airstatdfw wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

airstatdfw wrote:

More has to do with security, you can keep planes on the south side moving while the north side is working AF 1 or AF 2. But 9R and 22L have both had B747 Dept and 22L even has had the A380 Dept. It is more efficient if they can take the shorter RWY for their direction of flight. If the pilot request a longer RWY we will taxi them there, but they will delay other aircraft if their direction of flight shuts down the shorter RWY. This happens on East flow a lot many of the Heavy’s are North or East bound which is normally where 9R Dept go. We normally always assign RWYs based on direction not plane type.

Check my original post -- the runway I was asking about is 9L-27R, but you are referring to 9R-27L, hence the confusion.

I answered your question in your original post, you didn’t think a 747 would take a short RWY. I advised there have been departures off of RWY 27R. I was all letting you know that large aircraft have taken other short RWYs as ORD like 22L which is 8079 or 9R which is 7967.

I never said a 747 couldn't take a short runway -- I said (or strongly implied) ATC would never assign a 747 to a 7,500' runway when 10,000'+ and 13,000' were available.

FTMCPIUS wrote:

airstatdfw wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

Check my original post -- the runway I was asking about is 9L-27R, but you are referring to 9R-27L, hence the confusion.

I answered your question in your original post, you didn’t think a 747 would take a short RWY. I advised there have been departures off of RWY 27R. I was all letting you know that large aircraft have taken other short RWYs as ORD like 22L which is 8079 or 9R which is 7967.

I never said a 747 couldn't take a short runway -- I said (or strongly implied) ATC would never assign a 747 to a 7,500' runway when 10,000'+ and 13,000' were available.

Actually Europe bound 777s and the KL 747 take off from 9R frequently.

chicawgo wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

airstatdfw wrote:

I answered your question in your original post, you didn’t think a 747 would take a short RWY. I advised there have been departures off of RWY 27R. I was all letting you know that large aircraft have taken other short RWYs as ORD like 22L which is 8079 or 9R which is 7967.

I never said a 747 couldn't take a short runway -- I said (or strongly implied) ATC would never assign a 747 to a 7,500' runway when 10,000'+ and 13,000' were available.

Actually Europe bound 777s and the KL 747 take off from 9R frequently.

OMG! One more time -- look at my original post -- I asked about runway 9L-27R, not 9R-27L. Got it?

ILS28ORD wrote:

...And I’ve been on record for a long time saying they need to connect T5 to the rest of the terminal core. Especially when ORD bills itself the most connected airport in the world. They need to facilitate inter-line and international connections, OGT won’t house all the international flights when it’s done.

T5 will not get directly connected; it will remain accessible only through the ATS. ORD is throwing in completely with alliances, and so the only way you "should" have a problem after the ORD21 plan is if you are transferring alliances or to an independent. If you stay within *A or OW, you don't leave the old terminal core; if you are ST or independent, you're over at T5 (if that's what it's called then). Please understand that this plan means that ALL *A flights and ALL OW flights will come into OGT and Sat 1.

As to your comment about being connected, that means you can fly to more places, not that it's easy to transfer. Chicago is second only to LHR in connections, according to OAG. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/world-best-connected-airports-2018/index.html (And I challenge you to tell me LHR is better for connections than ORD. )

chidino wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

...And I’ve been on record for a long time saying they need to connect T5 to the rest of the terminal core. Especially when ORD bills itself the most connected airport in the world. They need to facilitate inter-line and international connections, OGT won’t house all the international flights when it’s done.

T5 will not get directly connected; it will remain accessible only through the ATS. ORD is throwing in completely with alliances, and so the only way you "should" have a problem after the ORD21 plan is if you are transferring alliances or to an independent. If you stay within *A or OW, you don't leave the old terminal core; if you are ST or independent, you're over at T5 (if that's what it's called then). Please understand that this plan means that ALL *A flights and ALL OW flights will come into OGT and Sat 1.

As to your comment about being connected, that means you can fly to more places, not that it's easy to transfer. Chicago is second only to LHR in connections, according to OAG. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/world-best-connected-airports-2018/index.html (And I challenge you to tell me LHR is better for connections than ORD. )

This isn’t exactly correct, under the AULA both UA and AA decide who will join them at the OGT. Additionally, we have no idea how the annual reallocation of gates will impact the ability of seeing common use gates at the OGT itself. The CDA has the legal right to adjust depending on the demand.

10 years from now alliances as we know them could be gone. The business model seems to be shifting towards JV’s anyway.

jcwr56 wrote:

chidino wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

...And I’ve been on record for a long time saying they need to connect T5 to the rest of the terminal core. Especially when ORD bills itself the most connected airport in the world. They need to facilitate inter-line and international connections, OGT won’t house all the international flights when it’s done.

T5 will not get directly connected; it will remain accessible only through the ATS. ORD is throwing in completely with alliances, and so the only way you "should" have a problem after the ORD21 plan is if you are transferring alliances or to an independent. If you stay within *A or OW, you don't leave the old terminal core; if you are ST or independent, you're over at T5 (if that's what it's called then). Please understand that this plan means that ALL *A flights and ALL OW flights will come into OGT and Sat 1.

As to your comment about being connected, that means you can fly to more places, not that it's easy to transfer. Chicago is second only to LHR in connections, according to OAG. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/world-best-connected-airports-2018/index.html (And I challenge you to tell me LHR is better for connections than ORD. )

This isn’t exactly correct, under the AULA both UA and AA decide who will join them at the OGT. Additionally, we have no idea how the annual reallocation of gates will impact the ability of seeing common use gates at the OGT itself. The CDA has the legal right to adjust depending on the demand.

10 years from now alliances as we know them could be gone. The business model seems to be shifting towards JV’s anyway.

And based on this common use gates thing is why CDA SHOULD consider connecting T5 to the terminal core airside. Once again, all competing mid-continent airports have APM airside.

jcwr56 wrote:

kyrone wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

Monday should bring some new news...

On Air India, or in general??

It was in general. This didn't happen because a last minute curve ball was thrown at me that I wasn't expecting.

Those curve balls playing with our Monday morning excitement! Any updates on when the news would break?

FTMCPIUS wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

I never said a 747 couldn't take a short runway -- I said (or strongly implied) ATC would never assign a 747 to a 7,500' runway when 10,000'+ and 13,000' were available.

Actually Europe bound 777s and the KL 747 take off from 9R frequently.

OMG! One more time -- look at my original post -- I asked about runway 9L-27R, not 9R-27L. Got it?

That's irrelevant and I wasn't responding to that... Here's exactly what you said: "I never said a 747 couldn't take a short runway -- I said (or strongly implied) ATC would never assign a 747 to a 7,500' runway when 10,000'+ and 13,000' were available." And I'm responding that that is completely false in that ATC frequently assigns medium-loaded 747's to 9R when 10L is in full use for departures.

chicawgo wrote:

FTMCPIUS wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

Actually Europe bound 777s and the KL 747 take off from 9R frequently.

OMG! One more time -- look at my original post -- I asked about runway 9L-27R, not 9R-27L. Got it?

That's irrelevant and I wasn't responding to that... Here's exactly what you said: "I never said a 747 couldn't take a short runway -- I said (or strongly implied) ATC would never assign a 747 to a 7,500' runway when 10,000'+ and 13,000' were available." And I'm responding that that is completely false in that ATC frequently assigns medium-loaded 747's to 9R when 10L is in full use for departures.

Do you have a problem reading? I am now and always have been referring to 9L-27R and you keep referring to 9R-27L. I KNOW 747s take off on 9R -- my original post asked about 9L. Once again:

Never mind the aviation...I'm waiting for the day/year/century the "airtrain" finishes!