The 3rd plan is probably the most efficient layout and includes western access, but would come at a huge cost. The 6th plan is the only somewhat realistic plan that can be done in phases at not-monumental costs. It can also do without an expensive underground people mover, even though that is in the plan.

plan four seems the most practical

Implementation
 

Cost will of course be the biggest factor, but a close 2nd will be how the project is phased in; you can't just shut ORD down. The 3rd option might be the easiest to phase in as you can work on the main terminal with at least 4 concourses without disrupting current ops. BUT I can't see them doing any project that involves tearing down T1 or T5.

My 2 cents.

SLAC Klystron gallery is two miles long:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAC_National_Accelerator_Laboratory

^ Thanks; however the LHC is 17 miles long. Tunnels and similar structures above ground that aren't actually occupied by people, but instead are merely installed with equipment whose purpose is just to help some object transit through, while interesting, aren't really apt comparisons.

Eva Air new service to Taipei, Taiwan started on November 2nd. Also United 777-300 service to start from Chicago early next year replacing old 747-400's.



http://www.aviationpros.com/press_re...ago-and-taipei

Also from the same link, Terminal 5 hotel info:



RFPs Announced for Hotel Development Projects at O'Hare International Airport


http://www.aviationpros.com/press_re...tional-airport

Where is it? I don't see a link. Can you find it?

Does anybody have any recent photos or know how things are progressing over at the new consolidated facility along Mannheim? I heard from a friend that they've made significant progress over the past several months.

^ from Ross Barney Architects' instagram:

https://instagram.com/p/BM2TfMWBFxi/

Thank you kindly!

Where did you hear this - most were speculating they were going to EWR and SFO. Though it makes sense because UA's 744s are mostly serving SFO and ORD, with perhaps none at EWR, and they're all due to exit the fleet over the next 24 months.

Also, biggest question is whether they're succumbing to the 10-abreast economy trend (which for now they've limited only to their domestic 772 fleet). Even as DL and AA are inaugurating premium economy with 8 abreast.

Looks like we will be seeing some domestic expansion from United @ ORD. With the domestic economy being stronger than the global economy, and United having the biggest international network and smallest domestic network of the 4 majors, they are going to right-size their domestic operations according to their new leadership.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/smaller-...ted-1479491156

They have also announced an order for 24 Embraer 175s, which seat 70-90 people and are ideal for smaller routes.

LAX has passed ORD as second in passenger traffic for the USA after ATL. To be honest ORD was to slow to modernize and start building new terminals. But the advent of the longer range 787 and A350/777X will begin to eat away at LAX in the coming years as more long range flights can make it to almost anywhere in the USA/N.A. That will also help kill the pax 747 and A380 in the long term.
If Chicago did nothing I think they would get number 2 back in a few years because of that. What they really need to do is go after ATL and number 1. ATL is half the size of Chicago, and most of it's traffic is connecting.

August 2015 -July 2016 pax stats

ATL 103,728,564

LAX 78,367,908

ORD 78, 130,954


ORD still has the most take off and landing statistics due to it's CARGO ranking and numerous smaller regional flights

^ And it does it with just a max of 2 parallel arrival streams (it's safe to assume?).

I feel your 787/777X/350 theory only goes so far, because LAX has a higher percentage of o&d passengers, and because airlines like to use hubs (along with all the in-terminal staff and amenities that go with them). I would think most of LAX's traffic loss due to the new twin-engine long-haul aircraft would be limited to Denver and a small number of similar secondary hubs; I would think eventual intercontinental flights to non-hubs like, let's say, Phoenix, Nashville, Austin or the like, would not proliferate to a major degree. (Phoenix being a non-hub from the point of view of UA or DL.)

By the way, looking at the aerial view of LAX on Google, what's with all the green paint along the edges of all the taxiways? Is this a new thing nationwide? Is it because of the A380 or something? It just looks like it's temporary or something. Maybe it's the spring planting season for flowers in Socal.

Flew in the other day and saw the L concourse 5 gate expansion for AA's E175s is well into foundation work. Conrac slowly but surely coming along. Phase 1 of the Aeroterm facility looks complete and operational.

Here's what someone on a TripAdvisor forum (who has 26000 posts there) wrote over the weekend. (Is your source more definitive?)

(emphasis mine) (link)


Incidentally, the comment about Chicago losing transpacific capacity assumes that frequency isn't increased. (Ultimately, UA is replacing 20 747s over the next two years; overall it would be a loss of capacity at SFO too if they simply did a 1-for-1 replacement with smaller aircraft. So, presumably the otherwise lost capacity will be replaced with extra aircraft.) The comment assumes that as soon as a 747 is retired from O'Hare, it will be replaced with only one 772 relocated from Newark. That would be a reduction roughly from 370 seats to 270 seats. However, they instead could replace the disappearing 370 seats with two aircraft, one 772 plus another widebody. Also note that O'Hare's 747s currently serve just Tokyo and Shanghai (with O'Hare-Beijing already served by 772). Those markets will only have growing demand going forward, especially since they're megahubs, so it wouldn't be surprising to see an increase in the number of daily flights from O'Hare to those cities (or possibly a new route from O'Hare to some other destination in east Asia).

I highly doubt you will see United (or AA) do anything more than 1x daily on their own metal to anywhere in Asia from Chicago. The Chicago to Asia market has been heavily saturated in the past 2 years with the additions of China Eastern to Shanghai, Hainan to Beijing, Cathay Pacific to Hong Kong, and now EVA to Taipei. All of which are hubs for those carriers with easy 1-stop options to every other city in Asia. During peak times there are 3x daily flights to both Shanghai and Beijing and 5x daily to Tokyo. Roundtrip tickets are pretty easily had for sub-$600 and almost all carriers have reduced frequencies to less than daily in response.

The only transpac growth I see from ORD is with new carriers not currently serving the airport. So the likes of Air China to Beijing, Singapore Airlines to Singapore, Qantas to Brisbane/Sydney, or Air New Zealand to Auckland. I suppose AA could plug the Chicago - Seoul hole for Oneworld.

Transpacific capacity growth out of Chicago has definitely far surpassed demand growth over the past 3-5 years and this isn't even considering the ME3 leeching some of that demand as well.

^ True, and ANA has newly added Tokyo's Haneda as well.

But UA does keep adding new China destinations (and Singapore) from SFO, so if that demand exists then theoretically some of it could be satisfied from ORD as well with a new UA route (technically you didn't explicitly address that possibility ... though it's clear you're not optimistic about that either). FWIW UA's highest status travelers are required to fly UA metal to attain/maintain their status, which means UA's most profitable customers will seek to continue to fly UA metal when possible; the airline thus has built-in demand anytime it adds a new route. Those UA flyers in Chicago and points east would most likely prefer to board (or connect to) UA metal at ORD versus taking a Star Alliance partner from ORD or from, say, New York.

just south of airport, south of the big train yards, north of i294
what are they building in the warehouse area??