iowaman
Topic Author
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:13 am

Rolling this to part two due to length.

Previous thread: What's Next For ORD (by ORD2010 Sep 20 2013 in Civil Aviation)
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:36 am

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 avatar
United787
Posts: 2197
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:58 am

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...
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:07 am

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?
 
jcwr56
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:46 am

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 avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:14 pm

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.
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading". - Thomas Jefferson
 
ZBA2CGX
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:09 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:31 pm

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#
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:33 pm

Quoting ZBA2CGX (Reply 6):

Everything but terminal additions.....
 
airstatdfw
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:04 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:09 pm

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.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2565
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:38 pm

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?
 
airfinair
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 11:36 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:06 am

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
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:46 am

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
 
airfinair
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 11:36 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:58 am

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 avatar
Acey559
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 12:01 pm

Quoting yeogeo (Reply 11):

I'll have to look at my chart but I'm pretty sure it's taxiway Zulu.
 
jayunited
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:37 pm

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.
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:59 pm

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
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:22 pm

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.
 
kyrone
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:56 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:39 pm

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??
 
jcwr56
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 4:28 pm

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 avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:01 pm

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.
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading". - Thomas Jefferson
 
User avatar
AmricanShamrok
Posts: 1803
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:03 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 7:24 pm

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.
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:47 pm

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.
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:59 pm

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 avatar
AmricanShamrok
Posts: 1803
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:03 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:17 pm

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.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 9:35 pm

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.
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading". - Thomas Jefferson
 
jayunited
Posts: 1272
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Sat Nov 02, 2013 11:57 pm

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.
 
ORD2010
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:46 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:34 pm

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?
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:49 pm

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
One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Wed Nov 06, 2013 3:48 am

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 avatar
RedTailDTW
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:08 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:35 pm

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
Airlines Flown: AA, CO, HP, MQ, NW, RP, UA, US, WN, YX / Aircraft Flown: 737-200/300/700/800, 757-200/300, 777-200, A319/A320/A321, DC-9-30/50, DC-10-40, ERJ 140/145, E170, MD80/83/90
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:18 pm

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
One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
 
ericaasen
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:39 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:53 am

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.
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:03 am

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
One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:49 am

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
 
jcwr56
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:54 am

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.
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:55 am

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 34):

Something is brewing  
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:04 pm

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.
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:26 pm

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.
 
timberwolf24
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 8:38 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Mon Nov 11, 2013 6:50 pm

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!
 
thekennady
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:00 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:11 am

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
 
LFutia
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:04 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:09 am

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?
 
ericaasen
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:39 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:44 am

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.
 
LFutia
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:04 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:53 am

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?
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:45 pm

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
One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
 
User avatar
RedTailDTW
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:08 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:05 pm

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
Airlines Flown: AA, CO, HP, MQ, NW, RP, UA, US, WN, YX / Aircraft Flown: 737-200/300/700/800, 757-200/300, 777-200, A319/A320/A321, DC-9-30/50, DC-10-40, ERJ 140/145, E170, MD80/83/90
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:29 pm

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.
 
yeogeo
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:31 pm

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
One great use of words is to hide our thoughts. Voltaire
 
ROSWELL41
Posts: 755
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2001 3:50 am

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:44 pm

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 avatar
RedTailDTW
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:08 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:49 pm

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
Airlines Flown: AA, CO, HP, MQ, NW, RP, UA, US, WN, YX / Aircraft Flown: 737-200/300/700/800, 757-200/300, 777-200, A319/A320/A321, DC-9-30/50, DC-10-40, ERJ 140/145, E170, MD80/83/90
 
ckfred
Posts: 4715
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: What's Next For ORD Part 2

Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:53 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 321neo, aflyingkiwi, Alexdk, Baidu [Spider], col, Google Adsense [Bot], JeremyB, jhdk, kaichinshih, KarelXWB, migair54, Oykie, qf789, qvb222, RickNRoll, rokklagid, sandyb123, sassiciai, SInGAPORE_AIR, smi0006, soundmind, StTim, SuperSix2, Wingtip1005, XaviClot, Yahoo [Bot] and 196 guests