User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:50 pm



Effective the 9th of December Air New Zealand's O'Hare flight will be increasing from 3 to 5 times weekly. Schedule holds at 5X into February as of this writing.

NZ026 AKL2010 – 1605ORD 789 x24
NZ027 ORD1900 – 0630+2AKL 789 x24

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20190328
 
soups
Posts: 3247
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 6:41 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:46 pm

.... filler... post deleted
Next destinations, Suarabaya, beirut, paris, Accra
 
ual763
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:29 pm

The CDA has a new survey up. They are asking customers what amenities they would like to see the most. As a sucker for vegetation, I voted for more green spaces.

http://ord21.com/About/Pages/survey.aspx
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
blockski
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:17 pm

piedmontf284000 wrote:
IMO, a major problem with this new expansion of the Int'l Terminal is the lack of a CTA subway station in proximity to T5. International arrivals have to double back to other terminals to get to the CTA station which is then another haul from the APM station. I feel like the city could have easily moved the CTA tracks that run along I-190 in front of T5, then under the proposed garage (similar to the renovated MDW orange line station) and built a secondary airport station for T5 passengers. I think it would be a huge benefit because soon DL, NK, F9 will also be using the terminal in addition to Int'l carriers.


There's nothing easy about relocating the CTA tracks at all. You've got major constraints given the current grades and underpasses for the taxiways, as well as the I-190 lanes that would make a relocation of the tracks extraordinarily expensive, if not impossible.

You could, in theory, build an infill CTA station on the relatively straight and level portion of the tracks where it runs over Bessie Coleman Dr, connecting for passengers to T5 via a pedestrian bridge into the new hotel. The walk would be about 1500 feet as the crow flies - not particularly short. To really make that infill station worthwhile, you'd likely want to beef up any landside development near T5 as well and ensure it would have access to the station.

As it is, the existing CTA connection is fine - the ATS isn't far at all.
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:49 pm

ual763 wrote:
The CDA has a new survey up. They are asking customers what amenities they would like to see the most. As a sucker for vegetation, I voted for more green spaces.

http://ord21.com/About/Pages/survey.aspx


I voted for green spaces as well, but I would have rather ranked my answer because several options to that question were important to me.... The experience of a Chicago origin pax is quite different from the transferring pax.

Also amusing for me that the "how I got to the airport" question did not have "flew in" as a possibility (aside from the "other" button).
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:02 pm

Studio Gang further images coming out:

Image


Image

More here:

https://www.archdaily.com/913991/studio ... -expansion
 
Fargo
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:13 am

blockski wrote:
piedmontf284000 wrote:
IMO, a major problem with this new expansion of the Int'l Terminal is the lack of a CTA subway station in proximity to T5. International arrivals have to double back to other terminals to get to the CTA station which is then another haul from the APM station. I feel like the city could have easily moved the CTA tracks that run along I-190 in front of T5, then under the proposed garage (similar to the renovated MDW orange line station) and built a secondary airport station for T5 passengers. I think it would be a huge benefit because soon DL, NK, F9 will also be using the terminal in addition to Int'l carriers.


There's nothing easy about relocating the CTA tracks at all. You've got major constraints given the current grades and underpasses for the taxiways, as well as the I-190 lanes that would make a relocation of the tracks extraordinarily expensive, if not impossible.

You could, in theory, build an infill CTA station on the relatively straight and level portion of the tracks where it runs over Bessie Coleman Dr, connecting for passengers to T5 via a pedestrian bridge into the new hotel. The walk would be about 1500 feet as the crow flies - not particularly short. To really make that infill station worthwhile, you'd likely want to beef up any landside development near T5 as well and ensure it would have access to the station.

As it is, the existing CTA connection is fine - the ATS isn't far at all.


For all this talk about T5 and the lack of a second curbside area/lack of proximity to the CTA station, we have to keep in mind that the majority of airport operations will be shifting to the main terminal area once the Global Terminal is completed. In other words, T5 will be a minority of the pax at the airport and therefore, doesn't need significant investment in new curbside facilities and a new CTA station.
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:27 am

If the new post-security people mover extends to T5 that could make getting to T2 and thus the CTA L station much quicker.
 
jcwr56
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:06 am

Fargo wrote:
blockski wrote:
piedmontf284000 wrote:
IMO, a major problem with this new expansion of the Int'l Terminal is the lack of a CTA subway station in proximity to T5. International arrivals have to double back to other terminals to get to the CTA station which is then another haul from the APM station. I feel like the city could have easily moved the CTA tracks that run along I-190 in front of T5, then under the proposed garage (similar to the renovated MDW orange line station) and built a secondary airport station for T5 passengers. I think it would be a huge benefit because soon DL, NK, F9 will also be using the terminal in addition to Int'l carriers.


There's nothing easy about relocating the CTA tracks at all. You've got major constraints given the current grades and underpasses for the taxiways, as well as the I-190 lanes that would make a relocation of the tracks extraordinarily expensive, if not impossible.

You could, in theory, build an infill CTA station on the relatively straight and level portion of the tracks where it runs over Bessie Coleman Dr, connecting for passengers to T5 via a pedestrian bridge into the new hotel. The walk would be about 1500 feet as the crow flies - not particularly short. To really make that infill station worthwhile, you'd likely want to beef up any landside development near T5 as well and ensure it would have access to the station.

As it is, the existing CTA connection is fine - the ATS isn't far at all.


For all this talk about T5 and the lack of a second curbside area/lack of proximity to the CTA station, we have to keep in mind that the majority of airport operations will be shifting to the main terminal area once the Global Terminal is completed. In other words, T5 will be a minority of the pax at the airport and therefore, doesn't need significant investment in new curbside facilities and a new CTA station.


I wouldn't bet the house on this. The OGT aims to be completed by 2029. So until then, T5 will be the only FIS capable facility at ORD. DL moves over in 2022ish adding to the building 70ish operations and over 1MM passengers on top of any new International growth. Not all the Star and OW carriers might be housed at the OGT, that right still is granted to UA and AA on who they'd like to see on their preferential gates. UA and AA will grow themselves, so keeping some alliance carriers at T5 would make sense.

What should have happened was the extension to T5 be built out with ticket counters, curbside, baggage systems, checkpoint and designed around Skyteam. By moving DL to the west side of the terminal, it now forces a total rehab of the facility to accommodate DL. This is where you're seeing the $1.2B price tag coming from. It will be a long walk from the current checkpoint all the way to M27 and imagine M27 to the customs hall.

This is why on a yearly basis, reallocation of preferential and common use gates and facilities will be done starting in 2021.
 
Fargo
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:22 am

jcwr56 wrote:
Fargo wrote:
blockski wrote:

There's nothing easy about relocating the CTA tracks at all. You've got major constraints given the current grades and underpasses for the taxiways, as well as the I-190 lanes that would make a relocation of the tracks extraordinarily expensive, if not impossible.

You could, in theory, build an infill CTA station on the relatively straight and level portion of the tracks where it runs over Bessie Coleman Dr, connecting for passengers to T5 via a pedestrian bridge into the new hotel. The walk would be about 1500 feet as the crow flies - not particularly short. To really make that infill station worthwhile, you'd likely want to beef up any landside development near T5 as well and ensure it would have access to the station.

As it is, the existing CTA connection is fine - the ATS isn't far at all.


For all this talk about T5 and the lack of a second curbside area/lack of proximity to the CTA station, we have to keep in mind that the majority of airport operations will be shifting to the main terminal area once the Global Terminal is completed. In other words, T5 will be a minority of the pax at the airport and therefore, doesn't need significant investment in new curbside facilities and a new CTA station.


I wouldn't bet the house on this. The OGT aims to be completed by 2029. So until then, T5 will be the only FIS capable facility at ORD. DL moves over in 2022ish adding to the building 70ish operations and over 1MM passengers on top of any new International growth. Not all the Star and OW carriers might be housed at the OGT, that right still is granted to UA and AA on who they'd like to see on their preferential gates. UA and AA will grow themselves, so keeping some alliance carriers at T5 would make sense.

What should have happened was the extension to T5 be built out with ticket counters, curbside, baggage systems, checkpoint and designed around Skyteam. By moving DL to the west side of the terminal, it now forces a total rehab of the facility to accommodate DL. This is where you're seeing the $1.2B price tag coming from. It will be a long walk from the current checkpoint all the way to M27 and imagine M27 to the customs hall.

This is why on a yearly basis, reallocation of preferential and common use gates and facilities will be done starting in 2021.


Why wouldn’t all the Star/OW carriers move to the Global Terminal? Most only have one flight a day and some of them are not even daily. The whole point of this project is to create a “global alliance” hub, so it wouldn’t make sense to not house all Star/OW carriers in the Global Terminal.

DL will be fine, it’s not like they are building a huge connecting operation. Do you know for sure if they are going to the west side of T5?
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:12 pm

I'm wondering how much of this is actually in the works?
Image
The Global Terminal is one thing, but notice the major rethinking of the main parking garage, is that part of the initial construction, I wonder?

illustrations from:
https://www.archdaily.com/913991/studio ... sion-image
 
ual763
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:32 pm

Things are starting to get ugly after the revealing of Studio ORD being the chosen architecture firm. Helmet Jahn (Architect of T1) penned this note to Blair Kamin (architecture critic at the tribune). He is not happy to say the least.

Image
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
ual763
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:34 pm

yeogeo wrote:
I'm wondering how much of this is actually in the works?
Image
The Global Terminal is one thing, but notice the major rethinking of the main parking garage, is that part of the initial construction, I wonder?

illustrations from:
https://www.archdaily.com/913991/studio ... sion-image


I sure hope so! Maybe they could put a viewing deck on top! Would be a pretty nice place for it.
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:58 pm

ual763 wrote:
Things are starting to get ugly after the revealing of Studio ORD being the chosen architecture firm. Helmet Jahn (Architect of T1) penned this note to Blair Kamin (architecture critic at the tribune). He is not happy to say the least.

Image


Blair and Helmet need to provide evidence of premeditation or it ends up sounding a lot like sour grapes.
I understand the disappointment - my favorite design didn't make the cut either - but unless some foul play emerges from someone on the inside of the decision making, the die is cast.
 
ual763
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:03 pm

yeogeo wrote:
lot like sour grapes.


That is exactly what the city said!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loc ... story.html
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
emcm541
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:54 pm

ual763 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
lot like sour grapes.


That is exactly what the city said!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loc ... story.html



I really hope that these rumblings just go away. This project needs to happen, regardless of who does it and we don't need anything to cause unnecessary delays.
 
AAplat4life
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:26 pm

Studio ORD is the best choice in many respects. It is architecturally unique and stunning, and one can see how UA and AA would prefer the design since it harmonizes with T1 and T3. One of the other designs does that too, but was not going to win for other reasons. One critic has noted reservations that it may not be the best choice for interior passenger flow, but that remains to be seen since the conceptual design will give way to the actual one.

This whole notion of a secretive process is a not a serious point. These types of projects rarely involve mass public input, and 3 out of the 5 designs were spectacular, one not bad and one boring.

I hope Cathay Pacific uses the new terminal. From ORD, it has many of the best connections through Asia.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:41 pm

yeogeo wrote:
Blair and Helmet need to provide evidence of premeditation or it ends up sounding a lot like sour grapes.
I understand the disappointment - my favorite design didn't make the cut either - but unless some foul play emerges from someone on the inside of the decision making, the die is cast.


Well said! To the critics, I say this:

1. Secretive? Mr. Jahn didn't even make it as a finalist so he wouldn't necessarily know who the decision makers were. I am sure the finalists had an interview (or several) at which point they would have met with the committee making the decisions so it wouldn't be that secretive. Maybe to the general public but not to the finalists.
2. Premeditated? There is nothing to suggest that the decision was premeditated. The expansion to T5, yes... maybe they should focus their efforts there.
3. Design? Completely subjective.
4. Experience? Mr. Jahn didn't have any experience designing an airport when he designed the UA T1. Granted the firm he controlled, Murphy/Jahn, was formerly known as C.F. Murphy Associates and had designed the original ORD terminals. Jahn didn't join Murphy's firm until 1967 but T2 & T3 were opened in 1962. T1 wasn't opened until 1988.
 
timberwolf24
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 8:38 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:03 pm

Living in LA, ORD/MDW will always be home!
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:23 pm

timberwolf24 wrote:


"The US Department of Transportation on 29MAR19 approved Hainan Airlines' application on Chengdu – Chicago route"

Image
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:45 pm

CDA email today (29 Mar)
Image
 
jcwr56
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:06 am

yeogeo wrote:
timberwolf24 wrote:


"The US Department of Transportation on 29MAR19 approved Hainan Airlines' application on Chengdu – Chicago route"

Image
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz


May 10th startup.
 
Planeboy17
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:18 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:57 am

jcwr56 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
timberwolf24 wrote:


"The US Department of Transportation on 29MAR19 approved Hainan Airlines' application on Chengdu – Chicago route"

Image
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz


May 10th startup.

So this is actually scheduled to happen this year?
Wow.
 
Planeboy17
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:18 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:05 am

Galvan316 wrote:
I have heard rumblings (actually on this site) that Ukraine International was looking at going to ORD. Is this true? Does the 763 have the legs to fly Kiev - Chicago or would it have to be on a 772?

I saw your post and wanted to respond quickly but had to double check myself because I immediately thought I remembered seeing something about them choosing between YYZ and ORD but that might have been Air Serbia.
So I looked it up and found an article that states 2022 launch for Ukraine International at ORD. Whether that happens is anyone’s guess but it’s at least been said by the airline in public.
They also show a MIA launch before ORD so if you see that come than I would guess ORD will not be far off.
 
YYZORD
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:20 pm

I saw Ukraine International already flies to YYZ, maybe there are connections to ORD as YYZ-ORD is one of the busiest international routes in the world and preclearance helps too at YYZ. But I could see ORD being the next north america destination for Ukraine International because if they already serve YYZ easily, ORD can also be an option too.

Planeboy17 wrote:
Galvan316 wrote:
I have heard rumblings (actually on this site) that Ukraine International was looking at going to ORD. Is this true? Does the 763 have the legs to fly Kiev - Chicago or would it have to be on a 772?

I saw your post and wanted to respond quickly but had to double check myself because I immediately thought I remembered seeing something about them choosing between YYZ and ORD but that might have been Air Serbia.
So I looked it up and found an article that states 2022 launch for Ukraine International at ORD. Whether that happens is anyone’s guess but it’s at least been said by the airline in public.
They also show a MIA launch before ORD so if you see that come than I would guess ORD will not be far off.
 
c933103
Posts: 3626
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:30 am

IIRC there were some routes Ukraine International said they'll launch in 2018 but still no info?
This is a placeholder.
 
Planeboy17
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:18 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:39 am

YYZORD wrote:
I saw Ukraine International already flies to YYZ, maybe there are connections to ORD as YYZ-ORD is one of the busiest international routes in the world and preclearance helps too at YYZ. But I could see ORD being the next north america destination for Ukraine International because if they already serve YYZ easily, ORD can also be an option too.

Planeboy17 wrote:
Galvan316 wrote:
I have heard rumblings (actually on this site) that Ukraine International was looking at going to ORD. Is this true? Does the 763 have the legs to fly Kiev - Chicago or would it have to be on a 772?

I saw your post and wanted to respond quickly but had to double check myself because I immediately thought I remembered seeing something about them choosing between YYZ and ORD but that might have been Air Serbia.
So I looked it up and found an article that states 2022 launch for Ukraine International at ORD. Whether that happens is anyone’s guess but it’s at least been said by the airline in public.
They also show a MIA launch before ORD so if you see that come than I would guess ORD will not be far off.

The article I quoted was from “ Onemileatatime.com”.
I’m sorry I still don’t know how to paste an article but if you google Ukraine International Chicago it should pop up.
 
chidino
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:14 am

Planeboy17 wrote:
The article I quoted was from “ Onemileatatime.com”.
I’m sorry I still don’t know how to paste an article but if you google Ukraine International Chicago it should pop up.


Here you go: https://onemileatatime.com/ukraine-international-airlines-expansion/ (It says "full editor" below the Quick Reply box: that will a) carry over anything you've typed (no need to copy and paste) and make links, pics, etc. very easy.)

As to Ukraine and Chicago, they don't even have the aircraft on order, so while they "plan" to expand here, I "plan" on losing 30 pounds. :roll: And actually, we're dead last on their very ambitious expansion schedule (quoting the article):

" 2018 — Vinnytsia, Copenhagen, Cairo, Delhi, Toronto, Sanya
2019 — Mykolaiv, Hamburg, Lisbon, Naples, Oslo, Gomel, Ashgabat, Tashkent, Izmir, Shanghai
2020 — Uzhgorod, Dublin, Manchester, Bologna, Gdansk, Bishkek, Kuwait, Miami, Guangzhou
2021 — Zagreb, Varna, Tallinn, Seoul
2022 — Belgrade, Bratislava, Beirut, Shiraz, Addis Ababa, Chicago"

I'd love the service (and Kiev is a sister city) but that's ambitious. The blog's author, Lucky, put it pretty well: "I’m certainly rooting for them here, but given the lack of connecting traffic to Russia, and also given that the airline doesn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars to blow through, I do wonder how much of this growth is driven by pride rather than the realistic hope of profit."
 
ORDfan
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:38 am

Looks like a missed all the fun stuff while traveling!

A lot has been said about Studio ORD, but I'll just add my 2 cents and say I couldn't be happier! While I initially ranked Calatrava as my #1 and Studio as my #2, in reality Studio was more like my #1.5 - it was the local, sentimental favorite and the bidding team is a solid one.

I love how Gang & Co. manage to capture the ethos of Chicago in her design - the terminal is simultaneously powerful yet understated, globally-inspired yet local, avant-garde yet welcoming and approachable. I can't wait to see those wood elements in real life, wow.

I'm disappointed in Jahn's childish letter to Blair Kamin...even Jahn and his "experienced" team had a first terminal at some point in their respective careers.

This is going to be an exiting few years ahead.
 
ORDfan
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 04, 2019 1:46 am

AAplat4life wrote:
Studio ORD is the best choice in many respects. It is architecturally unique and stunning, and one can see how UA and AA would prefer the design since it harmonizes with T1 and T3. One of the other designs does that too, but was not going to win for other reasons. One critic has noted reservations that it may not be the best choice for interior passenger flow, but that remains to be seen since the conceptual design will give way to the actual one.

This whole notion of a secretive process is a not a serious point. These types of projects rarely involve mass public input, and 3 out of the 5 designs were spectacular, one not bad and one boring.

I hope Cathay Pacific uses the new terminal. From ORD, it has many of the best connections through Asia.


Couldn't agree more about the passenger flow, and Cathay both.

I'm not certain, but I think many of the final interior elements are likely to look different that the renderings. Some of 'airier' elements in the meeting & greeting hall and departure hall may not be quite as open as rendered once signs, desks, elevators, (more) escalators, seating areas, etc get added. I'm sure it will be cutting edge at the time they are installed, but I'm not going to hold Gang's feet to the fire that the final build will be identical to these pics.

Regarding Cathay: I think you're 100% right. I'm an SA guy, but I break rank often to take CX to SE Asia depending on the destination. 1-2hrs in HKG for many destinations, and its such a pleasant experience always.
 
Planeboy17
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:18 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:08 am

Just read on Routes that LH will make the evening FRA flight year round starting this year.
Aircraft will be a 340.
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:27 am

Planeboy17 wrote:
Just read on Routes that LH will make the evening FRA flight year round starting this year.
Aircraft will be a 340.


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-03apr19/

Just when the end of A340 service seemed imminent at O'Hare, another 343 flight is announced through next winter. Will be glad to see her around!

 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:31 pm

Blair Kaman, architectural critic for the Trib, has published an article today (5 April) criticizing the winning Global Terminal design for, in his view, the excessive use of escalators.

"...It is surprising and disappointing that the visionary, usually level-headed Chicago architect Jeanne Gang has made escalators a central feature of her competition-winning design for the planned $2.2 billion Global Terminal at O’Hare International Airport."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/col ... story.html

Image
 
ORDfan
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:18 pm

yeogeo wrote:
Blair Kaman, architectural critic for the Trib, has published an article today (5 April) criticizing the winning Global Terminal design for, in his view, the excessive use of escalators.

"...It is surprising and disappointing that the visionary, usually level-headed Chicago architect Jeanne Gang has made escalators a central feature of her competition-winning design for the planned $2.2 billion Global Terminal at O’Hare International Airport."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/col ... story.html

Image


Just read this as well, and while I love the overall exterior design...if I'm being objective, I admit that Kamin does bring up a good and important point here about interior planning. I'd have to agree that going up to the departures-hall from the departures street-level, and then back down to the gate area does create some hardships for all travelers, not just those with disabilities, but particularly them.

I can see the potential pedestrian logjam, as the gentleman from Airport Experience mentions. BUT, the city claims to have an out by noting: "Lauren Huffman, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Department of Aviation, stressed that the plan submitted by Gang and her team, Studio ORD Joint Venture Partners, was conceptual." As I mentioned above... I have a feeling that the final design will be modified and might not be airy as depicted (which is fine) - I think what's important is getting folks to/from the gates easily and stress-free. I'm curious to see what modifications are made to accomplish this, I expect there will be some changes.
 
Galvan316
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:43 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:32 pm

With BA recently resuming A380 service to ORD.

It got me thinking -

What possible future routes could see an A380 into ORD on?

Could LH send a 380 on the FRA run? how about Emirates to DXB?

Just kinda thinking out loud on a Friday
ORD and MDW is where youll find Me!
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:22 pm

ORDfan wrote:
I can see the potential pedestrian logjam, as the gentleman from Airport Experience mentions. BUT, the city claims to have an out by noting: "Lauren Huffman, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Department of Aviation, stressed that the plan submitted by Gang and her team, Studio ORD Joint Venture Partners, was conceptual." As I mentioned above... I have a feeling that the final design will be modified and might not be airy as depicted (which is fine) - I think what's important is getting folks to/from the gates easily and stress-free. I'm curious to see what modifications are made to accomplish this, I expect there will be some changes.


I think Blair might be focusing on a detail too early. I am sure this will be worked out through the design process and the departures hall could end up being at the same level as the drop-off and gates like most airports.

But, isn't the departure hall at MDW down a level from the drop-off? That seems to work fine. Also, DEN is the same way if I remember right.
 
chicawgo
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 05, 2019 8:17 pm

United787 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
I can see the potential pedestrian logjam, as the gentleman from Airport Experience mentions. BUT, the city claims to have an out by noting: "Lauren Huffman, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Department of Aviation, stressed that the plan submitted by Gang and her team, Studio ORD Joint Venture Partners, was conceptual." As I mentioned above... I have a feeling that the final design will be modified and might not be airy as depicted (which is fine) - I think what's important is getting folks to/from the gates easily and stress-free. I'm curious to see what modifications are made to accomplish this, I expect there will be some changes.


I think Blair might be focusing on a detail too early. I am sure this will be worked out through the design process and the departures hall could end up being at the same level as the drop-off and gates like most airports.

But, isn't the departure hall at MDW down a level from the drop-off? That seems to work fine. Also, DEN is the same way if I remember right.


Correct. Honestly the article is complete trash -- one of the most snowflake, overly sensitive articles I've read. First of all, ANY airport that requires you to take an APM to concourses (ATL, DEN) already has this. You have to go down escalators to the tunnel and then up escalators to the concourse. What about DAL? LAS? There are tons of airports where you have to take escalators for departures.

Second, why would this really be a big deal? They will include plenty of elevators! We already have the most insane ADA requirements, now having elevators for wheelchairs isn't good enough? They might have to mix with "able-bodied people avoiding an escalator logjam?" Heaven forbid!

Third, one of the main reasons for this was to allow natural light for arriving passengers. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Isn't that worth something?

Kamin clearly has an issue with Gang's design from the beginning for whatever reason and is bitter about the decision. His article is irresponsible media at its finest.
 
chidino
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:30 am

chicawgo wrote:
United787 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
I can see the potential pedestrian logjam, as the gentleman from Airport Experience mentions. BUT, the city claims to have an out by noting: "Lauren Huffman, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Department of Aviation, stressed that the plan submitted by Gang and her team, Studio ORD Joint Venture Partners, was conceptual." As I mentioned above... I have a feeling that the final design will be modified and might not be airy as depicted (which is fine) - I think what's important is getting folks to/from the gates easily and stress-free. I'm curious to see what modifications are made to accomplish this, I expect there will be some changes.


I think Blair might be focusing on a detail too early. I am sure this will be worked out through the design process and the departures hall could end up being at the same level as the drop-off and gates like most airports.

But, isn't the departure hall at MDW down a level from the drop-off? That seems to work fine. Also, DEN is the same way if I remember right.


Correct. Honestly the article is complete trash -- one of the most snowflake, overly sensitive articles I've read. First of all, ANY airport that requires you to take an APM to concourses (ATL, DEN) already has this. You have to go down escalators to the tunnel and then up escalators to the concourse. What about DAL? LAS? There are tons of airports where you have to take escalators for departures.

Second, why would this really be a big deal? They will include plenty of elevators! We already have the most insane ADA requirements, now having elevators for wheelchairs isn't good enough? They might have to mix with "able-bodied people avoiding an escalator logjam?" Heaven forbid!

Third, one of the main reasons for this was to allow natural light for arriving passengers. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Isn't that worth something?

Kamin clearly has an issue with Gang's design from the beginning for whatever reason and is bitter about the decision. His article is irresponsible media at its finest.


I don't know if I'd go as far as "irresponsible media", but you're right, and I'm glad you had the guts to say it. Kamin seems stuck on the Foster design, to the exclusion of everything else. At this point, you have to ask about his motivations:

1. The Foster design, while novel, could be built tomorrow in Dubai? LA (if they had the space)? El Dorado? Timbuktu? Doesn't matter: he's the God architect who gave us a giant MacBook on the river. Someone tell Kamin Foster's the Jahn (pre-Sony) of 2019. (and, if Kamin wants to keep his "progressive" credentials, why suck up to THE corporate architect of the last 20 years?)

2. The Foster design was an illusion. Kamin keeps carrying on as if that window space would remain virginal. That's revenue, babe, and the airlines are not ponying up billions if the city doesn't maximize every revenue opportunity. Kamin is so quick to point out operational issues with Gang's unbuilt, unfinalized design but ignores blatant issues with his own selection. (And, BTW: I used to live in DuPage. A view SW doesn't get my heart racing, but it sure is good for a ton of afternoon sun. I see that "viewing area" of Foster's being about 97 degrees on a July afternoon.)

3. Does it strike anyone that Kamin's opinion seems glued to one fact -- that Foster's design would only "meet the earth" at 5 places? Uh-huh. And the Home Insurance building was the first true skyscraper in America (an equally valid, and irrelevant, point.) Exactly what does that have to do with its function? He's in love with the construction and form, not its purpose or raison d'être. Its job is obvious to apparently everyone with the exception of the architecture critic of the Trib.

And, let's face it, the a.net folks can be pretty harsh, so why is the bitching only coming from him? I thought nitpicking everything was our job! :roll:
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2825
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:55 pm

Well said chidino!
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:38 pm

KLM 789's are coming to ORD next Spring.



"Amsterdam – Chicago eff 30MAR20 4 of 7 weekly operated by 787-9, replacing 777-200ER (Additional variation from 04MAY20")


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... e-20190407
 
jcwr56
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:41 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
timberwolf24 wrote:


"The US Department of Transportation on 29MAR19 approved Hainan Airlines' application on Chengdu – Chicago route"

Image
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz


May 10th startup.


Revised to June 28th..
 
Fargo
Posts: 722
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:00 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:16 pm

Does anyone have any numbers as to how SkyTeam members, particularly AF, KL and KE, do out of ORD? I know AF was struggling to make winters work as of a few years ago, but what about now?
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:24 pm

jcwr56 wrote:
jcwr56 wrote:
yeogeo wrote:

"The US Department of Transportation on 29MAR19 approved Hainan Airlines' application on Chengdu – Chicago route"

Image
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz


May 10th startup.


Revised to June 28th..


Do we know the CTU frequency? M/W/F would make a daily Hainan presence with their PEK Tu/Th/Sat/Sun flights.... just a suggestion :P
 
chicawgo
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:07 pm

chidino wrote:
chicawgo wrote:
United787 wrote:

I think Blair might be focusing on a detail too early. I am sure this will be worked out through the design process and the departures hall could end up being at the same level as the drop-off and gates like most airports.

But, isn't the departure hall at MDW down a level from the drop-off? That seems to work fine. Also, DEN is the same way if I remember right.


Correct. Honestly the article is complete trash -- one of the most snowflake, overly sensitive articles I've read. First of all, ANY airport that requires you to take an APM to concourses (ATL, DEN) already has this. You have to go down escalators to the tunnel and then up escalators to the concourse. What about DAL? LAS? There are tons of airports where you have to take escalators for departures.

Second, why would this really be a big deal? They will include plenty of elevators! We already have the most insane ADA requirements, now having elevators for wheelchairs isn't good enough? They might have to mix with "able-bodied people avoiding an escalator logjam?" Heaven forbid!

Third, one of the main reasons for this was to allow natural light for arriving passengers. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Isn't that worth something?

Kamin clearly has an issue with Gang's design from the beginning for whatever reason and is bitter about the decision. His article is irresponsible media at its finest.


I don't know if I'd go as far as "irresponsible media", but you're right, and I'm glad you had the guts to say it. Kamin seems stuck on the Foster design, to the exclusion of everything else. At this point, you have to ask about his motivations:

1. The Foster design, while novel, could be built tomorrow in Dubai? LA (if they had the space)? El Dorado? Timbuktu? Doesn't matter: he's the God architect who gave us a giant MacBook on the river. Someone tell Kamin Foster's the Jahn (pre-Sony) of 2019. (and, if Kamin wants to keep his "progressive" credentials, why suck up to THE corporate architect of the last 20 years?)

2. The Foster design was an illusion. Kamin keeps carrying on as if that window space would remain virginal. That's revenue, babe, and the airlines are not ponying up billions if the city doesn't maximize every revenue opportunity. Kamin is so quick to point out operational issues with Gang's unbuilt, unfinalized design but ignores blatant issues with his own selection. (And, BTW: I used to live in DuPage. A view SW doesn't get my heart racing, but it sure is good for a ton of afternoon sun. I see that "viewing area" of Foster's being about 97 degrees on a July afternoon.)

3. Does it strike anyone that Kamin's opinion seems glued to one fact -- that Foster's design would only "meet the earth" at 5 places? Uh-huh. And the Home Insurance building was the first true skyscraper in America (an equally valid, and irrelevant, point.) Exactly what does that have to do with its function? He's in love with the construction and form, not its purpose or raison d'être. Its job is obvious to apparently everyone with the exception of the architecture critic of the Trib.

And, let's face it, the a.net folks can be pretty harsh, so why is the bitching only coming from him? I thought nitpicking everything was our job! :roll:


Excellent post!

The reason I say "irresponsible media" is because of how powerful the headline is. Here was the headline: "Jeanne Gang's O'Hare design looks anything but stress-free, especially for wheelchair users." This is so irresponsible I can barely copy it here even in order to blast it. There are two reasons it's so irresponsible: 1. It gives the impression there are serious problems with the proposal as a fact! In our current world where most people just read headlines and make their decision from that, it's grossly misleading. 2. It's exploiting "wheelchair users" and people's sensitivity to accessibility based on a very early general design. Kamin knows very well that the current drawings are absolutely no indication of where the final escalators will be or how many will exist. To make such a drastic statement at this stage is truly irresponsible. And I can vouch for how powerful these headlines are as my Mom said to me this weekend (knowing I'm an aviation fan) "So I saw there are already serious problems with the new O'Hare design. They're not going to make it wheelchair accessible?" That Kamin knows it's way too early to be making drastic statements like this but does it anyway as a sort of retribution for his favorite not being picked is what makes it so irresponsible.

On an interesting note, I may not be the only one that feels this way as there's a column from the Tribune's editorial board this morning that basically reads like an apology for Kamin's column!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opi ... story.html
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:48 pm

Galvan316 wrote:
With BA recently resuming A380 service to ORD.

It got me thinking -What possible future routes could see an A380 into ORD on?
Could LH send a 380 on the FRA run? how about Emirates to DXB?


I don't think there's much hope for that. I suppose EK is a possibility, but a remote one; they've never gone more than daily on the route and they're not increasing the A380 fleet anymore - no one is.

Lufti would have to give up a favored location in the T-1 B gates for it's FRA flights, so that seems unlikely. The MUC flight does leave from T-5 anyway and they are basing some of the A380 fleet in MUC, but... they haven't even used their second-biggest a/c (748) on MUC-ORD before so it would be a huge leap to upgrade to the A380 -unlikely there as well, I'm afraid. I suppose they could operate MUC out of T-1 and fly an A380 out of T-5 for FRA :scratchchin: Nah - unlikely.

I would have to rate Asiana, Ethiad, Qatar and Air France all extremely unlikely. Korean just a touch more realistic (based on the fact that they have flown more than once daily to ORD in the past), but still, I'd be surprised for anyone else to fly the whale into O'Hare.

Be happy to be proven wrong.
 
Planeboy17
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:18 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:45 am

yeogeo wrote:
Galvan316 wrote:
With BA recently resuming A380 service to ORD.

It got me thinking -What possible future routes could see an A380 into ORD on?
Could LH send a 380 on the FRA run? how about Emirates to DXB?


I don't think there's much hope for that. I suppose EK is a possibility, but a remote one; they've never gone more than daily on the route and they're not increasing the A380 fleet anymore - no one is.

Lufti would have to give up a favored location in the T-1 B gates for it's FRA flights, so that seems unlikely. The MUC flight does leave from T-5 anyway and they are basing some of the A380 fleet in MUC, but... they haven't even used their second-biggest a/c (748) on MUC-ORD before so it would be a huge leap to upgrade to the A380 -unlikely there as well, I'm afraid. I suppose they could operate MUC out of T-1 and fly an A380 out of T-5 for FRA :scratchchin: Nah - unlikely.

I would have to rate Asiana, Ethiad, Qatar and Air France all extremely unlikely. Korean just a touch more realistic (based on the fact that they have flown more than once daily to ORD in the past), but still, I'd be surprised for anyone else to fly the whale into O'Hare.

Be happy to be proven wrong.

I agree with all of your above points but I would think EK might be the best bet out of all of the others.
As far as KE, they don’t send their 2nd largest frame (748) either.
Although I think they did send it here for a brief time.
 
chidino
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:55 pm

FWIW, I wrote Blair Kamin expressing some of the reservations that have been expressed about the T5 expansion. He did reply and said he would "check it out". While that doesn't guarantee anything -- and he didn't PROMISE :hissyfit: -- I can't imagine he looks at them and magically finds the things we've found missing, right? At lease he can get an answer out of CDA as to how "preliminary" these plans are, and (given his recent focus on accessibility) how far these new gates are going to be from baggage and transportation.
 
ORDfan
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:58 am

United787 wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
I can see the potential pedestrian logjam, as the gentleman from Airport Experience mentions. BUT, the city claims to have an out by noting: "Lauren Huffman, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Department of Aviation, stressed that the plan submitted by Gang and her team, Studio ORD Joint Venture Partners, was conceptual." As I mentioned above... I have a feeling that the final design will be modified and might not be airy as depicted (which is fine) - I think what's important is getting folks to/from the gates easily and stress-free. I'm curious to see what modifications are made to accomplish this, I expect there will be some changes.


I think Blair might be focusing on a detail too early. I am sure this will be worked out through the design process and the departures hall could end up being at the same level as the drop-off and gates like most airports.

But, isn't the departure hall at MDW down a level from the drop-off? That seems to work fine. Also, DEN is the same way if I remember right.



Here's the thing: yes, MDW is down a level from the drop-off, and anecdotally, I have been there when it is a nightmare traffic jam getting on the escalator and at the bottom of the escalator depending on the lines for security. And that's down a level AFTER baggage drop at the check-in desks.

But that's the thing: it's down one time. In Gang's proposal as depicted, it's up to check-in/departures (with bags) and then back down to gates. I'm going to have Kamin's back on this one: that has the potential to be a giant cluster. I can't think of another airport where street-level departing passengers have to escalator/elevator up to check-in with bags. Yes I know, there are airport where if you come in from the parking garage (just like T5), but that's not street-side and again, it's only 1 time. And I have been at T5 when there is wait for the elevators.

LHR Terminal 5 (main) I know you have to go down a level after security - also frequently a traffic disaster with weirdly located and small elevators. JFK T4, down one time after security. BKK you go up after baggage-drop and sometimes back down, but sometimes stay on the same level depending on which gate/level you depart from - there are buses to the tarmac there. But you when go back down at BKK it's so far past security it's almost a moot point.

I have done this with family, and with small children - it is not fun; it causes slowdowns, jams, and frustration for passengers. Not to mention the disabled, as Kamin mentions. Whereas depicted for the O'hare terminal, you'd need to go up and down before and after security, ugh. Kamin is right - it's far from ideal and hopefully gets addressed.
 
ORDfan
Posts: 532
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:05 am

Fargo wrote:
Does anyone have any numbers as to how SkyTeam members, particularly AF, KL and KE, do out of ORD? I know AF was struggling to make winters work as of a few years ago, but what about now?


I'd be curious to hear about this too. I like all their products - I forgot, how long AF have been back to year round? I've seen their 777 inbound a few times this winter, so hopefully that's an indicator that they're doing well and not just equipment subs :bigthumbsup:

I think KE is doing just fine based on the fares that I check regularly with them to ICN and SIN. Let's just say: they are never on sale.
 
Galvan316
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:43 pm

Re: Chicago Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:28 pm

I want to say with pretty much 100% certainty, that the 777 you are seeing is Air France Cargo
ORD and MDW is where youll find Me!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos