Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
yeogeo wrote:Help me out with Midway; what do we have to look forward there?
9w748capt wrote:Just curious what's the latest update on the ATS? The bus idea seemed like a disaster from the beginning.
yeogeo wrote:
Help me out with Midway; what do we have to look forward there?
midway7 wrote:I think we are going to be hard pressed to see too much on the SWA expansion front until the MAX situation is resolved and the planes are back in service.
yeogeo wrote:9w748capt wrote:Just curious what's the latest update on the ATS? The bus idea seemed like a disaster from the beginning.
The update is that there isn't one; last I heard was "early 2020", announced some months ago.
The "bus idea" was really the CDA's only option when it became clear that a total, lengthy shutdown was necessary.
icareflies wrote:I thought ORD was also getting a direct flight to TLV with EL AL?
gabik001 wrote:What is going on with a BA B744 that is standing at T5 pad? Saw her today when was on the way to catch UA B78X. Anyone?
ORDfan wrote:Qantas really is prompting the new Brisbane flights: today I saw that they've taken out ads on every billboard/signage along the train platform at the Clark/Lake el stop. So I got to snooping around the website, and oddly enough, the flight information section for this route says there is a stop-over in LA or San Francisco? And that journey time is 20hrs+. What's this all about??
yeogeo wrote:gabik001 wrote:ORDfan wrote:Qantas really is prompting the new Brisbane flights: today I saw that they've taken out ads on every billboard/signage along the train platform at the Clark/Lake el stop. So I got to snooping around the website, and oddly enough, the flight information section for this route says there is a stop-over in LA or San Francisco? And that journey time is 20hrs+. What's this all about??
Well, I suppose if you want to get to BNE with them before April 20th when the non-stop flights begin they won't turn you away, but you'll have to stop in LAX or SFO.
I'm guessing it's worth it for them to get their name and destination out there well in advance.
ORDfan wrote:yeogeo wrote:gabik001 wrote:
Well, I suppose if you want to get to BNE with them before April 20th when the non-stop flights begin they won't turn you away, but you'll have to stop in LAX or SFO.
I'm guessing it's worth it for them to get their name and destination out there well in advance.
Well there's no QF flights originating in ORD currently to stopover in the first place. So it's strange to dedicate a page for Chicago-Brisbane if its destined to be a codeshare. Also, if you look at the dates (and fares) that they are promoting (April 17th onwards), it's clear they are promoting what is supposed to be the non-stop ORD-BNE.
I'd think they would mention the non-stop flight information.
airstatdfw wrote:yeogeo wrote:Still curious how this work on 4R/22L will be accommodated.
A few years ago they did the same project to 27L/9R. At night they would close the Rwy and do sections until they were complete.
jplatts wrote:yeogeo wrote:Help me out with Midway; what do we have to look forward there?
WN adding MDW-ANC nonstop service is a possibility if WN enters the ANC market since (a) MDW-ANC is within the range of the Boeing 737-700 and 737-800, (b) AA, UA, and AS all already operate 737-800 aircraft on the ORD-ANC nonstop route, and (c) WN would be able to offer 1-stop connections to ANC from most of WN's domestic destinations east of the Mississippi River through MDW if WN adds MDW-ANC nonstop service.
piedmontf284000 wrote:yeogeo wrote:9w748capt wrote:Just curious what's the latest update on the ATS? The bus idea seemed like a disaster from the beginning.
The update is that there isn't one; last I heard was "early 2020", announced some months ago.
The "bus idea" was really the CDA's only option when it became clear that a total, lengthy shutdown was necessary.
Absolute joke. They could have built an entire new ATS system by now. No reason whatsoever that an existing train track needed almost two full years (will be by May) for "modernization". The CDA and Parsons Construction have spent more time in litigation then they have on construction. The ONLY saving grace of this whole debacle has been the Terminal Transfer Bus (TTB) that operates between T5 and gates Gate B1, G17,K20, and L24. The fact there has been no ATS for two full summers, and passengers are forced onto VERY old, loud, and polluting buses is an embarrassment of epic proportions to ORD . Hearing the ATS will re-open on February 10, but I will believe it when I see it. If this is any indication of "modernization" then I can only imagine how long the expansion of T5 will take, which ironically is already behind schedule. Don't even get me started on the Global Terminal project. On top of all that, ORD experienced stagnant growth this past year.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/transpo ... -gut-check
yeogeo wrote:ORDfan wrote:yeogeo wrote:
Well there's no QF flights originating in ORD currently to stopover in the first place. So it's strange to dedicate a page for Chicago-Brisbane if its destined to be a codeshare. Also, if you look at the dates (and fares) that they are promoting (April 17th onwards), it's clear they are promoting what is supposed to be the non-stop ORD-BNE.
I'd think they would mention the non-stop flight information.
I realize there are no QF flights to ORD as yet, but I'm sure they'd be happy to fly you to their gateways in the west with their partner in OneWorld, American.
I don't know this but perhaps the non-stops have not been offered for sale yet? There's no point in advertising non-stops before they can sell them to you (if that is indeed the case).
I think you're reading too much in this; they want to get the Qantas name out there and Chicagoans familiar with it and the city of Brisbane, no?
yeogeo wrote:
ORDfan wrote:yeogeo wrote:ORDfan wrote:
Well there's no QF flights originating in ORD currently to stopover in the first place. So it's strange to dedicate a page for Chicago-Brisbane if its destined to be a codeshare. Also, if you look at the dates (and fares) that they are promoting (April 17th onwards), it's clear they are promoting what is supposed to be the non-stop ORD-BNE.
I'd think they would mention the non-stop flight information.
I realize there are no QF flights to ORD as yet, but I'm sure they'd be happy to fly you to their gateways in the west with their partner in OneWorld, American.
I don't know this but perhaps the non-stops have not been offered for sale yet? There's no point in advertising non-stops before they can sell them to you (if that is indeed the case).
I think you're reading too much in this; they want to get the Qantas name out there and Chicagoans familiar with it and the city of Brisbane, no?
I'm just looking at it like a non-avgeek. I'd love to see this route be long-term successful, but for anyone on the platform who went to qantas.com like I did: I'm sure some of them are also scratching their head. I don't know how to post pics here, but the ads are promoting the non-stop: IIRC, I believe one of them says 'just a hop away,' or something to the effect.
If they default the flights to April 17th in the search menu (which they do), they should definitely be listing the non-stop flight info: departure/arrival times, days offers, flight time, etc. Like Air NZ did when they launched.
If I'm confused at the schedule and flight info - no doubt some non-avgeek tourists are as well. If they are going to promote a trip to Australia, with a layover in SFO or LAX, they could've been doing that for years before launching Brisbane.
yeogeo wrote:jplatts wrote:yeogeo wrote:Help me out with Midway; what do we have to look forward there?
WN adding MDW-ANC nonstop service is a possibility if WN enters the ANC market since (a) MDW-ANC is within the range of the Boeing 737-700 and 737-800, (b) AA, UA, and AS all already operate 737-800 aircraft on the ORD-ANC nonstop route, and (c) WN would be able to offer 1-stop connections to ANC from most of WN's domestic destinations east of the Mississippi River through MDW if WN adds MDW-ANC nonstop service.
If it were to happen, it would be Southwest's longest flight, I believe.
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz.
kordcj wrote:Can a 737-800 takeoff from MDW bound for ANC? I didn’t think WN had any SFP 800s in their fleet.
piedmontf284000 wrote:ORDfan wrote:yeogeo wrote:
I realize there are no QF flights to ORD as yet, but I'm sure they'd be happy to fly you to their gateways in the west with their partner in OneWorld, American.
I don't know this but perhaps the non-stops have not been offered for sale yet? There's no point in advertising non-stops before they can sell them to you (if that is indeed the case).
I think you're reading too much in this; they want to get the Qantas name out there and Chicagoans familiar with it and the city of Brisbane, no?
I'm just looking at it like a non-avgeek. I'd love to see this route be long-term successful, but for anyone on the platform who went to qantas.com like I did: I'm sure some of them are also scratching their head. I don't know how to post pics here, but the ads are promoting the non-stop: IIRC, I believe one of them says 'just a hop away,' or something to the effect.
If they default the flights to April 17th in the search menu (which they do), they should definitely be listing the non-stop flight info: departure/arrival times, days offers, flight time, etc. Like Air NZ did when they launched.
If I'm confused at the schedule and flight info - no doubt some non-avgeek tourists are as well. If they are going to promote a trip to Australia, with a layover in SFO or LAX, they could've been doing that for years before launching Brisbane.
Non-Stop Service between ORD and BNE (Flights 85 & 86) is still subject to government approval, this is why it is not showing on their website.
evank516 wrote:Personally, I'm just happy to see all of DL's LGA-ORD shuttle flights running as mainline. So much nicer!
yeogeo wrote:yeogeo wrote:
I'm borrowing a CDA presentation image posted by CleSyrRoc in the 2019 thread that illustrates the A/B replacement projects.
The "East-West Advance Work", mentioned in the bid opportunity above I believe would be the smaller orange section shown east of the larger North-South one. It erases the southern-most portion of former runway 14R/32L.
ORDfan wrote:yeogeo wrote:yeogeo wrote:
I'm borrowing a CDA presentation image posted by CleSyrRoc in the 2019 thread that illustrates the A/B replacement projects.
The "East-West Advance Work", mentioned in the bid opportunity above I believe would be the smaller orange section shown east of the larger North-South one. It erases the southern-most portion of former runway 14R/32L.
The proposed north-south taxiway looks kinda far east to my eye. Is there really enough room there for two more satellites? Maybe the first one which will be attached to C, but it doesn't look like there'd be room for the apron on the 2nd satellite in that graphic.
ORDfan wrote:piedmontf284000 wrote:ORDfan wrote:
I'm just looking at it like a non-avgeek. I'd love to see this route be long-term successful, but for anyone on the platform who went to qantas.com like I did: I'm sure some of them are also scratching their head. I don't know how to post pics here, but the ads are promoting the non-stop: IIRC, I believe one of them says 'just a hop away,' or something to the effect.
If they default the flights to April 17th in the search menu (which they do), they should definitely be listing the non-stop flight info: departure/arrival times, days offers, flight time, etc. Like Air NZ did when they launched.
If I'm confused at the schedule and flight info - no doubt some non-avgeek tourists are as well. If they are going to promote a trip to Australia, with a layover in SFO or LAX, they could've been doing that for years before launching Brisbane.
Non-Stop Service between ORD and BNE (Flights 85 & 86) is still subject to government approval, this is why it is not showing on their website.
Great point - did not know that. They must be very confident though if they are laying out the ad campaign already.evank516 wrote:Personally, I'm just happy to see all of DL's LGA-ORD shuttle flights running as mainline. So much nicer!
I totally missed that.... When did that happen? Don't get me wrong: I'm happy for the upguage and added seats, not to mention all the extra 717s flying around, but I'm not sure if mainline DL is that much nicer than DL Connection E175s - that type is my favorite narrowbody, a great fit for the jump to LGA. Is the 717 that much nicer? The idea of an extra seat to climb over on the 3 abreast side makes it a less than ideal, IMO. Although, I will say, the A220 was a great experience, regardless.
evank516 wrote:ORDfan wrote:piedmontf284000 wrote:
Non-Stop Service between ORD and BNE (Flights 85 & 86) is still subject to government approval, this is why it is not showing on their website.
Great point - did not know that. They must be very confident though if they are laying out the ad campaign already.evank516 wrote:Personally, I'm just happy to see all of DL's LGA-ORD shuttle flights running as mainline. So much nicer!
I totally missed that.... When did that happen? Don't get me wrong: I'm happy for the upguage and added seats, not to mention all the extra 717s flying around, but I'm not sure if mainline DL is that much nicer than DL Connection E175s - that type is my favorite narrowbody, a great fit for the jump to LGA. Is the 717 that much nicer? The idea of an extra seat to climb over on the 3 abreast side makes it a less than ideal, IMO. Although, I will say, the A220 was a great experience, regardless.
Happened in 2019, so very recent. Things I do like about the 717 is the exit row, 21 A and F have no seat in front of them so the legroom is amazing! Also mainline flights are less likely to be cancelled over the RJs, and if you're flying between LGA and ORD, issues are likely.
yeogeo wrote:LOT will be leasing Air Belgium A-343's on its WAW-ORD flights beginning tomorrow (7 Jan) until at least the end of the month, presenting yet another rarity or two to watch for at O'Hare courtesy of the Polish airline.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20200106
Planeboy17 wrote:yeogeo wrote:LOT will be leasing Air Belgium A-343's on its WAW-ORD flights beginning tomorrow (7 Jan) until at least the end of the month, presenting yet another rarity or two to watch for at O'Hare courtesy of the Polish airline.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20200106
In the evening unfortunately.
ORDfan wrote:Planeboy17 wrote:yeogeo wrote:LOT will be leasing Air Belgium A-343's on its WAW-ORD flights beginning tomorrow (7 Jan) until at least the end of the month, presenting yet another rarity or two to watch for at O'Hare courtesy of the Polish airline.
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20200106
In the evening unfortunately.
The author of the article says there's a good chance that these birds get leased through the summer...so maybe they'll get a shot to sub again when we get some more daylight back... let's hope at least!
nomorerjs wrote:My DL contacts say ORD-LAX is “in the works.” As a former DL intern, I would take that as legitimate. I can’t see thus happening until the move to T5 though.
Same with VS returning. Market is there, but yield isn’t there. Looking for a contract to seal the deal. UA is killing it with High J and AA has had to bring T7 back due to loss of premium traffic.
nomorerjs wrote:My DL contacts say ORD-LAX is “in the works.” As a former DL intern, I would take that as legitimate. I can’t see thus happening until the move to T5 though.
Same with VS returning. Market is there, but yield isn’t there. Looking for a contract to seal the deal. UA is killing it with High J and AA has had to bring T7 back due to loss of premium traffic.
nomorerjs wrote:My DL contacts say ORD-LAX is “in the works.” As a former DL intern, I would take that as legitimate. I can’t see thus happening until the move to T5 though.
Same with VS returning. Market is there, but yield isn’t there. Looking for a contract to seal the deal. UA is killing it with High J and AA has had to bring T7 back due to loss of premium traffic.
ckfred wrote:IIRC, part of the problem with the ATS is that gauge of track for automated systems is no longer used. I don't know if gauge for new systems is wider or narrower, but I seem to recall that the City decided that trying to rebuild the existing track to a current gauge was exorbitant. So, you have a contractor working on a track gauge that is no longer used, and the City had to find a car manufacturer who could build cars for a gauge that is no longer used. (I seem to recall when the ATS was built that the car builder was a French company.)
I know enough about construction of large projects that they often don't finish on time, and that the project owner and the contractors wind up suing each other. A bridge a few miles from my house, over I-355, was closed to replace the bridge deck. By the time the project finished, 6 weeks late, the concrete was cracking. That means the bridge deck will need to be replaced next summer, after a winter with salt makes the cracks worse.
I've seen some assessments of why the ATS project spiraled out of control. Besides the gauge issue, pundits feel that the lack of professional management at the Department of Aviation contributed to the fiasco.
Is it embarrassing? Of course it is. Is this typical for Chicago? Very much so. There are a host of public works projects in the history of Chicago that were finished late, went over budget, and had problems later on. The rebuilding of the I-290/I-90 interchange near the old Post Office was supposed to finish in 2019. Now, they are pegging 2021 or 2022. There were underground problems (sewers, utilities, etc) that weren't anticipated. One building on the UIC campus developed structural issues that brought a portion of the project to a screeching halt.
This how things work in Chicago, or don't work.
What has people mad is that the City, rather than give any sort of date, even one that is ridiculously far out, now is mum on the completion date. The City ought to say that the ATS will be up and running for Thanksgiving, and then move up the date as it sees that progress was being made.
The truly frightening concern is how long the expansion of T5 will take, how long it will take to demolish and rebuild T2, and how long it will take to build out the extra concourse space in T1. If the terminal projects go as well as the ATS project, we still might be talking about finish dates in 2035.
BNAMealer wrote:ckfred wrote:IIRC, part of the problem with the ATS is that gauge of track for automated systems is no longer used. I don't know if gauge for new systems is wider or narrower, but I seem to recall that the City decided that trying to rebuild the existing track to a current gauge was exorbitant. So, you have a contractor working on a track gauge that is no longer used, and the City had to find a car manufacturer who could build cars for a gauge that is no longer used. (I seem to recall when the ATS was built that the car builder was a French company.)
I know enough about construction of large projects that they often don't finish on time, and that the project owner and the contractors wind up suing each other. A bridge a few miles from my house, over I-355, was closed to replace the bridge deck. By the time the project finished, 6 weeks late, the concrete was cracking. That means the bridge deck will need to be replaced next summer, after a winter with salt makes the cracks worse.
I've seen some assessments of why the ATS project spiraled out of control. Besides the gauge issue, pundits feel that the lack of professional management at the Department of Aviation contributed to the fiasco.
Is it embarrassing? Of course it is. Is this typical for Chicago? Very much so. There are a host of public works projects in the history of Chicago that were finished late, went over budget, and had problems later on. The rebuilding of the I-290/I-90 interchange near the old Post Office was supposed to finish in 2019. Now, they are pegging 2021 or 2022. There were underground problems (sewers, utilities, etc) that weren't anticipated. One building on the UIC campus developed structural issues that brought a portion of the project to a screeching halt.
This how things work in Chicago, or don't work.
What has people mad is that the City, rather than give any sort of date, even one that is ridiculously far out, now is mum on the completion date. The City ought to say that the ATS will be up and running for Thanksgiving, and then move up the date as it sees that progress was being made.
The truly frightening concern is how long the expansion of T5 will take, how long it will take to demolish and rebuild T2, and how long it will take to build out the extra concourse space in T1. If the terminal projects go as well as the ATS project, we still might be talking about finish dates in 2035.
This is a good point. They probably should’ve just torn down and rebuilt a new system from scratch. The current VAL system is outdated. Should’ve made a system like the Sky Train in ATL
ckfred wrote:IIRC, part of the problem with the ATS is that gauge of track for automated systems is no longer used. I don't know if gauge for new systems is wider or narrower, but I seem to recall that the City decided that trying to rebuild the existing track to a current gauge was exorbitant. So, you have a contractor working on a track gauge that is no longer used, and the City had to find a car manufacturer who could build cars for a gauge that is no longer used. (I seem to recall when the ATS was built that the car builder was a French company.)
I know enough about construction of large projects that they often don't finish on time, and that the project owner and the contractors wind up suing each other. A bridge a few miles from my house, over I-355, was closed to replace the bridge deck. By the time the project finished, 6 weeks late, the concrete was cracking. That means the bridge deck will need to be replaced next summer, after a winter with salt makes the cracks worse.
I've seen some assessments of why the ATS project spiraled out of control. Besides the gauge issue, pundits feel that the lack of professional management at the Department of Aviation contributed to the fiasco.
Is it embarrassing? Of course it is. Is this typical for Chicago? Very much so. There are a host of public works projects in the history of Chicago that were finished late, went over budget, and had problems later on. The rebuilding of the I-290/I-90 interchange near the old Post Office was supposed to finish in 2019. Now, they are pegging 2021 or 2022. There were underground problems (sewers, utilities, etc) that weren't anticipated. One building on the UIC campus developed structural issues that brought a portion of the project to a screeching halt.
This how things work in Chicago, or don't work.
What has people mad is that the City, rather than give any sort of date, even one that is ridiculously far out, now is mum on the completion date. The City ought to say that the ATS will be up and running for Thanksgiving, and then move up the date as it sees that progress was being made.
The truly frightening concern is how long the expansion of T5 will take, how long it will take to demolish and rebuild T2, and how long it will take to build out the extra concourse space in T1. If the terminal projects go as well as the ATS project, we still might be talking about finish dates in 2035.
sircygnus wrote:Has anyone heard any news about the number of additional gates after T5, two satellites, and the OGT is build?
chidino wrote:More Paschen aerial updates. (About the only reason to check Facebook any more.)
https://www.facebook.com/FHPaschen/photos/pb.180238015346032.-2207520000../2612597112110098/?type=3&theater