So are the statistics available yet as to whether ORD was world's busiest airfield in 2016?

https://twitter.com/united/status/816442472972828672

Is Lufthansa left as the only pax 747 operator at ORD or are there some other Asian (or European) carriers as well?

Note: A supersized version of this gorgeous photo is available through the twitter post.

There are a handful of other 747 pax operators. British Airways, KLM, and Lufthansa first come to mind. Lufthansa flies their new 747-8i, so the queen of the skies is nowhere near becoming extinct at ORD.

Asiana sometimes uses the 74M and Korean the 748 to ORD.

I was going to say Air India, but I see they're flying 777s now. . .

. . .

First UAL 777-300 came into ORD last Friday. One is sitting by the UAL hangar today.

Fuel economy of various jetliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
over 6,000 n.miles, 11,000 kilometers
747-400 = 11.11 kg/km (39.4 lb/mi) or 3.26 L/100 km (72 mpg-US
777-300ER = 8.49 kg/km (30.1 lb/mi) or 2.84 L/100 km (83 mpg-US)

United 747-400 seating capacity https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...7/default.aspx
= first 12, business 52, economy plus 88, economy 222, Total 374
United 777-300ER seating capacity https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...0/default.aspx
= business 60, economy plus 102, economy 204, Total 366

With about the same number of seats, the 777 is (?) more fuel efficient as the 747.
kg/km = 23%, lb/mi = 23%, L/100 km = 13%, and mpg = 13%
When jetliners fly thousands of miles each and every day, that's a lot of fuel savings per plane. And this one statistic has had more impact than others on why twin engine wide body aircraft are replacing four engine aircraft.

^ People aren't fond of the 747 just because of its beautiful form, and its illustrious history, but also because airlines now have decided to configure the 777 as incredibly uncomfortable. Smaller and fewer lavatories, yet 10-abreast, while still not new enough to attain higher pressurization and humidity or larger windows like the 787 or 350. Pointing out the widely known fact of twin engine efficiency doesn't change any of those sentiments.

I might get excited about the folding wings of the 777X or its slightly wider cabin, but it still won't be a 747.

It's those twin engine efficiencies that allow cheaper fares, or higher profits at the same fares, whatever the particular airline company prefers. :cool:

Technically, Being could redesign the 747 wing to support the heavier engines and reconfigure it as a twin engine jet if they wished. But I'm not sure any airline would buy it instead of a 777.

O'Hare FY 2016 traffic numbers are in..

77,960,588 passengers, increase of 1.3% over 2015
867,635 operations, decrease of 0.9% over 2015
1,726,362 cargo tonnes, decrease of 0.9% over 2015

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollec...%20SUMMARY.pdf

^ I though operations were on trajectory to hit a million; are they decreasing because of cargo? Why is cargo down?

And, the future begins, now.


http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/...1.jpg&maxw=600


It's clearly a very rough draft, but this represents the end of 20 years' dormancy in terminal expansion and the first discernible kickoff of the next decade or two of ORD's life. (So to recognize 2017 as a landmark year here, I'm making this my 3000th post on SSP.) (Ok, total coincidence.)

www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170128/ISSUE01/170129841/at-chicagos-ohare-airport-negotiations-with-airlines-get-serious

The article has some depressing statistics on flaccid passenger growth at O'Hare versus virtually all other big hubs in the country over the last fifteen years. But it adds one interesting factor:

Demonstrates how City finance issues have a lasting impact on customer growth at airports over the long term.

Although the above proposal looks like a rough sketch (Concourse C looks the wrong size; can't really imagine they'd shorten it), it's consistent with the fact that runway 15/33 will be the next crosswind to be eliminated. Expansion westwards from Concourse C could still happen as well, but that would most likely require 4L/22R closure, which would be further down the timetable if it happens at all.

Moreover, per the same article, it looks like no terminal project is planned for the west end of the airfield.
I think this is the right decision; among other things it would have been expensive and complicated to set up and operate simultaneous airside and landside shuttles between west and east terminals (compounded by the fact they'd be upwards of 1 mile apart, and serving nothing else along that stretch). Access from the west suburbs to the terminal complex can instead be facilitated by simpler means. Chicago also has every incentive to refrain from diverting hotel, car rental, parking, etc. development, jobs, and tax revenue to Bensenville or Elk Grove.

west end was probably always not a good idea
keep everything on east side - also chart from 2002
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/Asset...comparison.jpg

So...Is terminal 2 going to be international & domestic flight? Will they have CBP facility at entire terminal 2? They don't have to go to entire terminal 5 anymore. UA will stays at entire terminal 1 & 2, as well as United Express gates. What about Delta? Will they ever moved to new terminals or not?

Probably a good bet they will include international arrivals facilities. They need more of them, even if T5 gets some expansion. Also, alliances really want to co-locate. Finally, this sketch suggests a pretty large main building for T2, large enough for international arrivals -- and for the $$-producing duty free shopping mall that modern airport developers crave.

As for Delta, the only inference here is that there will be an increase in number of gates and there will be more space for them. It's probably meaningless to make further predictions over this sketch at this stage though.

I know it's vague sketch but if they are going to take part of the G concourse for the T2 expansion I guess AA will end up with all of T3 and the low cost guys will head over to T5. Doubting that AA would have put a new lounge in the L concourse if they didn't envision getting all of it eventually.

^ That has to be an inaccuracy in the diagram; it would be a weird tradeoff to give up the entire west side of Concourse G just for one additional T2 widebody.

The idea of making T5 a low-cost terminal is tantalizing, as it's aging and isolated, and other airports often site LCCs in a separated, slightly less convenient area. So, plan T2 so that eventually (after some phases) it will house all international arrivals and foreign carriers. If T5 doesn't get filled up by LCCs, maybe it also could be a mini Skyteam hub.

Yes, I am pretty confident that. ULCC will moved over to terminal 5. That way AA will takeover at the entire concourse L gates. I remember when Delta used at the entire concourse L gates for over 2 decades now. When they moved to terminal 2 right after Northwest airlines is merged with Delta.

T5 has no plan for all the low cost carriers yet(notice all the open spots on one of the concourses). T2 most likely will get international UAL and partner flights. The city is changing plans as they go along so it's anybody's guess.