CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by kbud

I read that United will shortly fly the 777 to Hong Kong and Tokyo from ORD instead of the 747. Does this mean United has no more scheduled 747 service to ORD?

Does anyone have a link to this? This would be a major reduction in capacity, except that it's probably mitigated by added capacity from one or more of the following: Possibly additional 777 (or other aircraft) flights ORD to Tokyo (including based on recently-strengthened codeshare arrangments with ANA); and new Denver-Tokyo service commencing in the spring on one of UA's new 787s. There is also new 787 service by ANA on SEA-NRT and, interestingly, San Jose Calif - NRT in six weeks.

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Why is it sad?

Well the 747 is basically the most iconic and beautiful large-scale passenger aircraft ever -- all more recent aircraft look extremely plain compared to it, including the 787 (though excluding Concorde) -- and ORD is arguably the country's most storied, iconic passenger hub, so seeing no more 747s there would indeed be a sad thing.

Although let's face it, UA's 747s are rather out of date, and the last generation of 747s are fuel hogs anyway. Maybe in the future, 747-8s will proliferate at ORD.

F1 Tommy, what/where is the "UA 747 Base"? Aren't UA's main maintenance facilities in SFO?
Also, are you saying that UA will be flying cargo-only 747s at ORD? Are these -200s? Anyway the cargo base is way at the end of the airfield so I think they're as good as invisible except for a passenger in those moments just before takeoff and after landing.

[Kngkyle]

The reason you won't see many UA 747s at ORD anymore (and why they are closing the pilot base) is because the UA maintenance facility for the 747s is at SFO. Their 747s are getting up there in age and require frequent maintenance and repairs. They have the worst dispatch reliability of the fleet. It's a lot easier to just tow the plane over to the maintenance hanger than have it stuck thousands of miles away in Chicago.

So yes Chicago will lose some 747 flights. But you can look at it as a good thing too - the more modern and reliable aircraft will be used instead.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by denizen467

F1 Tommy, what/where is the "UA 747 Base"? Aren't UA's main maintenance facilities in SFO?
Also, are you saying that UA will be flying cargo-only 747s at ORD? Are these -200s? Anyway the cargo base is way at the end of the airfield so I think they're as good as invisible except for a passenger in those moments just before takeoff and after landing.

UA does not have any cargo only 747's. They did have some DC10-30F aircraft about 10 years ago(Worldwide cargo). Just a UAL pilot base closed at ORD for the 747. ORD has a cargo facility on the north end at the old military area that is very visible to the public. Also you can see all the cargo aircraft on the south end from "new Irving Park Road". They park the 747 8 aircraft on one of the new ramps on that side. It can get a bit crazy at night on the cargo ramps. I counted almost 30 747's one evening on the ground at the same time at ORD(including the Ron UA 747's). Several were in the "Box" waiting for ramp space to open.

[kbud]

Here are the links:

Hong Kong 747 news: http://airlineroute.net/2012/11/09/ua-s13update2/

Narita news: http://airlineroute.net/2012/11/02/ua-ordnrt-jan13

[kbud]

I just read that Air France is reducing their ORD service next year. I know CDG is a Sky Team hub, but why does Air France struggle so much at ORD? When they do fly to ORD it is only with a A332. About a dozen years ago they had daily frequencies with either a 777 or a 74M and a 2nd daily on Sat. They don't struggle at Washington or SFO which are other Star Alliance hubs.

http://airlineroute.net/2012/12/07/af-ordyyz-apr13/

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by kbud

I just read that Air France is reducing their ORD service next year. I know CDG is a Sky Team hub, but why does Air France struggle so much at ORD? When they do fly to ORD it is only with a A332. About a dozen years ago they had daily frequencies with either a 777 or a 74M and a 2nd daily on Sat. They don't struggle at Washington or SFO which are other Star Alliance hubs.

http://airlineroute.net/2012/12/07/af-ordyyz-apr13/

I think it has to do with how weak Delta is at ORD. LH/UA and BA/AA also have so much lift out of ORD they eat up market share via LHR and FRA connections. AF is not flying pax service into ORD right now as Delta sends a 767-300 in for them during the winter. AF only flies 747F and 777F service to ORD now with passenger service coming back in the spring. I do see A332 and on a few days a 777 during the summer.

[aquablue]

When this plan is complete, what a world-class airfield this will be! What world airports can match 8 runways, 6 in basically a parallel format? I can't think of many, perhaps DFW, maybe the future Beijing or Dubai airports. Now to get the terminals and pax ameneties up to 21st century world class standard, that is the challenge over the next 20 years. I would slowly demolish the older terminals first and eventually replace the entire CTA with one mega terminal connected to remote concourses by ATS. So much more practical and convenient for everyone. Pity all the airlines are so against the betterment of the flying experience and only interested in $$$.

[denizen467]

So E-W runway #4 is barely 10 months away. This makes it about 5 years in between new runways for the OMP; par for the course I guess. I assume the south airfield control tower will not be built until the far south runway is ready to open several years from now?


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3680304.story
Chicago settles with Bensenville church over cemetery
December 28, 2012

A lawsuit filed by the city of Chicago to acquire a small cemetery for the O'Hare International Airport expansion project - an action that sparked a five-year court battle and eventually resulted in almost 1,500 reburials - has been settled. ...

All told, 1,494 bodies were disinterred ... . ... The price tag for those services far exceeded the dollar value of the land. The city spent about $17 million on the reburial effort, Cunningham said, with about $11 million paid to The Louis Berger Group. ... More than $5 million was spent on travel for family, memorial replacement and other costs associated ...

... the new airport runway is expected to be operational in October.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by denizen467

So E-W runway #4 is barely 10 months away. This makes it about 5 years in between new runways for the OMP; par for the course I guess. I assume the south airfield control tower will not be built until the far south runway is ready to open several years from now?


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,3680304.story
Chicago settles with Bensenville church over cemetery
December 28, 2012

A lawsuit filed by the city of Chicago to acquire a small cemetery for the O'Hare International Airport expansion project - an action that sparked a five-year court battle and eventually resulted in almost 1,500 reburials - has been settled. ...

All told, 1,494 bodies were disinterred ... . ... The price tag for those services far exceeded the dollar value of the land. The city spent about $17 million on the reburial effort, Cunningham said, with about $11 million paid to The Louis Berger Group. ... More than $5 million was spent on travel for family, memorial replacement and other costs associated ...

... the new airport runway is expected to be operational in October.

Really impressive how O'Hare is building such an impressive airfield despite all the NIMBY issues. Sadly, other congested airports around the country are no so lucky!

[ardecila]

There's no real accountability in the Chicago situation. The majority of airport land is in the city limits, and the city controls the airport, but these expansion areas are inside the boundaries of suburbs like Bensenville and Des Plaines. That means the NIMBYs aren't the ones who elect the mayor and City Council. The NIMBYs are a drop in the bucket to larger governments like the county and state. Therefore, the only way to fight was in the courts, and Chicago did everything by the book.

Areas of the Northwest Side of the city do get significant airport noise, but these are mainly people who grew up with the airport noise, or recent immigrants who are happy to live in safe areas with solid housing stock.

[N830MH]

What about new terminal 6 or gates extension at entire T1, T2, T3? I wasn't sure about this one. I think they need expanding more new gates for international & domestic flight as well. Why we don't consider to renovation at entire concourse H & K gates? How about CBP facility at entire concourse H & K? That way they don't have towed the plane from entire terminal 5. It will help to reduce the congestion. T5 is getting more extremely overcrowded.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by N830MH

What about new terminal 6 or gates extension at entire T1, T2, T3? I wasn't sure about this one. I think they need expanding more new gates for international & domestic flight as well. Why we don't consider to renovation at entire concourse H & K gates? How about CBP facility at entire concourse H & K? That way they don't have towed the plane from entire terminal 5. It will help to reduce the congestion. T5 is getting more extremely overcrowded.

Also, is traffic expected to catch up with this increase in capacity to 8 runways? Last time i looked pax traffic is down at O'hare.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Also, is traffic expected to catch up with this increase in capacity to 8 runways? Last time i looked pax traffic is down at O'hare.

It will probably catch back up eventually.

I'd favor a rebuilding of T2 in its entirety to serve as an international terminal for UA, and an expansion of Concourse L and T3 to serve international operations for AA. Doing this would give each airline at least 20 dedicated gates for international operations that can be used for domestic flights at other times. To me, this is a much better alternative to the whole western terminal complex in both cost and convenience. I honestly doubt that UA or AA find the idea of a western terminal complex desirable as it is because it would be more of a "back door" to Chicago than the front door that currently exists in the form of I-190 and the CTA blue line.

At the very least, there should be an underground walkway between concourse L and the west wing of T5.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

I'd favor a rebuilding of T2 in its entirety

Impossible to deprive the airlines of all of T2's gates during construction, unless done in phases, I presume. I wonder what is the largest portion of T2 or T3 concourses you could shut down for reconstruction without hampering operations? I believe that gate usage is decidedly under capacity, so maybe you could shut down all of, say, E while doing a rebuild + modest expansion of it. Then repeating with F would be easier because you'd have the extra gates on new E.

Anyway, is there really enough expansion space around T2 that would warrant investing in a rebuild? Seems like if you're going to invest in construction from scratch, you might as well get more bang (gates) for the buck. Without jumping to a completely new part of the airfield, it seems only T5 and T3 have space adjacent to them permitting any meaningful expansion.

[Kippis]

The fabled Terminal 6 would most likely be the new Western Terminal Building we've heard so much about -- while the city has no current plans to build one, the Elgin-O'Hare West Bypass would more than likely spur such a development to take place sometime in the future.

As for T2...I would be in support of a complete reconstruction of it, but that would be detrimental to the operation of the airfield unless they had additional gates to handle those lost for the rebuild (i.e. if T6 were already in place). Could you imagine shuttering 38 gates across two concourses for a minimum of 2-3 years at one of the busiest airports in the world with no gates to use in the interim? That'd be a logistical nightmare. Rather, I'm more in favor of what denizen mentioned above: a phased rebuild/possible expansion of facilities with the footprint they already have. As mentioned, the only existing facilities that have enough space to warrant additional gates would either be T3 or T5.

Either way, T2 desperately needs a facelift; while waiting for a flight in June, I had to explain to a couple from Austin that they'd stumbled upon the "ugliest terminal at O'Hare". It was undoubtedly impressive in 1963, but today...

[ardecila]

T2 isn't great, but the amenities are excellent and it is spacious with plenty of light. If you're concerned the finishes look dated, that just requires a renovation.

[eleven=11]

what is the west bypass??

[MayorOfChicago]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

what is the west bypass??

A new tollway set to start construction this year that will start on I-90 northwest of O'hare, circle around the airport to the west and south and connect up with I-294 south of O'hare. There is a second part that is going to pick up the Elgin O'hare Expressway and extend it east into the O'hare area and connect with the new tollway.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by Kippis

The fabled Terminal 6 would most likely be the new Western Terminal Building we've heard so much about -- while the city has no current plans to build one, the Elgin-O'Hare West Bypass would more than likely spur such a development to take place sometime in the future.

As for T2...I would be in support of a complete reconstruction of it, but that would be detrimental to the operation of the airfield unless they had additional gates to handle those lost for the rebuild (i.e. if T6 were already in place). Could you imagine shuttering 38 gates across two concourses for a minimum of 2-3 years at one of the busiest airports in the world with no gates to use in the interim? That'd be a logistical nightmare. Rather, I'm more in favor of what denizen mentioned above: a phased rebuild/possible expansion of facilities with the footprint they already have. As mentioned, the only existing facilities that have enough space to warrant additional gates would either be T3 or T5.

Either way, T2 desperately needs a facelift; while waiting for a flight in June, I had to explain to a couple from Austin that they'd stumbled upon the "ugliest terminal at O'Hare". It was undoubtedly impressive in 1963, but today...

Actually, TSA checkpoint is getting extremely overcrowded and there is no room to additional new checkpoint lane. That's why they do not have enough space. They have to be underway renovation at entire T2 & T3 as well. The lines is too long. It wait for more than 10 minutes. They do not have enough the screeners. That's why they didn't have more helps.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

what is the west bypass??