terminal 5. The idea was that Terminal 2 would get FIS, AA/Oneworld would get F and UA/Star would get E. CO and NW used most of the "leg" of E at that time and US had high F gates.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:27 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

If Terminal 6 happens, they may not need a western terminal. That would also solve the problem of the split DL operation.


Terminal 6? What is that?


The Daley terminal modernization plan from the early 00s called for roughly a mirror image of Terminal 5 immediately east of and connected to Terminal 5. The idea was that Terminal 2 would get FIS, AA/Oneworld would get F and UA/Star would get E. CO and NW used most of the "leg" of E at that time and US had high F gates.


I don't think that is in the cards anymore. The latest plans only call for 9 new gates to be added to Terminal 5.
 
User avatar
kngkyle
Crew
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:33 am

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:40 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:

Terminal 6? What is that?


The Daley terminal modernization plan from the early 00s called for roughly a mirror image of Terminal 5 immediately east of and connected to Terminal 5. The idea was that Terminal 2 would get FIS, AA/Oneworld would get F and UA/Star would get E. CO and NW used most of the "leg" of E at that time and US had high F gates.


I don't think that is in the cards anymore. The latest plans only call for 9 new gates to be added to Terminal 5.


All of which will be common use gates that LCC carriers can use.

The Western terminal was always a bad idea and only came about to get the support of the western suburbs for the modernization project. Modernizing the existing complex is much more feasible and cost effective. There should be announcement before the end of the year on the actual expansion/re-development plan for Terminal 2. What we saw earlier this year were just concepts the city was proposing to UA/AA. The actual plan could be wildly different.

Both the 9-gate expansion to T5 and the 5-gate expansion to T3 are currently under construction.
 
ADrum23
Topic Author
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:48 pm

kngkyle wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

The Daley terminal modernization plan from the early 00s called for roughly a mirror image of Terminal 5 immediately east of and connected to Terminal 5. The idea was that Terminal 2 would get FIS, AA/Oneworld would get F and UA/Star would get E. CO and NW used most of the "leg" of E at that time and US had high F gates.


I don't think that is in the cards anymore. The latest plans only call for 9 new gates to be added to Terminal 5.


All of which will be common use gates that LCC carriers can use.

The Western terminal was always a bad idea and only came about to get the support of the western suburbs for the modernization project. Modernizing the existing complex is much more feasible and cost effective. There should be announcement before the end of the year on the actual expansion/re-development plan for Terminal 2. What we saw earlier this year were just concepts the city was proposing to UA/AA. The actual plan could be wildly different.

Both the 9-gate expansion to T5 and the 5-gate expansion to T3 are currently under construction.


Would LCC's like Frontier, Spirit, etc, use the 9 new gates in International Terminal 5, or is ORD backing away from that (i.e, that Terminal 5 is a strictly international terminal).

Good point about the Western Terminal, but I still think they need to accommodate some sort of access road from the new IL-390 tollway, as well as some efficient way to get to the terminals from there (CTA or ATS extension?)

And are you sure the Terminal 5 expansion is under construction? I haven't heard anything recently regarding that, not even a groundbreaking ceremony or anything.
 
MLIAA
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 11:08 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:12 pm

Why is ORD so stingy about who goes into T5? DFW, ATL, LAX, PHL and many other airports allow all pax into "international" terminals, and no harm comes from it. ORD has the shuttle, why not allow people to flow freely to T5, to catch their flights, in addition to being able to go back to T1/2/3 inside security?

Further, PHL keeps Spirit at terminal A, the international terminal. Would ORD be able to move B6, NK, and F9 to T5? (Assuming VX follows AS and uses AA facilities in T3)
A319/A320/A321/B717/B722/B737/B738/B739/B744/B752/B763/B764/B772/B788/CRJ2/CRJ7/CRJ9/E140/E145/E170/E175
 
toltommy
Posts: 2583
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

Re: The Future of ORD

Sun Aug 13, 2017 12:10 am

MLIAA wrote:
Further, PHL keeps Spirit at terminal A, the international terminal.


Nope, NK moved to Terminal E at PHL about 6 weeks ago.
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753/762/763/764/772/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440/700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 12344
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:18 am

ADrum23 wrote:
kngkyle wrote:
ADrum23 wrote:
Would LCC's like Frontier, Spirit, etc, use the 9 new gates in International Terminal 5, or is ORD backing away from that (i.e, that Terminal 5 is a strictly international terminal).


Terminal 5 has had domestic LFCs more or less continuously since it opened. I think U5 used Terminal 5 for its entire existence, for instance.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: The Future of ORD

Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:10 am

Usa3000 used T5 for all of their flights, domestic and international. All other LCC have always used T3.

Why not build a post security underground walkway from T5 to T3 like united has in T1 or run a continuous shuttle in both directions like UA does from concourse E to/from B/C instead of the one way shuttle AA now runs?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos