yeogeo wrote:

Now it seems flights YYZ/ORD are ending after 6/18.
Checked Google flights after that date and they don't appear.
Not confirmed by F8 but perhaps news conference on 6/1 will shed some light.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1468479&start=500

That is a quick exit..

se210 wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

Swoop, the ULCC subsidiary of WestJet, inaugurates flights on Monday, 30 May.

Swoop inaugural flight WO746 departed YYZ (T3 Gate A19; Runway 24L 06:54) on its way to ORD (T5 Gate M4) this morning (5/30/2022).
C-GDMP B737-8CT MSN#60131 Fleet#838. Named #Hamilton. Here is a list of other Swoop aircraft names (Source:www.airfleets.com).


This picture of Swoop's inaugural service for YEG-YHM back in 2018 got me thinking if Swoop will get a water cannon salute greeting at ORD this morning?

Anybody know if our other recent new entrants: Flair (YYZ-ORD), WestJet Encore (YYZ-ORD) and Avelo (HVN-MDW) got a water cannon salute? Here are some previous water cannon salute pictures taken at ORD over the years (as recently as October 2021):

MDW had a water cannon salute for Avelo. There's video of it on the MDW twitter page. Flew with Avelo the day after the inaugural and they still need to place signing at their check-in counters. The check in counters are between Porter and Southwest counters.

One thing that I noticed is that CDA has removed all signage/renderings that talk about the concessions modernization at the airport. Renderings have been taken down from the website as well. Does anyone have any news when this will resume?

https://twitter.com/fly2midway/status/1 ... 8315205633

The whale is on its way

G-XLEL, pictured above is the aircraft revisiting O'Hare after a two year hiatus
- although she's a little late; due to arrive O'Hare at 14:35hrs
(FR24 lists the flight number as BAW2PD if you wish to track on that site)

yeogeo wrote:

ORDLHR787 wrote:

Is BA bringing the whale back?

Yup. June 1

As per schedule, effective June 1st, 2022, BA295 goes to an A380. Today's aircraft is G-XLEL, the same aircraft used on the inaugural LHR-ORD A380 service back on May 4th, 2018. Due in ORD at 1:10pm.

yeogeo wrote:

The whale is on its way

se210 wrote:

As per schedule, effective June 1st, 2022, BA295 goes to an A380.

Great minds think alike, se

American resumes its daily 787 O'Hare > Barcelona flights tomorrow (3 June).

AA40 departs ORD 17:35hrs arrives BCN 09:00hrs
AA41 departs BCN at 11:35hrs arrives O'Hare 14:35hrs

Finally got the Flair Max, nice colors. By the way I have sent a bunch of older 1980's and 1990's photos from ORD/MDW/MKE/DTW and Marana Airpark I took to Bruce Drum's airlinergallery site. High resolution stuff.

https://www.airlinefan.com/airline-phot ... I/2200812/

CDA posted some pics on the O'hare facebook page of the new T5 garage ground-breaking.

Not gonna lie: I am NOT liking the look of this... 6 stories seems excessively tall and unnecessary, not to mention the general bulk of this building. What's wrong with lot E and the train now?

https://www.facebook.com/fly2ohare/phot ... 7531959517

I'm not really vibing a lot of these new T5 changes: the M8-M11 hold room looks terrible too. I don't have a lot of hope for the extension any more.

I think I might have to change my name.... not really a fan any more.

ORDfan wrote:

6 stories seems excessively tall and unnecessary, not to mention the general bulk of this building. What's wrong with lot E and the train now?

Follow the Benjamins... CDA clearly thinks the revenue premium over remote parking will make it worthwhile.

scaledesigns wrote:

Finally got the Flair Max, nice colors. By the way I have sent a bunch of older 1980's and 1990's photos from ORD/MDW/MKE/DTW and Marana Airpark I took to Bruce Drum's airlinergallery site. High resolution stuff.

https://www.airlinefan.com/airline-phot ... I/2200812/

Got today's arrival too from Panera parking lot. Had to take it before they quit ORD.

ORDfan wrote:

CDA posted some pics on the O'hare facebook page of the new T5 garage ground-breaking.

Not gonna lie: I am NOT liking the look of this... 6 stories seems excessively tall and unnecessary, not to mention the general bulk of this building. What's wrong with lot E and the train now?

https://www.facebook.com/fly2ohare/phot ... 7531959517

I agree with you; I always thought the outside of T5 was very visually appealing with the "flag hill" and nice views of departing/arriving flights etc. The idea of all that being blockaded and becoming like T1/T2/T3 with the Hilton out front is a bit disappointing.

AmricanShamrok wrote:

I agree with you; I always thought the outside of T5 was very visually appealing with the "flag hill" and nice views of departing/arriving flights etc. The idea of all that being blockaded and becoming like T1/T2/T3 with the Hilton out front is a bit disappointing.

Same here! That's exactly what I was thinking too... the airy expanse in front of the terminal, with the flag hill, was a nice aesthetic all these years. It's going to be a real shame to see the view from the streetscape of T5 blocked off now. This is just too industrial. So disappointing.

glbltrvlr wrote:

Follow the Benjamins... CDA clearly thinks the revenue premium over remote parking will make it worthwhile.

You're probably right, but it just reaffirms to me this another gaffe by this Rhee-led CDA. The main garage has plenty of capacity on the upper floors for overnight parking and it "feeds" three terminals. I'm having a hard time believing there is a plethora of fliers willing to pay a premium for overnight covered parking at T5.

If you're VFF, you're probably likely to get dropped off. If you're flying for business, you'll probably cab/Uber. Many city folks will take the blue line. Granted I understand there are exception to these trends, and I have parked at the main garage myself for a quick 1-2 overnight flight, but it's rare and the excess capacity at the main garage seems to indicate as much. Again, the location and size of the new garage seems unjustified IMO.

ORDfan wrote:

AmricanShamrok wrote:

I agree with you; I always thought the outside of T5 was very visually appealing with the "flag hill" and nice views of departing/arriving flights etc. The idea of all that being blockaded and becoming like T1/T2/T3 with the Hilton out front is a bit disappointing.

Same here! That's exactly what I was thinking too... the airy expanse in front of the terminal, with the flag hill, was a nice aesthetic all these years. It's going to be a real shame to see the view from the streetscape of T5 blocked off now. This is just too industrial. So disappointing.

glbltrvlr wrote:

Follow the Benjamins... CDA clearly thinks the revenue premium over remote parking will make it worthwhile.

You're probably right, but it just reaffirms to me this another gaffe by this Rhee-led CDA. The main garage has plenty of capacity on the upper floors for overnight parking and it "feeds" three terminals. I'm having a hard time believing there is a plethora of fliers willing to pay a premium for overnight covered parking at T5.

If you're VFF, you're probably likely to get dropped off. If you're flying for business, you'll probably cab/Uber. Many city folks will take the blue line. Granted I understand there are exception to these trends, and I have parked at the main garage myself for a quick 1-2 overnight flight, but it's rare and the excess capacity at the main garage seems to indicate as much. Again, the location and size of the new garage seems unjustified IMO.

Your point is well taken. Admittedly I've only ever used hourly in the main garage, but there certainly does seem to be loads of excess capacity there. You mentioned a premium for parking too, that is no lie! That premium is often close to double daily rate from the economy lots. I wonder if they anticipate parking usage to change once the airlines serving T5 change.

Can anyone shine some light on exactly what's being done with the west end of T5? I know they're converting it mostly for narrowbodies but I'm having trouble visualizing it. When I flew through in march it was kind of a mess with walls up between the holdrooms and the sterile hallway so I couldn't figure out what was going on. I boarded from M2 and it had a new jetway that was connected directly to the main building, not the rotunda so it had changed since this picture was taken.

According to the Daily Herald, slight delay in the OGT construction - no real explanation or timeline discussion, but at least we know its moving.
Also, potential change to the approach to 10R
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202206 ... -overhaul-

emcm541 wrote:

According to the Daily Herald, slight delay in the OGT construction - no real explanation or timeline discussion, but at least we know its moving.
Also, potential change to the approach to 10R
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202206 ... -overhaul-

OGT is now delayed until 2030. The hotel at T5 is no longer going forward either.

Flair YYZ-ORD (F8106/FLE106) and ORD-YYZ (F8107/FLE107) flights are cancelled today (Saturday, June 4th,2022).

It will be interesting to see if any of the remaining flight days on Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday operate for the remaining 2 weeks of service (June 7th/9th/11th and June 14th/16th/18th). They are still shown as "on time" on the Flair flight status webpage as of today (Source https://flyflair.com/flight-status). As expected, any flights on the YYZ-ORD route after June 18th, 2022 show a flight status of "cancelled".

piedmontf284000 wrote:

emcm541 wrote:

According to the Daily Herald, slight delay in the OGT construction - no real explanation or timeline discussion, but at least we know its moving.
Also, potential change to the approach to 10R
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202206 ... -overhaul-

OGT is now delayed until 2030. The hotel at T5 is no longer going forward either.

The linked article says the hotel is still planned for T5. Two hotels, one at Terminal 5 and a second to be built off Mannheim Road, are planned as well.

Given Covid taking 2 years and a delay of two years, I can see the link in the delay.

elbandgeek wrote:

Can anyone shine some light on exactly what's being done with the west end of T5? I know they're converting it mostly for narrowbodies but I'm having trouble visualizing it. When I flew through in march it was kind of a mess with walls up between the holdrooms and the sterile hallway so I couldn't figure out what was going on. I boarded from M2 and it had a new jetway that was connected directly to the main building, not the rotunda so it had changed since this picture was taken.

The changes are for Delta's move in. There's one more bridge that need to be installed on the west only after this side fully closes down in July. The temporary bag structure remains until next year then another bridge is added. There's new ceiling, flooring, millwork going in too.

ORDfan wrote:

AmricanShamrok wrote:

I agree with you; I always thought the outside of T5 was very visually appealing with the "flag hill" and nice views of departing/arriving flights etc. The idea of all that being blockaded and becoming like T1/T2/T3 with the Hilton out front is a bit disappointing.

Same here! That's exactly what I was thinking too... the airy expanse in front of the terminal, with the flag hill, was a nice aesthetic all these years. It's going to be a real shame to see the view from the streetscape of T5 blocked off now. This is just too industrial. So disappointing.

glbltrvlr wrote:

Follow the Benjamins... CDA clearly thinks the revenue premium over remote parking will make it worthwhile.

You're probably right, but it just reaffirms to me this another gaffe by this Rhee-led CDA. The main garage has plenty of capacity on the upper floors for overnight parking and it "feeds" three terminals. I'm having a hard time believing there is a plethora of fliers willing to pay a premium for overnight covered parking at T5.

If you're VFF, you're probably likely to get dropped off. If you're flying for business, you'll probably cab/Uber. Many city folks will take the blue line. Granted I understand there are exception to these trends, and I have parked at the main garage myself for a quick 1-2 overnight flight, but it's rare and the excess capacity at the main garage seems to indicate as much. Again, the location and size of the new garage seems unjustified IMO.

Are you looking at it now or 5-10 years from now? 2023 think Midway size (200+ daily operations) which is really a medium hub airport then envision having no parking structure in front other than the current parking lot. Of course the main serves 3 terminals you can short walk too. What you're suggesting however is forcing everyone to park within the core, walk, then take a train back. It's all about perspective.

Looks like Viva Aerobus flight 187 on May 31 lined up for takeoff on taxiway November and made it to 28 knots before takeoff clearance was canceled by ATC. This would have been really bad. Great job by the controller to get things back on track.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 7#2c12675d

VAS Aviation with recording.
https://youtu.be/dq_0Y6Uo2Pc

emcm541 wrote:

According to the Daily Herald, slight delay in the OGT construction - no real explanation or timeline discussion, but at least we know its moving.
Also, potential change to the approach to 10R
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202206 ... -overhaul-

Curious as to why FAA is reviewing the oddest approach to 10R.

dopplerd wrote:

Looks like Viva Aerobus flight 187 on May 31 lined up for takeoff on taxiway November and made it to 28 knots before takeoff clearance was canceled by ATC. This would have been really bad. Great job by the controller to get things back on track.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 7#2c12675d

VAS Aviation with recording.
https://youtu.be/dq_0Y6Uo2Pc

Here is the ground trace of VB187 at ORD from ADS-B Exchange: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=0d0b34&lat=41.971&lon=-87.883&zoom=18.3&showTrace=2022-06-01&leg=2&trackLabels
Aircraft for VB187 was XA-VIM (Airbus A320-271N / MSN#8528). Scheduled departure was 23:55 CDT on 05/31/2022 and it left Terminal 5 Gate M13 at 00:08 CDT on 06/01/2022. Looks like the takeoff on taxiway N commenced around 00:20:39 CDT (05:20:39 Z) and it shows getting up to 31kt at 00:20:51 CDT (05:20:51 Z). Xoom out to see the eventual takeoff.

The weather conditions at ORD on 06/01/2022 at 12:26AM were listed as: "Thunder" per https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/il/rosemont/KORD/date/2022-6-1

Hello Chicago area enthusiasts. Only a few short weeks away is Airliners International 2022 being held in Chicago! (Rosemont )

https://airlinersinternational.org/ Try to make it! Organized by the non profit group World Airline Historical Society..

sircygnus wrote:

emcm541 wrote:

According to the Daily Herald, slight delay in the OGT construction - no real explanation or timeline discussion, but at least we know its moving.
Also, potential change to the approach to 10R
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202206 ... -overhaul-

Curious as to why FAA is reviewing the oddest approach to 10R.

Not exactly sure. Article didn't explain much and my partner's family and pilot friends have never mentioned anything wrong with that runway or approach when they fly into ORD.

The article links to a litany of PDF documents. One of them in particular shows a "projection" of gate assignment and use once the satellites and OGT come online. https://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lake ... ix_B_3.pdf

I'd take this with a grain of salt, as so much can change, but page 24 of that document gives us an idea of what airlines, at the time of publication, were projected to be in the OGT. Again, grain of salt.....

emcm541 wrote:

sircygnus wrote:

emcm541 wrote:

According to the Daily Herald, slight delay in the OGT construction - no real explanation or timeline discussion, but at least we know its moving.
Also, potential change to the approach to 10R
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/202206 ... -overhaul-

Curious as to why FAA is reviewing the oddest approach to 10R.

Not exactly sure. Article didn't explain much and my partner's family and pilot friends have never mentioned anything wrong with that runway or approach when they fly into ORD.

The article links to a litany of PDF documents. One of them in particular shows a "projection" of gate assignment and use once the satellites and OGT come online. https://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lake ... ix_B_3.pdf

I'd take this with a grain of salt, as so much can change, but page 24 of that document gives us an idea of what airlines, at the time of publication, were projected to be in the OGT. Again, grain of salt.....

Excellent post, thanks for sharing. One change I can already see is LATAM will definitely not be joining AA at the OGT, but maybe QR will.

Exciting to see where everyone could end up though.

ZM402 Royal Air Force Airbus A400M (Atlas C1) landed at ORD this afternoon at 4:27PM on Runway 9C. Operating as RRR4550 and it came in from the Midland, TX area.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=43c5dc&lat=37.847&lon=-95.741&zoom=5.5&showTrace=2022-06-04&leg=2

sircygnus wrote:

Curious as to why FAA is reviewing the oddest approach to 10R.

I haven't read the entire draft EA (https://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lakes/TAPandATEA/), but I've read a few parts related to the runway 10L/28R approaches. As far as I understand it, the offset approaches were only temporarily authorized by the 2015 EIS, and this draft EA seeks to make them permanent. There are no changes to the existing IAPs that I have seen.

The ILS Y or LOC Y Rwy 10R, RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 10R, and RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 28L, as well as the PRM versions of each, are 2.5 degree offset approaches to allow simultaneous operations with runway 10C/28C. The draft EA proposes to retain 2.5 degree offset approaches to runway 10R/28L, which would suggest the existing approaches are simply being retained on a permanent basis.

The one thing currently missing is a "Y" localizer for runway 28L. To my knowledge, no offset ILS for 28L is installed or firmly planned to be installed. While it does appear C90 and ORD ATCT are theoretically authorized to run simultaneous visuals or PRM approaches to 28C/28L (in the form of ILS PRM 28C and RNAV PRM Y 28L), they do not currently do so. Installing an ILS Y for 28L wouldn't add any new capabilities, but it would introduce lower PRM minimums during simultaneous 28C/28L operations. I wonder if an ILS Y installation for 28L is planned as part of this project. It's strange that the initial construction of 10R/28L included an ILS Y for 10R, but not 28L. The only reason I can think of is the complications of running simultaneous PRM approaches to 28C/28L while also departing 22L.

se210 wrote:

ZM402 Royal Air Force Airbus A400M (Atlas C1) landed at ORD this afternoon at 4:27PM on Runway 9C. Operating as RRR4550 and it came in from the Midland, TX area.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=43c5dc&lat=37.847&lon=-95.741&zoom=5.5&showTrace=2022-06-04&leg=2

Just saw her departed from 9R and made hard turn north. Overflew my place @9:12am.

gabik001 wrote:

Just saw her departed from 9C and made hard turn north. Overflew my place @9:12am.

Flew over my place also. I knew it was RAF ZM402 before I saw it based on the very distinctive sound made by those eight-bladed scimitar propellers on the Airbus A400M.

More pics of the T5 extension:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6937879910388572160/

Aviation outsider here - but could this be related to setting up ORD for quad arrivals? Using both 10C & 10R (or 28C & 28L) for south airfield arrivals would be consistent with the FAA's outline for quad arrivals back in 2018 (pages 4 & 6 of the PDF linked below):

https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/profiles/media/ORD-Airport-Capacity-Profile-2018.pdf

dctraynr wrote:

sircygnus wrote:

Curious as to why FAA is reviewing the oddest approach to 10R.

I haven't read the entire draft EA (https://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lakes/TAPandATEA/), but I've read a few parts related to the runway 10L/28R approaches. As far as I understand it, the offset approaches were only temporarily authorized by the 2015 EIS, and this draft EA seeks to make them permanent. There are no changes to the existing IAPs that I have seen.

The ILS Y or LOC Y Rwy 10R, RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 10R, and RNAV (GPS) Y Rwy 28L, as well as the PRM versions of each, are 2.5 degree offset approaches to allow simultaneous operations with runway 10C/28C. The draft EA proposes to retain 2.5 degree offset approaches to runway 10R/28L, which would suggest the existing approaches are simply being retained on a permanent basis.

The one thing currently missing is a "Y" localizer for runway 28L. To my knowledge, no offset ILS for 28L is installed or firmly planned to be installed. While it does appear C90 and ORD ATCT are theoretically authorized to run simultaneous visuals or PRM approaches to 28C/28L (in the form of ILS PRM 28C and RNAV PRM Y 28L), they do not currently do so. Installing an ILS Y for 28L wouldn't add any new capabilities, but it would introduce lower PRM minimums during simultaneous 28C/28L operations. I wonder if an ILS Y installation for 28L is planned as part of this project. It's strange that the initial construction of 10R/28L included an ILS Y for 10R, but not 28L. The only reason I can think of is the complications of running simultaneous PRM approaches to 28C/28L while also departing 22L.

ORD3 wrote:

More pics of the T5 extension:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6937879910388572160/

I wish she would have mentioned there's a lot of temporary finishes in this area still. Nevertheless, comments have been very positive.

se210 wrote:

gabik001 wrote:

Just saw her departed from 9C and made hard turn north. Overflew my place @9:12am.

Flew over my place also. I knew it was RAF ZM402 before I saw it based on the very distinctive sound made by those eight-bladed scimitar propellers on the Airbus A400M.

I heard the noise and it sounds weird. Definitely quad turboprop but not like Hercules. I looked out thru window and saw C-17 shaped a/c climbing out. Thought what is that? Then did a quick check on adsb exchange and it showed RAF aircraft. Didn't expected this bird here. Got some shots of Belgium Air Force A-400M overflying ORD @ FL280 few months ago with nice contrails behind.

MLIAA wrote:

emcm541 wrote:

sircygnus wrote:

Curious as to why FAA is reviewing the oddest approach to 10R.

Not exactly sure. Article didn't explain much and my partner's family and pilot friends have never mentioned anything wrong with that runway or approach when they fly into ORD.

The article links to a litany of PDF documents. One of them in particular shows a "projection" of gate assignment and use once the satellites and OGT come online. https://www.faa.gov/airports/great_lake ... ix_B_3.pdf

I'd take this with a grain of salt, as so much can change, but page 24 of that document gives us an idea of what airlines, at the time of publication, were projected to be in the OGT. Again, grain of salt.....

Excellent post, thanks for sharing. One change I can already see is LATAM will definitely not be joining AA at the OGT, but maybe QR will.

Exciting to see where everyone could end up though.

Agree on LATAM if Qantas ever formally announces BNE/ORD, I'd bet they move in with AA and partners. While times sure have changed and will continue to do so until this all comes online, it was really interesting to see what Star Alliance Partners CDA/United feel will be in the OGT: Air Canada, Lufthansa, ANA, Copa, Austrian, Air New Zealand, and Swiss.

A bit of a nasty snarl at O'Hare due to t-storms approaching from the west. Currently (19:00 hrs 6 June) dual arrivals but no departures.
Long lines at 28R and 22 L with roughly 50 a/c waiting between the two.

What's the best way to get from T5 to T2, with lots of luggage? Alternatively, does DL have a baggage recheck desk in T5 (domestic) arrivals? Thanks.

The new map for terminal 5 is up on the o'hare website.

CPS001 wrote:

What's the best way to get from T5 to T2, with lots of luggage? Alternatively, does DL have a baggage recheck desk in T5 (domestic) arrivals? Thanks.

If your bags are tagged through to Delta you can re-check in T5. Otherwise you have to haul them to T2 on the ATS train.

drdisque wrote:

CPS001 wrote:

What's the best way to get from T5 to T2, with lots of luggage? Alternatively, does DL have a baggage recheck desk in T5 (domestic) arrivals? Thanks.

If your bags are tagged through to Delta you can re-check in T5. Otherwise you have to haul them to T2 on the ATS train.

They won't be, unfortunately. Seems like it'll be the ATS then.

Rl12383 wrote:

The new map for terminal 5 is up on the o'hare website.
Terminal 5_FortheWeb.jpg

Think you have a bad link.... let's try this one:

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... theWeb.jpg

Unfortunately the interactive map doesn't appear updated yet, and can't zoom on this one.

ORDfan wrote:

Rl12383 wrote:

The new map for terminal 5 is up on the o'hare website.
Terminal 5_FortheWeb.jpg

Think you have a bad link.... let's try this one:

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... theWeb.jpg

Unfortunately the interactive map doesn't appear updated yet, and can't zoom on this one.

Strike 2

Try this one:

https://www.flychicago.com/ohare/map/Pa ... emaps.aspx

and scroll down to T5 and click on the map.

But, it is impossible to read. I even downloaded the image and tried to zoom in, still illegible.

United787 wrote:

Try this one:

https://www.flychicago.com/ohare/map/Pa ... emaps.aspx

and scroll down to T5 and click on the map.

But, it is impossible to read. I even downloaded the image and tried to zoom in, still illegible.

Looks like it's been updated. The low res jpg must have been a placeholder thumbnail because now it's showing a high res pdf when clicked.

jcwr56 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

AmricanShamrok wrote:

I agree with you; I always thought the outside of T5 was very visually appealing with the "flag hill" and nice views of departing/arriving flights etc. The idea of all that being blockaded and becoming like T1/T2/T3 with the Hilton out front is a bit disappointing.

Same here! That's exactly what I was thinking too... the airy expanse in front of the terminal, with the flag hill, was a nice aesthetic all these years. It's going to be a real shame to see the view from the streetscape of T5 blocked off now. This is just too industrial. So disappointing.

glbltrvlr wrote:

Follow the Benjamins... CDA clearly thinks the revenue premium over remote parking will make it worthwhile.

You're probably right, but it just reaffirms to me this another gaffe by this Rhee-led CDA. The main garage has plenty of capacity on the upper floors for overnight parking and it "feeds" three terminals. I'm having a hard time believing there is a plethora of fliers willing to pay a premium for overnight covered parking at T5.

If you're VFF, you're probably likely to get dropped off. If you're flying for business, you'll probably cab/Uber. Many city folks will take the blue line. Granted I understand there are exception to these trends, and I have parked at the main garage myself for a quick 1-2 overnight flight, but it's rare and the excess capacity at the main garage seems to indicate as much. Again, the location and size of the new garage seems unjustified IMO.

Are you looking at it now or 5-10 years from now? 2023 think Midway size (200+ daily operations) which is really a medium hub airport then envision having no parking structure in front other than the current parking lot. Of course the main serves 3 terminals you can short walk too. What you're suggesting however is forcing everyone to park within the core, walk, then take a train back. It's all about perspective.

Yep I have thought about that.

If the main garage operates well below capacity supporting 3 mainline terminals + partners, I don't see why increased domestic ops, particularly from budget-conscious LCC flyers, would warrant a new 6 story garage for T5 alone? It doesn't make sense to me. I could maybe see a smaller garage, located on the western-side of the existing lot, which was sort of small area to begin with. But this behemoth just seems out of portion for any viable future use-cases.

Here's an article and street-side rendering from the Sun-times:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2022/ ... t-aviation

Seems way too huge to me. At worst, it's just another example of careless spending by the CDA; at best, it's way excessive and over-built for something where a smaller, more economical solution would have sufficed.

There's also the Delta passengers that will be using T5.

On one hand the DL LGA flights attract a lot of business travelers who would be interested in a convenient overnight parking option to T5. On the other hand DL's ORD O&D for all flights is probably skewed away from Chicago area residents.

elbandgeek wrote:

United787 wrote:

Try this one:

https://www.flychicago.com/ohare/map/Pa ... emaps.aspx

and scroll down to T5 and click on the map.

But, it is impossible to read. I even downloaded the image and tried to zoom in, still illegible.

Looks like it's been updated. The low res jpg must have been a placeholder thumbnail because now it's showing a high res pdf when clicked.

Why are some gates missing from the updated T5 map? I get why M9 is missing (the temporary bag facility is blocking it) but where is M12, M22, M23, M31? Also some gates (like M5/M6) seem extremely close together now...at any rate, looking forward to seeing the end product!

drdisque wrote:

There's also the Delta passengers that will be using T5.

On one hand the DL LGA flights attract a lot of business travelers who would be interested in a convenient overnight parking option to T5. On the other hand DL's ORD O&D for all flights is probably skewed away from Chicago area residents.

That's maybe, what 1200-1600 seats/day? Say 5-15% of those would be interested in the occasional overnight; hardly justifiable.

And again... even accounting for some of that soon-to-be-relocated T2 demand, it hasn't manifested itself in meaningful utilization in the main garage (+T1 + T3) over the years. If you don't believe me: park on the first floor and take the elevators to floors 4,5,6 and see how empty they are. This was true at peak pre-pandemic as well.

The main garage was completed long before the Blue Line completion, so at one point, there was enough daily car-traffic demand to justify the garage. In this day and age of ride-share (and the return of regular cabs), I just have a hard time believing a new garage that size is a justifiable expense now or the mid-future.

ORDfan wrote:

If the main garage operates well below capacity supporting 3 mainline terminals + partners, I don't see why increased domestic ops, particularly from budget-conscious LCC flyers, would warrant a new 6 story garage for T5 alone? It doesn't make sense to me. I could maybe see a smaller garage, located on the western-side of the existing lot, which was sort of small area to begin with. But this behemoth just seems out of portion for any viable future use-cases.

You're not going to get people to pay daily garage rates for parking that requires a ride on the train between T5 and the main garage. At that point, you might as well just park off-airport or take the train to the economy lot(s). With what they charge for daily parking, they'd probably make a profit even if the garage were 10% full.

Delta's going to be in T5 and WN gets more business travelers than you seem to think they do.

ORDfan wrote:

drdisque wrote:

There's also the Delta passengers that will be using T5.

On one hand the DL LGA flights attract a lot of business travelers who would be interested in a convenient overnight parking option to T5. On the other hand DL's ORD O&D for all flights is probably skewed away from Chicago area residents.

That's maybe, what 1200-1600 seats/day? Say 5-15% of those would be interested in the occasional overnight; hardly justifiable.

And again... even accounting for some of that soon-to-be-relocated T2 demand, it hasn't manifested itself in meaningful utilization in the main garage (+T1 + T3) over the years. If you don't believe me: park on the first floor and take the elevators to floors 4,5,6 and see how empty they are. This was true at peak pre-pandemic as well.

The main garage was completed long before the Blue Line completion, so at one point, there was enough daily car-traffic demand to justify the garage. In this day and age of ride-share (and the return of regular cabs), I just have a hard time believing a new garage that size is a justifiable expense now or the mid-future.

Anectdotally, I traveled this past weekend and attempted to get into each economy lot before being turned away because they were full. The last lot had an attendant who gave me a voucher for economy lot rates and directed me to the main lot as I was using T1. Upon leaving the garage at the end of my trip, the bill was $125, with an $81 discount, for a total of roughly $45. What I would have expected to pay in Lot G. I can't speak for levels 3-6, but I was clearly not the only one using this option as the 2nd level of the deck was quite crowded.