emcm541 wrote:

chidino wrote:

And all satellite concourses must have flex gates (RJs to wide-body, adaptable, although Sat 1 and the OGT must accommodate two Group VI aircraft each). They do have live trees in this mockup, @ual763.

That will be a great feature and help with gate utilization. Anyone know if they are doing these flex gates in the T5 addition?

Thankfully, all TAP gates (except for the L stinger) are specified to be flex. As to existing T1 and T3 gates, that's up to the respective airlines and CDA.

I know it costs more, but when all the competing mid-continent airports have airside APMs (IAH, ATL, DFW, DEN), they need to consider it essential. I know most Americans need more exercise, but a long underground walkway just will not due. 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.

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!

Anyone has any idea why JAL B788 flight JL8086 every time after unloading @T5 is moved to South Cargo @ NCA? Its about just parking overnight or they loading some cargo and resting there utill return flight next day? I'm just curious.

gabik001 wrote:

Anyone has any idea why JAL B788 flight JL8086 every time after unloading @T5 is moved to South Cargo @ NCA? Its about just parking overnight or they loading some cargo and resting there utill return flight next day? I'm just curious.

After they drop off the pax they then move to South East Cargo to off load and load cargo. They also RON down there. I don’t think they have room for them to stay longer at Term 5 when they come in, but jcwr56 may know more.

airstatdfw wrote:

gabik001 wrote:

Anyone has any idea why JAL B788 flight JL8086 every time after unloading @T5 is moved to South Cargo @ NCA? Its about just parking overnight or they loading some cargo and resting there utill return flight next day? I'm just curious.

After they drop off the pax they then move to South East Cargo to off load and load cargo. They also RON down there. I don’t think they have room for them to stay longer at Term 5 when they come in, but jcwr56 may know more.

What does the term "RON" mean?

airstatdfw wrote:

gabik001 wrote:

Anyone has any idea why JAL B788 flight JL8086 every time after unloading @T5 is moved to South Cargo @ NCA? Its about just parking overnight or they loading some cargo and resting there utill return flight next day? I'm just curious.

After they drop off the pax they then move to South East Cargo to off load and load cargo. They also RON down there. I don’t think they have room for them to stay longer at Term 5 when they come in, but jcwr56 may know more.

Correct, there's no room utilizing T5. With all the construction taking place around the airfield it's harder to find spots to park aircraft.

RON= Remain Over Night.

airstatdfw wrote:

gabik001 wrote:

Anyone has any idea why JAL B788 flight JL8086 every time after unloading @T5 is moved to South Cargo @ NCA? Its about just parking overnight or they loading some cargo and resting there utill return flight next day? I'm just curious.

After they drop off the pax they then move to South East Cargo to off load and load cargo. They also RON down there. I don’t think they have room for them to stay longer at Term 5 when they come in, but jcwr56 may know more.

That make sense once the a/c always park at NCA gate at South Cargo. Thanks!

I arrived into ORD this evening on AA1463 (787 from DFW). From the time we landed until we reached the gate it took 50 minutes due to clogged taxiways! Yikes! Thankfully I didn't have an onward connecting flight, but that probably wasn't the case for some of the other folks on the plane.

jcwr56 wrote:

airstatdfw wrote:

gabik001 wrote:

Anyone has any idea why JAL B788 flight JL8086 every time after unloading @T5 is moved to South Cargo @ NCA? Its about just parking overnight or they loading some cargo and resting there utill return flight next day? I'm just curious.

After they drop off the pax they then move to South East Cargo to off load and load cargo. They also RON down there. I don’t think they have room for them to stay longer at Term 5 when they come in, but jcwr56 may know more.

Correct, there's no room utilizing T5. With all the construction taking place around the airfield it's harder to find spots to park aircraft.

RON= Remain Over Night.

I forgot to post that I saw a lot of earth and concrete being moved east of T5 last Thursday. Might this finally be some actual T5 expansion?

Just wanted to "make a wish" for

1) a HKG-ORD flight that would arrive in ORD in early morning or departs HKG at a later time than the current CX/UA schedule. The current HKG-ORD and returning flight is very difficult for mainland travellers who does not wish to stay in HKG overnight before and after the flight.

2) CAN-ORD flight

Planeboy17 wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

airstatdfw wrote:

After they drop off the pax they then move to South East Cargo to off load and load cargo. They also RON down there. I don’t think they have room for them to stay longer at Term 5 when they come in, but jcwr56 may know more.

Correct, there's no room utilizing T5. With all the construction taking place around the airfield it's harder to find spots to park aircraft.

RON= Remain Over Night.

I forgot to post that I saw a lot of earth and concrete being moved east of T5 last Thursday. Might this finally be some actual T5 expansion?

Correct, they’re starting east on the new ramp area and hardstands plus installing the main fuel line that will loop around.

By end of March 2020, that area and the east end of T5 will look vastly different.

jcwr56 wrote:

Planeboy17 wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

Correct, there's no room utilizing T5. With all the construction taking place around the airfield it's harder to find spots to park aircraft.

RON= Remain Over Night.

I forgot to post that I saw a lot of earth and concrete being moved east of T5 last Thursday. Might this finally be some actual T5 expansion?

Correct, they’re starting east on the new ramp area and hardstands plus installing the main fuel line that will loop around.

By end of March 2020, that area and the east end of T5 will look vastly different.

Thanks!

Qantas will launch BNE-ORD flights from 20 APR 20. Flights will run 4x weekly (MON, WED, FRI, SAT) as QF85/86. Will be great for ORD to have a non-stop flight to Australia and BNE with flights to ORD. All flights will run on 789.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-launche ... paign=news

Will Qantas flights depart out of T5 or T3 to make connections from the east coast and Midwest easier?

According to UA fleet thread, United scheduled a 788 ORD-OSH-ORD tomorrow for Airventure. Arrives 0900, departs 1800. Flight 2760

oskarclare wrote:

Qantas will launch BNE-ORD flights from 20 APR 20. Flights will run 4x weekly (MON, WED, FRI, SAT) as QF85/86. Will be great for ORD to have a non-stop flight to Australia and BNE with flights to ORD. All flights will run on 789.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-launche ... paign=news

Thanks for finding this. It’s the first official notice of dates, days and times.
Pretty amazing having Air New Zealand and Qantas both at ORD next April!

Planeboy17 wrote:

oskarclare wrote:

Qantas will launch BNE-ORD flights from 20 APR 20. Flights will run 4x weekly (MON, WED, FRI, SAT) as QF85/86. Will be great for ORD to have a non-stop flight to Australia and BNE with flights to ORD. All flights will run on 789.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-launche ... paign=news

Thanks for finding this. It’s the first official notice of dates, days and times.
Pretty amazing having Air New Zealand and Qantas both at ORD next April!

Sorry, I should’ve said that I have seen in reference to days and times.

NUPlaneFan wrote:

Will Qantas flights depart out of T5 or T3 to make connections from the east coast and Midwest easier?

As of now T5. However, departure times were negotiated so either T5 or T3 could be planned once ATI was approved. Now that it has, QF and AA will be discussing a T3 departure.

Good article on all the problems that plague ORD. While there is some head scratching (ie. replacing the international terminal?!) a lot of the article hits the mark on why the airport is so inefficient and why the "Chicago way" is alive and well.

https://projects.bettergov.org/2019/oha ... -promises/

QF numbered the flights 85/86 in tribute to the Bears. (I'm not sure how to react to that.)

chidino wrote:

QF numbered the flights 85/86 in tribute to the Bears. (I'm not sure how to react to that.)

Haha serious? That is really random - what connection does QF have to Hurricane Ditka?

9w748capt wrote:

chidino wrote:

QF numbered the flights 85/86 in tribute to the Bears. (I'm not sure how to react to that.)

Haha serious? That is really random - what connection does QF have to Hurricane Ditka?

They don’t, they’re simply trying to pay homage to the city. I think it’s kind of nice gesture tbh.

chidino wrote:

QF numbered the flights 85/86 in tribute to the Bears. (I'm not sure how to react to that.)

I'm chuckling outloud on that, and telling all my friends and fam this weekend at the BBQ. That is seriously cool on the part of QF. Can't wait to fly em!

CDA finally released April data. Is it just me, or they running way behind last year's pace on releases? They've been 3-4 months behind all year - something going on at the CDA's office or what. In any case, steady growth in domestic volumes so far this year and international continues to shine!

MDW lagging this year though: I'm guessing this at least partly due to the ongoing MAX issues.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

ORDfan wrote:

MDW lagging this year though: I'm guessing this at least partly due to the ongoing MAX issues.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

While MDW will be losing nonstop service to EWR with WN pulling out of EWR, there are a few other nonstop routes that could be added by WN out of MDW such as MDW-ELP, MDW-LIT, and MDW-RIC.

Unlike MDW-GSP and MDW-ROC which were dropped by WN back in 2016, WN has never served RIC nonstop from MDW.

WN can likely make MDW-RIC nonstop service work where MDW-GSP and MDW-ROC had failed since:
(a) RIC carried more domestic passengers than GSP or ROC did in 2018,
(b) There are more passengers connecting to domestic destinations west of the Mississippi River from RIC than from GSP or ROC,
(c) The PDEW on RIC-CHI is higher than that of GSP-CHI or ROC-CHI,
(d) WN already serves MDW nonstop from a few domestic markets that are smaller than RIC such as ALB, ABQ, and TUS,
and
(e) RIC is one of the top domestic destinations traveled to from Chicago that isn't currently served nonstop from MDW.

Will WN add more nonstop routes out of MDW such as MDW-ELP, MDW-LIT, or MDW-RIC?

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Good article on all the problems that plague ORD. While there is some head scratching (ie. replacing the international terminal?!) a lot of the article hits the mark on why the airport is so inefficient and why the "Chicago way" is alive and well.

https://projects.bettergov.org/2019/oha ... -promises/

No offense to you but the article is garbage. It is so riddled with errors and distortions, I had to stop reading it.

United787 wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Good article on all the problems that plague ORD. While there is some head scratching (ie. replacing the international terminal?!) a lot of the article hits the mark on why the airport is so inefficient and why the "Chicago way" is alive and well.

https://projects.bettergov.org/2019/oha ... -promises/

No offense to you but the article is garbage. It is so riddled with errors and distortions, I had to stop reading it.

Just one illustration: they use a linked quote to call T5 "...one of the lousiest buildings in the airline industry firmament.'' Okay, so I follow the link, which is to a Hilkevitch eval of the T5 RENOS in 2012. And the full quote reads: "I think this is going to be the best they can do with one of the lousiest buildings in the airline industry firmament." And remember, it was built in 1993, before butterfly gardens and 9/11 security.

What's the status on the train being back in service again!?

x1234 wrote:

What's the status on the train being back in service again!?

Crickets is the proper response to this question because the CDA hasn't issued any updates on the resumption of service since December, if I'm not mistaken.

https://www.flychicago.com/business/med ... ewsid=1522

"The system will be closed as part of the ongoing modernization and extension of the system, to be completed by Fall 2019."
...so, yes, you would think they would be nearing the deadline and make an announcement, but the CDA is prone to be very cagey

chidino wrote:

United787 wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Good article on all the problems that plague ORD. While there is some head scratching (ie. replacing the international terminal?!) a lot of the article hits the mark on why the airport is so inefficient and why the "Chicago way" is alive and well.

https://projects.bettergov.org/2019/oha ... -promises/

No offense to you but the article is garbage. It is so riddled with errors and distortions, I had to stop reading it.

Just one illustration: they use a linked quote to call T5 "...one of the lousiest buildings in the airline industry firmament.'' Okay, so I follow the link, which is to a Hilkevitch eval of the T5 RENOS in 2012. And the full quote reads: "I think this is going to be the best they can do with one of the lousiest buildings in the airline industry firmament." And remember, it was built in 1993, before butterfly gardens and 9/11 security.

I agree, not the most factual reporting and heavy on the sensationalism. (Calling the people mover "one example of a grandiose project at O’Hare" What do they want, pedicab transfers so they're less ostentatious? )

And this: "Despite a seemingly endless series of costly overhauls, O’Hare’s track record for on-time performance and traveler satisfaction has persistently lagged behind the country's other major airports as a whole.", then illustrating this assertion with a unrelated graph. OT performance a far more complicated picture than they paint, but that's beside the point for them I guess.

Yeah, the process is a slushy, secret stew, but distorting the facts and ignoring the accomplishments is bad journalism IMHO

ORDfan wrote:

CDA finally released April data. Is it just me, or they running way behind last year's pace on releases? They've been 3-4 months behind all year - something going on at the CDA's office or what. In any case, steady growth in domestic volumes so far this year and international continues to shine!

MDW lagging this year though: I'm guessing this at least partly due to the ongoing MAX issues.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Probably due to staff turnover after the election.

Domestic flight ops are running about the same as last year, while passenger counts are increasing. Could this be gate constraints we're seeing? Or perhaps just a pause to fill up all the new flights that were launched last year

Trib editorial re O'Hare and the BGA "investigation". Editorial: Can Mayor Lightfoot shake out the clout at O’Hare?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-ohare-corruption-lightfoot-20190802-tweqimfelzaapidbpnttgf34kq-story.html

As far as "corruption", gee, I dunno, look back over the contracts for the last 20 years -- no, 30 -- no, 40 -- you get the point. Welcome to the show, BGA. Glad we didn't hold the curtain. To the other criticisms, IMO, it's best letting their lack of authority to speak knowledgeably about the subjects they raised speak for itself. (i.e., don't conflate the inadequacies of a 1980's designed terminal into it being "the worst" or fail to understand why the OMP was necessary and that you cherry-picked quotes to justify your "conclusions".) This is the BGA under Andy Shaw (yup, Ch. 7 Andy Shaw)? You'd think, as a former journalist, he would insist on a report that starts with the evidence, not the conclusions. BGA should have stuck with their solid work on the contracts and not gotten into areas beyond their expertise.

I will give the Trib credit: they didn't take a negative view of ORD overall, just the corruption part. And the Trib editorial board (not the most radical group) goes out of its way to cite Jamie Rhee, our new Commissioner, as a "nationally recognized expert in transparent contract-awarding and accountability." I did not know that. If true, at this point, she's exactly what ORD21 needs.

chidino wrote:

Trib editorial re O'Hare and the BGA "investigation". Editorial: Can Mayor Lightfoot shake out the clout at O’Hare?

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-ohare-corruption-lightfoot-20190802-tweqimfelzaapidbpnttgf34kq-story.html

Good read: more fair and balanced than the BGA hit piece, and even though it notes the BGA article (which bills itself as a non-partisan watchdog group - it clearly has a political agenda of its own), it's not the basis for the Trib's own investigation, thankfully.

Much of this article is noting past wrongs (fine), but I don't mind, because that means this is mostly in our rear-view mirror. You don't often see exposes like this unless you're turning a corner, and I can definitely say we are turning a corner. Props to CDA Chief Jamie Rhee for her work as well.

I was at the CGA dinner last week, and the excitement in the room among my business peers was palpable - sure, many in the business community were skeptical of Lightfoot at first, but she's made incredible progress these past few months on ethics reform and limiting aldermanic powers, and no one seriously believes she doesn't get how important ORD, as well as the broader financial industry are to the city.

Several folks, including a large trading house with offices in Australia, were excited about the QF Brisbane flights. It's not lost on many of the city's residents how truly fortunate we are to be able to access every inhabited continent from our home airport.

Does anyone know if 4L/22R is open while 9C/27C is under construction. I saw a aerial view photo on Instagram a few days ago that appeared to show 4L also under construction. Image was too blurry to zoom in for detail.

May data finally posted... did someone from CDA read this thread? Haha.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Also, interesting article about ORD ops at 10 year highs.

"With more, larger aircraft using the airfield now, O’Hare’s passenger traffic already has broken through its old records from the pre-2001 era, hitting 83.2 million last year.

City officials project total passenger traffic will be around 100 million a year within a decade. If it hits that level, the city and carriers already have agreed to move on to phase two of the expansion plan."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hi ... -year-high

kordcj wrote:

Does anyone know if 4L/22R is open while 9C/27C is under construction. I saw a aerial view photo on Instagram a few days ago that appeared to show 4L also under construction. Image was too blurry to zoom in for detail.

I do not think is operational at this time however I saw two planes landed on 22R few months ago. I looked on airnav.com and it looks like 4L is closed (anyway I saw x sign from south cargo hills some time ago) - there is no procedures described for 4L but there are procedures for 22R.

ORDfan wrote:

May data finally posted... did someone from CDA read this thread? Haha.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Also, interesting article about ORD ops at 10 year highs.

"With more, larger aircraft using the airfield now, O’Hare’s passenger traffic already has broken through its old records from the pre-2001 era, hitting 83.2 million last year.

City officials project total passenger traffic will be around 100 million a year within a decade. If it hits that level, the city and carriers already have agreed to move on to phase two of the expansion plan."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hi ... -year-high

Wow! These numbers are boding well for the year. May pax up almost 6% after last year was already a record. Let's hope it continues!

chicawgo wrote:

Wow! These numbers are boding well for the year. May pax up almost 6% after last year was already a record. Let's hope it continues!

Subjectively, if my own experience transiting this summer will be any guide, it should be! I waited almost 2 hours to get through customers in T5 on a recent Sunday back in July during the 1400 hour. I checked the CBP website for that day, and they listed something like a 29 min average wait time with 88 min max- no way! Simply not possible... it took 29 min to round the first corner from terminal! Does anyone believe the wait times listed on that site??

https://awt.cbp.gov/

On another note, I'm pretty sure I saw a DL A321 taxi pass my plane on Monday morning. I wasn't aware of DL bringing the 321 to ORD. Was it a one-time sub possibly, or I am missing something about the DL upgauging at ORD (I really don't follow them) ?

The Points Guy just put out his ranking of the 50 major US airports and Chicago airports, of course, figure:
O'Hare comes in 30th and MDW is dead last.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/tpg-best- ... s-of-2019/

I found his ratings buck the usual dogma in some instances - DEN and DTW did worse in the report than O'Hare, for example.
Would love to see the exact scoring to see where airports excelled or faltered.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/tpg-best- ... s-of-2019/

ORDfan wrote:

May data finally posted... did someone from CDA read this thread? Haha.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Also, interesting article about ORD ops at 10 year highs.

"With more, larger aircraft using the airfield now, O’Hare’s passenger traffic already has broken through its old records from the pre-2001 era, hitting 83.2 million last year.

City officials project total passenger traffic will be around 100 million a year within a decade. If it hits that level, the city and carriers already have agreed to move on to phase two of the expansion plan."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hi ... -year-high

This Crain's article from a week ago adds some detail to an aspect of O'Hare's growth that one seldom hears about: growth at the airport from carriers not named American or United Airlines:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/joe-cah ... ares-wings

"United and American still dominate, but a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Aviation attributes 20 percent of the first-half flight growth to airlines that compete directly with the big two. New international carriers ...also contributed, he says.

...Over the past five years, discounter Spirit Airlines has increased flights at O’Hare 42 percent to 9,674 per year. Alaska Airlines is up 94 percent to 3,145 flights since 2013, while Delta Air Lines has grown by 46 percent to 9,333 flights. JetBlue Airways logged a 31 percent increase to 2,483 annual flights at O’Hare."

A number of flights loitering around O'Hare this evening waiting for the severe weather in the New York area to dissipate, including a rare (for O'Hare) UA bird - a 787-10 - trying to get from FRA to EWR.


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua961