SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87889)

k1052 Apr 27, 2017 2:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7786735)
^ But aren't profit margins on these flights pretty thin? Especially since they have no business class. ORD landing fees are high and rising.

I wonder what routes would make sense even if isolated at ORD away from their MDW hub.

Unless it were kept to the same scale as Spirit and other discounters at ORD, UA and AA would scream bloody murder about this.

Cities with enough intl connecting traffic and strong o&d (obviously) that are already constrained out of MDW would be the bar for Southwest service out of ORD. Not sure how many routes that will be but I'd suspect that they could keep a few new gates busy at ORD. AA/UA already operate out of other airports with significant Southwest footprints, I don't see any reason that ORD should be kept off limits for to their benefit and flyers detriment.

Gava Apr 28, 2017 10:52 PM

So I'm reading about the lack of gates and the need to build more terminals, even though ORD has more gates than any other airport in the world with something like 180, well maybe Atlanta has more? Isn't it time to start thinking about changing the system with airlines owning gates? I mean, really, 180 gates and still need more even though at any time of the day there are dossens and dossens of unused gates that are unusable because some airline own them.

Wouldn't it be better if all gates were shared between all airlines and the airport operator deciding which plane go to which gate wherever there are unused gates, with such a system I'm pretty sure ORD would never run out of gates. The one thing ORD lack is ramp space where planes can be towed when not used (cleaning and routine maintenace), but there is plenty of space to fix that once 14/32 is closed.

the urban politician Apr 28, 2017 10:58 PM

Not sure why Chicago lets American have such dominance, why not strong arm them into moving their HQ to Chicago?

denizen467 Apr 29, 2017 12:05 PM

^ Having robust hubs for 2 megacarriers is very rare and a great attraction for businesses considering locating in Chicago. Low cost options nevertheless survive, especially at Midway, with Southwest having their #1 hub there (bigger than Dallas, Houston, Denver, Washington, etc.).

As far as AA being based in Chicago, there's probably too much tying them to Dallas, but there may be one more issue. AA doesn't put non-compete clauses in their executives' employment agreements (not sure if this is widespread in the industry or affects mid level staff too), so cross-poaching of industry experts is probably a real concern in the industry. UA just poached its new president (the highly regarded Scott Kirby -- maybe he will replace Oscar Munoz, a railroad guy and accidental CEO, and then handle P.R. disasters a bit better?) and several others from AA over the last year. Having these fiercely competing companies based in very different locales introduces a good amount of friction into the join-the-enemy decision.

kbud Jun 6, 2017 5:55 AM

Anybody Home?
 
Wow, it's been quiet on this board.

Yes, two mega hubs it rare, but I also think it has led to the extreme amounts of regional jets being used out of ORD for all the carriers. By the way, there is NO way American is moving to Chicago.

I'm currently in Asia traveling through Singapore, PVG and HKG. All of those airports have enormous expansion projects in the works. It is a shame that travel and airport infrastructure in the US has deteriorated so much over the last thirty years. Is there any news or a timeline set for when there might be some sort of ORD passenger terminal announcement?

k1052 Jun 6, 2017 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbud (Post 7826085)
Wow, it's been quiet on this board.

Yes, two mega hubs it rare, but I also think it has led to the extreme amounts of regional jets being used out of ORD for all the carriers. By the way, there is NO way American is moving to Chicago.

I'm currently in Asia traveling through Singapore, PVG and HKG. All of those airports have enormous expansion projects in the works. It is a shame that travel and airport infrastructure in the US has deteriorated so much over the last thirty years. Is there any news or a timeline set for when there might be some sort of ORD passenger terminal announcement?

I was not expecting anything major until the city reaches at least the framework of a gate agreement with UA/AA. Evans said a while ago to "ask her in July". I'd expect for word this summer with hopefully a more detailed plan in the fall.

The CONRAC construction is still chugging along and the 5 gate T3 expansion has a bunch of steel up. Last I heard they expected to get started on the 9 gate T5 expansion by the end of the year. Demolition for 9C/27C is also proceeding.

N830MH Jun 6, 2017 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 7826407)

The CONRAC construction is still chugging along and the 5 gate T3 expansion has a bunch of steel up. Last I heard they expected to get started on the 9 gate T5 expansion by the end of the year.

Good! Let see how it goes. Please posts a construction photos. I would like to hear that. Are they going to start constructed the T5 expansion?

kbud Jun 20, 2017 3:39 AM

Supposed big ORD news
 
So the big ORD news today was only about bussing passengers from T3 to T5? Seems rather underwhelming.

denizen467 Jun 20, 2017 5:14 AM

^ Well it's an airside bus, which is huge. Considering it took them like 23 years to figure this out, I'd say it's pretty big news, even though it's mostly only conceptually big, and will benefit only one thousand people per day. But the mere concept of no longer having to exit the airport, take the pokey tram, go through the ridiculously underprovisioned stairs and escalators and elevators up to T5 departures, and then finally be forced to take shoes off and laptop out all over again, is paradigm-breaking.

I think the treatment of internationally-arriving connecting passengers, who have to virtually exit onto the street in their grogginess before moving on to the hoi polloi of T1/T2/T3, is also somewhat substandard. In an ideal world there would be a separate transfer and screening for them, which would now seem doable given all these busses have to drive back from T5 anyway.

Excluding winter from this new TTB service is a little weird though. I guess they haven't figured out how to weatherproof the boarding /alighting portals?

But why did the City cut this deal with AA but not UA? Both AA and UA have co-location in T3 and T1 with their biggest international partners; does AA have some kind of stronger incentive to shuttle its customers to T5 than UA would? After all, UA is even farther away from T5 than AA is.

denizen467 Jun 20, 2017 5:34 AM

^^ Also, if you're underwhelmed by Monday's news, stay tuned Tuesday because there is supposed to be some kind of announcement from the Paris air show kicking off the Boeing 797 project.

Kngkyle Jun 20, 2017 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7839863)
But why did the City cut this deal with AA but not UA? Both AA and UA have co-location in T3 and T1 with their biggest international partners; does AA have some kind of stronger incentive to shuttle its customers to T5 than UA would? After all, UA is even farther away from T5 than AA is.

AA is paying for it. UA didn't want to pay for it. The city just gave them the ok to do it.

N830MH Jun 21, 2017 3:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7840302)
AA is paying for it. UA didn't want to pay for it. The city just gave them the ok to do it.

Actually, UA just ordering 4 77W and 100 737-10MAX. This is conversion orders from 737-9MAX into 737-10MAX.

denizen467 Jun 24, 2017 9:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7840302)
AA is paying for it. UA didn't want to pay for it. The city just gave them the ok to do it.

Right, I'm just wondering why UA opted out (assuming it's not just stinginess). Maybe it would displease NH and LH; or maybe construction of portals at B and C would be too complicated. Kind of a journalism fail, although the reporter might have been up against a deadline.

Kngkyle Jun 25, 2017 7:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by denizen467 (Post 7844804)
Right, I'm just wondering why UA opted out (assuming it's not just stinginess). Maybe it would displease NH and LH; or maybe construction of portals at B and C would be too complicated. Kind of a journalism fail, although the reporter might have been up against a deadline.

An airside bus connection only benefits passengers transferring to T5, not from Terminal 5, since anyone arriving has to go through immigration and leave the secure area in T5. Lufthansa (~1000 passengers per day) and ANA (~700) already depart from Terminal 1. UA might have decided that what remains in T5 isn't worth the cost.

There might be a few others who depart from T1; I only know of LH and ANA for sure.

kbud Jun 29, 2017 7:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 7845322)
An airside bus connection only benefits passengers transferring to T5, not from Terminal 5, since anyone arriving has to go through immigration and leave the secure area in T5. Lufthansa (~1000 passengers per day) and ANA (~700) already depart from Terminal 1. UA might have decided that what remains in T5 isn't worth the cost.

There might be a few others who depart from T1; I only know of LH and ANA for sure.

Star does connect to SAS (2 daily), Swiss (10 or so weekly), Turkish (1 daily), Austrian (1 daily), Asiana (5 weekly), EVA (daily), LOT (2 daily) and Air India (1 daily) all out of T5. Passenger-wise, I'm guessing they connect just as much to T5 as OW.

denizen467 Jun 30, 2017 8:29 AM

^ Yeah, so UA opting out means they can't be bothered with the operating cost; there would be a construction cost that is non-negligible; or they simply want to encourage passengers to lean towards LH and NH for Europe and Asia destinations, respectively, I think.


Separately, the T3 L extension is all framed and visible from the roadway now.

k1052 Jul 5, 2017 2:18 PM

Norwegian Air starting service from ORD to London in July, more destinations probable.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...703-story.html

N830MH Jul 5, 2017 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 7855149)
Norwegian Air starting service from ORD to London in July, more destinations probable.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...703-story.html

Yes, it going to be LGW. It won't be Heathrow.

Kngkyle Jul 8, 2017 3:54 AM

Here is an interesting one...

LOT is going to begin 2x weekly service from Chicago to Budapest. (and 4x weekly to JFK) The first nonstop flights to Budapest from the US in many years.

This means that on peak days ORD could see four LOT 787s: 2x to Warsaw, 1x to Krakow, 1x to Budapest.

spyguy Jul 8, 2017 3:43 PM

https://s16.postimg.org/ih3qzqmh1/AA...UCED-_SIZE.jpghttps://s16.postimg.org/f8z9mp079/AA...h-entourag.jpg
https://s16.postimg.org/jknvbp745/AA...8-10-00002.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:45 AM.

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