HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1281  
Old Posted Dec 31, 2012, 11:46 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^ Though I think they were a little sloppy in placing the "West Bypass" label in that map; I believe it should be along only the north-south portion, while the entire east-west portion is referred to as the Elgin-O'Hare.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1282  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2013, 7:01 PM
Chicago29 Chicago29 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 50
the north and south legs of the bypass are going to be highways, correct? what will they be known as number-wise?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1283  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2013, 8:19 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,853
Nobody knows. I doubt IDOT will seek interstate designation. They might shift IL 19 onto the new expressway (currently it runs along Irving Park).
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1284  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 2:31 AM
kbud kbud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 92
ORD modernization and A380 and 747-8 ready

The new runways at O'Hare are a great move forward. The proposed west roads described in the previous threads are great proposals too. But the terminals at O'Hare are in major need of being updated. Despite the terminal 5 "food court and shopping" facelift, it is crowded and behind the other int'l terminals in the US - it's only going to get worse with the recent new int'l additions to O'Hare. I thought there were plans for terminal 2 to be torn down for a new terminal to servce star alliance in addition to a new int'l terminal 4 for one world.

Also can ORD handle the A380 or 747-8 yet? I'm surprised for an airport that was once the busiest in the world and one of the most famous that there is yet to be A380 or 747-8 service. SFO, LAX, MIA, ATL, IAD, IAH and JFK all have it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1285  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2013, 2:38 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud View Post
The new runways at O'Hare are a great move forward. The proposed west roads described in the previous threads are great proposals too. But the terminals at O'Hare are in major need of being updated. Despite the terminal 5 "food court and shopping" facelift, it is crowded and behind the other int'l terminals in the US - it's only going to get worse with the recent new int'l additions to O'Hare. I thought there were plans for terminal 2 to be torn down for a new terminal to servce star alliance in addition to a new int'l terminal 4 for one world.

Also can ORD handle the A380 or 747-8 yet? I'm surprised for an airport that was once the busiest in the world and one of the most famous that there is yet to be A380 or 747-8 service. SFO, LAX, MIA, ATL, IAD, IAH and JFK all have it.
I agree. However the renovation must mean there are not going to be any new terminal for many years, as that is usually how it works. On the positive side, it will have one of the best airfields in the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1286  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2013, 4:18 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,830
I said about a month ago that Emirates was going to start service to ORD in 2013. What prompted me to say that was the fact that they requested gate space starting in 2013. Well that doesn't look like it's going to happen now due to Terminal 5 being maxed out during the prime times. Emirates wasn't able to get a gate at a time they wanted. But hey, the reason for that is so many other airlines have announced new or expanded service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1287  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2013, 7:13 PM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
I said about a month ago that Emirates was going to start service to ORD in 2013. What prompted me to say that was the fact that they requested gate space starting in 2013. Well that doesn't look like it's going to happen now due to Terminal 5 being maxed out during the prime times. Emirates wasn't able to get a gate at a time they wanted. But hey, the reason for that is so many other airlines have announced new or expanded service.
Unfortunately, EK say that they are not interested ORD service. Because QR/EY has already existing. It's too much competition against EY & QR. I don't think ever start ORD service in a distant the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1288  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2013, 2:02 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
Unfortunately, EK say that they are not interested ORD service. Because QR/EY has already existing. It's too much competition against EY & QR. I don't think ever start ORD service in a distant the future.
They don't "say" that at all. In fact, they are always talking about Chicago as being one of their next North American destinations. If EY and QR are too much competition then why do they serve Washington DC which has far more competition to the middle east (even United directly on IAD-DXB) and half the metro population.

Another slight possibility revolves around the partnership talks currently going on between Emirates and American. Emirates could feed an American ORD-DXB flight in exchange for American feeding Emirates DFW, JFK, and LAX flights. That would save AA passengers from having to make two connections from a lot of airports to DXB. I'd say unlikely though.

Last edited by Kngkyle; Jan 15, 2013 at 6:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1289  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2013, 10:58 PM
kbud kbud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 92
Hainan and Int'l Gate Space

Hainan Airlines officially announced ORD service starting in September with 4 flights per week departing at 3:30 pm. I wish them luck amidst 3 nonstops on 4 days a week between Chicago and Beijing. With American seemingly struggling on this route it seems suspect to launch. With all the new int'l carriers coming in this year, and the posted rumors above about Emirates not having favorable slot times, I'm surprised the city isn't looking at plans on increasing int'l gate space. What happened to the plan (forgot the name) that was announced about 12 years ago that included a new terminal 4 for One World and redoing Terminal 2 for Star? It is nice to see ORD's new runways but their terminal space is not keeping up compared to ATL, DTW, SFO or LAX for int'l travel demands.

Last edited by kbud; Jan 30, 2013 at 6:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1290  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2013, 4:10 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud View Post
What happened to the plan (forgot the name) that was announced about 12 years ago that included a new terminal 4 for One World and redoing Terminal 2 for Star? It is nice to see ORD's new runways but their terminal space is not keeping up compared to ATL, DTW, SFO or LAX for int'l travel demands.
This seems worth discussing more here and perhaps even trying to advocate somehow. We have lots of fanciful talk in this forum about dream projects and visions of what someone's ideal terminal would look like if they found gold under Lake O'Hare (I should say, oil), but this seems more realistic, and addresses a present, concrete need, and raises a good point about the alliance-grouped reconfigurations going on at other world hubs.

For example, if T5 is overflowing, why aren't more Star Alliance departures shifted to T1, where Lufthansa and ANA already enjoy check-in counters? I realize there may be capacity constraints at T1 too (then, just redistribute to T2) and LH and NH have close codeshare arrangements with UA, but still, it would make sense. After all, Lufthansa owns a fistful of other Star Alliance carriers, like Swiss International, so we are not talking about anything particularly more complex than what already exists.

--------

Just to drop in an update on a recent topic, Qatar Airways is doing radio commercials about its ORD service beginning April 10, pitching their convenience to accessing Asia, Australia, and other exotic regions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1291  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2013, 5:53 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
This seems worth discussing more here and perhaps even trying to advocate somehow. We have lots of fanciful talk in this forum about dream projects and visions of what someone's ideal terminal would look like if they found gold under Lake O'Hare (I should say, oil), but this seems more realistic, and addresses a present, concrete need, and raises a good point about the alliance-grouped reconfigurations going on at other world hubs.

For example, if T5 is overflowing, why aren't more Star Alliance departures shifted to T1, where Lufthansa and ANA already enjoy check-in counters? I realize there may be capacity constraints at T1 too (then, just redistribute to T2) and LH and NH have close codeshare arrangements with UA, but still, it would make sense. After all, Lufthansa owns a fistful of other Star Alliance carriers, like Swiss International, so we are not talking about anything particularly more complex than what already exists.

--------

Just to drop in an update on a recent topic, Qatar Airways is doing radio commercials about its ORD service beginning April 10, pitching their convenience to accessing Asia, Australia, and other exotic regions.
It is going to get really full at the domestic terminals this summer so they won't have any room either. Also Qatar will leaving their aircraft at ORD for 8 hours on a long turn so that does not help with space. Atleast the new Air Berlin flights will be on faster turns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1292  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2013, 10:06 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1 Tommy View Post
It is going to get really full at the domestic terminals this summer so they won't have any room either. Also Qatar will leaving their aircraft at ORD for 8 hours on a long turn so that does not help with space. Atleast the new Air Berlin flights will be on faster turns.
It wont be taking up gate space for 8 hours. They will move the plane to a remote stand.

Here is the gate usage at Terminal 5 throughout the day this summer. Bear in mind that some gates only fit narrow body aircraft and some gates are blocked off or size restricted if a neighboring gate is occupied. However, there is still some available space available during peak times.

All together it's 60 international destinations to 27 countries.



Down to only 2 passenger daily 747 flights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1293  
Old Posted Feb 9, 2013, 10:20 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
It wont be taking up gate space for 8 hours. They will move the plane to a remote stand.

Here is the gate usage at Terminal 5 throughout the day this summer. Bear in mind that some gates only fit narrow body aircraft and some gates are blocked off or size restricted if a neighboring gate is occupied. However, there is still some available space available during peak times.

All together it's 60 international destinations to 27 countries.



Down to only 2 passenger daily 747 flights.
If you call L8 the remote stand
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1294  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2013, 3:55 PM
kbud kbud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1 Tommy View Post
If you call L8 the remote stand
If the matrix is correct, only the 2 Lufthansa 747-400 flights and the one KLM 747-4Combi flight. I still find it hard to believe that United no longer will serve ORD with the bird. I wonder in the future when they take delivery of the A350s if they'll all be based out of SFO solely or if United will bring back any of these to ORD. If it will be their largest plane, I'd like to see it in Chicago. It is strange how no carriers operate the 380 or 747-8 to ORD when it is going to places like MIA, ATL, SFO and even Dulles.

But on the bright side, ORD seems to have more int'l carriers than ever. Emirates and Singapore Air are probably the most notable gaps. I know Singapore tried through AMS a while back that didn't succeed and I've read the rumors of Emirates flirting with launching ORD service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1295  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2013, 7:11 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
Here is the gate usage at Terminal 5 throughout the day this summer.
That is SO COOL. I've never seen a chart like this. I assume this was prepared by the airport (or immigration/customs?) as opposed to by one of the airlines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud View Post
I wonder in the future when they take delivery of the A350s if they'll all be based out of SFO solely or if United will bring back any of these to ORD. If it will be their largest plane, I'd like to see it in Chicago.
What do you mean - I believe no A350 will be larger than the 773 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud View Post
It is strange how no carriers operate the 380 or 747-8 to ORD when it is going to places like MIA, ATL, SFO and even Dulles.
Do people know, is ORD taxiway construction/widening needed for the 747-8 too, or just the A380?

Is terminal/gate construction (beyond just getting more/longer jetbridges) needed for the 747-8, or just the A380?

What is the status of plans to do these construction projects?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1296  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2013, 6:09 PM
kbud kbud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
That is SO COOL. I've never seen a chart like this. I assume this was prepared by the airport (or immigration/customs?) as opposed to by one of the airlines?

What do you mean - I believe no A350 will be larger than the 773 ?

Do people know, is ORD taxiway construction/widening needed for the 747-8 too, or just the A380?

Is terminal/gate construction (beyond just getting more/longer jetbridges) needed for the 747-8, or just the A380?

What is the status of plans to do these construction projects?
United doesn't fly or have orders for the 777-300ER, but they do have orders for the A350-900. The A350-900 is 64.7 meters in length compared to the 63.7 of the 777-200ER that United flies today. United has publically stated that they will retire the 747-400 fleet and replace it with the A350. There has been chatter that they may adjust the order for the A350-1000 as an alternative. They have not publically shown interest in the A380 or the 747-800.

The Airbus A350-1000 will be 74.3 meters in length while the 777-300ER is only 73.9 meters in length.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1297  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2013, 11:05 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^ The info I found had the A350-1000 length at 73.88m, smaller than the 777-300 -- but I'm assuming your source is better (airliners.net? boeing.com?).

However I am surprised that all UA 777s are 200s, with no 300s (I haven't paid attention to variant when I've flown on them, though I do keep tabs on the ongoing major interior rebuilds on the 777s) nor any on order. I also didn't realize they put in orders for the A350. These two things seem to suggest they had no plans to take deliveries of new jumbo jets for like over a half-decade or possibly even an entire decade. Maybe that is not surprising given the long recession and the spike in oil prices just before it.

But why did they choose A350 instead of 777-300/ER for their 300 to 400 seat jumbo class? Wouldn't it be better to have maintenance commonalities with one giant 777 fleet? Was it the desire to keep 2 instead of just 1 main suppliers? Was it some technology that A350 has over the twenty-year-old 777, including fuel efficiency? Or was it just the physical configurations being offered? Also, were those A350 orders placed by CO, by pre-merger UA, or by post-merger UA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1298  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2013, 2:20 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
But why did they choose A350 instead of 777-300/ER for their 300 to 400 seat jumbo class? Wouldn't it be better to have maintenance commonalities with one giant 777 fleet? Was it the desire to keep 2 instead of just 1 main suppliers? Was it some technology that A350 has over the twenty-year-old 777, including fuel efficiency? Or was it just the physical configurations being offered? Also, were those A350 orders placed by CO, by pre-merger UA, or by post-merger UA?
The 777-300ER is considerably larger than the A350-900 that United ordered: 70 more seats in a 3-class configuration. Plus as you said, the technology is older, fuel burn higher, and United doesn't need the planes quickly so they can wait for the A350. United placed the order for them prior to the merger and so far there hasn't been any sign that they no longer want the plane. However, since they placed the order Boeing has come out and said they will be updating the 777 with 2 new models to be ready sometime in the early 2020s.

I believe there was an article last year from a reputable source that said United (post-merger) was evaluating the 777-300ER (I'd presume the 2 new models as well) and 747-8. I hope they go for the 747-8 to replace the 744s but I don't think it's going to happen. Replacing the 744s with A350-900s as they say they will doesn't make much sense to me though, since the A350-900 has 100 less seats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1299  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2013, 7:29 AM
DCCliff DCCliff is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 88
Is this thread about the O'Hare physical expansion plans/programs, or about airline service and aircraft characteristics?????
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1300  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2013, 2:21 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCCliff View Post
Is this thread about the O'Hare physical expansion plans/programs, or about airline service and aircraft characteristics?????
In the skyscraper highrise sections they discuss the tenants that will anchor and fill a building. Likewise we talk about the tenants that will fill and drive more expansion at the airport.

So yes, it is both expansion plans/programs and airline service to help fill the new expansion and drive future growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.