Biggest potential for change may be this line in the article:
Naturally UA and AA would strenuously fight a large Delta presence, but if their monopolistic/duopolistic desires can be kept in check by city planners --- could ORD grow into the country's only tri-carrier hub (of mega carriers)? It wouldn't be a full-fledged Delta hub by any stretch, but, currently, DL doesn't fly anywhere from ORD other than its own big hubs. Presumably they'd much prefer ORD over nearby DTW in many ways, at least to the extent they wouldn't significantly sacrifice the benefits of their effective monopoly in Detroit. Since we're talking about multi-decade timeframes, you have to wonder whether a mid-21st-century bet on Detroit, as a major city and economic center that can support an inter-continental gateway, makes much sense (sorry!).

Anyhow, can't wait for tomorrow's presentation.

Why can't Chicago tell American to move their HQ here? OHare duopoly as leverage

Delta clearly wants to re-expand outside hub service if they're desiring a "significant" expansion, which their current gate count is more than sufficient to service. The idea of Delta rebuilding a hub here does not seem far fetched now.

The city has literally tons of leverage with the gate leases expiring for the entire airport coming up soon. If Delta wants 'significant' expansion then that makes three heavyweights with big pocketbooks and huge quarterly profits who will be fighting to control as many gates as they can. The city can basically say 'alright, you will get gates based on how much money you commit to the airport's terminal redevelopment' and then it becomes a 3-way bidding war. The airlines didn't really kick in anything (that I'm aware of) for the runway expansion, instead just letting the city to increase the passenger fees.

Which raises some interesting questions about western access. I agree that a western terminal may be unneeded especially given the new plan, but a western access point with a dropoff zone, an underground people mover connection and security checkpoints could be built at a fraction of the cost.

If they restricted the access point to only those passengers without checked bags (or forced passengers to gate check), it would simplify things even more. Maybe they could even build a surface-level busway across the airfield with a few taxiway underpasses to avoid the cost of a rail system.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...715-story.html

It was said in one of the articles that there was 6 potential layouts of the reconstruction of the new terminals presented at the conference. I've seen one but would love to see the others.

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/n...tional.html#i1

Not the best picture but you can make out generally what they're thinking about satellite concourses in the midfield. The slides don't seem to be online anywhere I can locate.

Looks like their really just spit-balling ideas and nothing is really settled on, apart from the T5 expansion.

Is there a diagram of the proposed added gates for T5?

From Curbed- http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/7/18/...-ohare-airport
https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-vJ...iation%202.png


Interesting to see the 'central facility' renderings. This is probably many years away and probably one of many proposed ideas. Interesting idea to try to maximize space. That would be a ma$$ive project. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ens-soon-after
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...-160719865.jpg

I was about to try and post that picture. I saw a blurb that said there were six options presented. This one seems to unnecessarily do away with Terminal 3/AA, but wow, quite a vision for the future!

According of ORD terminal map. Is that RJ gates in the midfield satellite terminal? I thought it was for deicing pads. :???: Can you please explain to me. What is the plan for ORD terminal renovation?

Thank you for the diagram. I also saw the same subject come up in airliners.net, which had the same diagram, albeit smaller size:
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewt...?f=3&t=1337937

The rendering should not be considered "gospel", with the possible exception of the new international terminal gates. United and American have a lot of say in the process, and I'm sure that the configuration provided is not what they have in mind. In fact, I'm sure some of us could come up with something better.

I wonder if United and American will transfer all their international flights to the international terminal in order to free up gate space in their existing concourses?

Delta and American
 

The tough part about ORD is that you can't just close a terminal down as the airport is so busy. I wonder if Delta actually moves to T5. They can begin to construct some remote new T2 gates/concourses then eventually tear down the Delta finger in T2.

I also wonder if AA 's new L concourse Eagle gates will allow them to move out of their current Eagle concourse between T2 and T3 as an interim step. Then UA can move their express gates in T2 to AA's old Eagle concourse (per point above), then T2 can be demolished at once.

Problem solved:)

No shots of the A-380 from today?

Not my pictures, pulling these from facebook.

http://kngkyle.com/uploads/193200.png

http://kngkyle.com/uploads/193235.png

My recollection is that the new L gates are just for E175s which are too big to fit in the G gates and are sucking up valuable space in H/K. I presume as more and more E series planes are flown by American's regional partners we'll eventually see G (at least in part) reconfigured for them. The addition is also way to small to handle all of AA's regional needs so there's no way they're giving up the G concourse.

The A380 is not as big as everyone thinks...Its 10 feet shorter than a 747 8I but it does have a huge wing wich the airlines(Emirates) wants them to shrink along with adding newer engines. The 777X10 will kill that project and put the A380 into the history(unless the European Union wants to blow a lot of money. Since the wings are made in England I am not sure the Brits will go for that again) books if Boeing ever builds it. This will be the second time Boeing kills an Airbus 4 engine aircraft(777 VS A340)

The A380 is definitely on it's way out over the long term regardless. Boeing and Airbus's order books are chocked full of demand for twinjets. This is good for Chicago since the 787/A350 (and Boeing's potential 757 replacement) are excellent fits for our market's international reach.

Although not as long this aircraft kind of reminds me of the A380. Built by Convair in 1947!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convai...ight_c1949.jpg

So this thing was still there as of yesterday evening. . . any idea why? (If this is already discussed in a posted article, forgive me)

. . .

That is strange and doesn't line up with what Flightaware shows. Are you certain it was a A380 and not the usual 777 that flies the route?

I understand it was delayed due to damage.(jet Bridge damage)

Yea, they ran the jet bridge into it, but the damage was minor and patched up quickly. It left only an hour late and was only here for a few hours on 7/19/16. Tom is getting old and his eyes mustn't be what they used to be. ;) Here is a video of the departure.

• Video Link


Expect to see another carrier fly the A380 in for another one-time trial soon. I'm not sure which airline, but probably either Lufthansa, Korean Air, British Airways, or perhaps Qatar Airways. Word is the Qatar flight is one of the best performing routes they have to the US, if not the best. That is largely due to their codeshare agreement with American Airlines.

^ Will they fly them in with styrofoam padding where the jetbridges attach? Jeez that sounds like an embarrassing mistake. Did they design something wrong? It sounds like a story you'd hear from a new airport in Nowherestan, central Asia.

The damage was done by the jetbridge manufactures people. Not to much damage, just a small dent that had to be mapped.


By the way, AA is flying 777-300's on their evening LHR flights almost daily now.

Jet Bridge
 

That is amazing that the jet bridge manufacturer's employee did that. What type of fix would Emirates need to do to this aircraft?

Other than this event with the jetbridge, was the event considered a success for ORD? Any news on if any of the carriers will be scheduling routine A380 service to ORD or just more "tests"?

Can T5 really handle 9 additional gates? From the images, It seems like just a peer extension and that they'd use the existing FIS facilities that serve the current 21 gates. I wouldn't want to be inside between noon and 7 pm if so...

Perfect takeoff from ORD. I can see that. How is EK doing at ORD? How are they? I am pretty sure the airlines will decide to bring A380 into ORD. It will happens.

OHare has big jump in cargo y/y
 

Cargo increased 20% yr over yr 2014-2015.

According to most recent FAA stats

Chicago OHare is 4th largest cargo airport (by lbs)after Anchorage, Memphis(FDX), Louisville(UPS)

4 IL ORD Chicago O'Hare International Chicago (2015)9,063,805,029 (2014)7,541,411,779 +20.19%

That new Northern Cargo terminal my be needed soon:)

Edit: BTW: Chicago-Rockford is 31st in nation.

Passenger numbers also continue to increase, but not by as much as last year. Sitting at about 3.5% increase YTD. June 2016 was the best June ever - just over 7.3m passengers. July and August tend to be the busiest months. There is a decent chance that O'Hare will top 80 million this year.

Top 10 from last year:

http://kngkyle.com/uploads/113651.png

I had an interesting exchange with a SunTimes columnist this morning. According to the FAA/DOT ORD is 3rd busiest US airport based on enplanements, behind ATL and LAX. However, ORD per Airports Council International (ACI) is 2nd busiest passenger airport in the USA. I would appreciate if someone could help clarify. This reporter was trying to cite DOT as being more accurate than ACI, but I would like to know what is the correct measurement.

I'm not positive here, but perhaps one is looking at just O&D traffic (origin & destination - people only coming/going to Chicago) while the other is counting connecting passengers as well. The generally accepted way is to include all passengers not just O&D.

Thank you, that is what I thought.

In all fairness ANC is almost exclusively a refueling stop and not a final offload point. The other top 2 and ORD are mainly final offload points.

Found this presentation. Shows one other potential layout:

http://www.flychicago.com/airportind...ation_2016.pdf

Thank you for that presentation.

I was messing around with the idea of moving the crosswind 4R/22L runway to the northwest. I think this is perfectly doable, and is probably a better migration plan. This helps solve keeping the crosswind runway useful rather than having it cross 2 main runways. I reused the existing runway and taxiway as the new A/B taxiways, which the presentation above alluded to anyway. Also, this expands the core area, allowing another concourse for UA and a migration plan to change T2. The new runway 9C/27C would need to be shortened on the west end to allow 4R/22L to operate, just like 10C/28C is shortened on the east end. I did have to adjust the angle of the runway by another 7 degrees.

http://jenner1a.tripod.com/webonmedi...?1471149621279

I wonder if anyone at FlyChicago would even listen to this.

^ I think you meant 4L/22R. Your image is failing to display at this moment, but I wonder where you put its northeast end. Recently I have been thinking about how easy it might be to reroute, eliminate, or just bury Higgins, to get a little more length on that end. Although the issue of aircraft clearing the expressway still would remain.

AA will be starting seasonal Chicago to Barcelona service next summer. They also are canceling their Chicago to Dusseldorf service, although it's not yet clear if this is a full cancellation or if Oneworld partner Air Berlin will take over the route (Dusseldorf is their hub).

The alliance partner route handover scenario seems likely; it happens often across all the USA's intl gateway airports.

Germany
 

Didnt Lufthansa also just cancel their Düsseldorf to ORD route? I thought this would help AA as lot.

Six Potential Options to Redevelop O'Hare
 

Very cool concepts! Looks like O'Hare will be under continual construction for decades.

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/locator.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option1.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option2.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option3.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option4.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option5.png

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/ohare...gs/option6.png
Source: Chicago Tribune

Wowza. Those are some interesting ideas. Big changes coming, that's for sure!

I like Option 3. It's big and bold! Option 1 is similar. The 5th is interesting.

Hmm. Well, now we know the city is serious about an O'Hare express, prefers a mainline rail solution, and is willing to make some expensive changes to the terminal complex to bring the express train either into the existing Blue Line subway station, or a new underground station that is adjacent.

Each of these visions shows a line entering the airport on the axis of Balmoral Ave, probably from a connection to the Metra NCS line. How it gets from there to downtown remains to be seen, altghough there are really only two corridors they can use (Metra MD-W or CTA Forest Park Branch/CN Waukesha Sub)

I think I am agree with that. I like option 3. It's very big airport. It's right choice for me. There will be no terminal 1, 2, and 3. It's gonna to changes.

These seem like arbitrary visions by some introductory planning class, since they don't seem to consider phasing or costs (e.g., the mere idea of tearing down T5, which actually is now being expanded, is unrealistic). However, the fact that they are willing to start thinking way outside the box is excellent.

One potential outside the box idea that they did not include: I-190 no longer needs to bow southwards to tangent at T5. It could be straightened from Mannheim to run due west all the way to the terminal loop. Obviously that's very expensive, but all of these plans are in the double-digit billions and the straightening would add tons more terminal/tarmac space north of T5. Conversely, if I-190 isn't straightened, it may be very difficult to make productive use of the pockets of land where Hertz/Avis, taxi staging, and no-longer-necessary empty space currently are.

One thing not mentioned in Schwieterman's commentary: Scheme #2 could create the world's longest building.

I think the first plan is very interesting. Nested terminals in the same loop, I assume the new one is for international airlines. Still doesn't provide western access but is that necessary? (I don't live there) It seems like an elegant solution.

This is perfect, since there's a swath of unused land in Rosemont (and/or Chicago / Schiller Park) where a flyover/tunnel from NCS could be built to get on the Balmoral alignment, and then there is a dilapidated roadway r-o-w going west from there to T5 that could be excavated or built upon. Even west of T5 there are a couple stretches that would not be too horrible to run tracks through.

Unfortunately you need to know a little about the basic terminal layout to decide where to put the tunnel, so it could be a really long time before any airport express is running. I suppose they could tentatively run it down the existing NCS trackage to a temporary station at the CONRAC as a preliminary phase.