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)

nomarandlee Dec 4, 2023 9:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244 (Post 10094330)
I mean, it's possible, but again, would that cost less than the original OGT plan? I guess since there's already a plan to build out a tunnel, then in theory, tacking on more satellites plus a Western Terminal works since the room is there. For reference, here's the original long-term plan for ORD.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...253efd11_c.jpg

Right. Essentially, I suggest reversing the build-out order while keeping the T2 remodel much more modest than a full rebuild.

In 10, 20, or 30 years, if the midfield terminals needed to be built/expanded, they still could be. That said, I am guessing there is already a good bit of sunk cost in the design and planning for the T2 and midfield terminals.

....Though I think the construction and logistics would be a good deal cheaper building a new terminal (perhaps without the landside amenities and access yet) rather than trying to demolish and recreate the T2 with airfield operations going on all around when it happens.

twister244 Dec 4, 2023 9:07 PM

Here's another crazy idea.....

Is there anything to stop an international carrier from putting routes into O'Hare? And I don't mean more routes from the carrier's home base back and forth from O'Hare to their hub, but from O'hare to other hubs?

If UA/AA wanna play hard ball, then what could stop the city going to other international carries and offering them more gate space to create an international hub/spoke airport?

Why fly UA from O'Hare to LA when you could fly on Emirates........

SIGSEGV Dec 4, 2023 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244 (Post 10094348)
Here's another crazy idea.....

Is there anything to stop an international carrier from putting routes into O'Hare? And I don't mean more routes from the carrier's home base back and forth from O'Hare to their hub, but from O'hare to other hubs?

If UA/AA wanna play hard ball, then what could stop the city going to other international carries and offering them more gate space to create an international hub/spoke airport?

Why fly UA from O'Hare to LA when you could fly on Emirates........

Yes there are complicated rules about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabota...enger_aviation

As far as I can tell, no state allows cabotage?

twister244 Dec 4, 2023 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV (Post 10094384)
Yes there are complicated rules about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabota...enger_aviation

As far as I can tell, no state allows cabotage?

Well, no state will allow for it until those in power threaten to open up the skies if certain airlines don't want to contribute to making our airports better.....

I know that's most likely impossible to gain any traction, but the O'Hare-centric part of me wishes someone would threaten UA/AA if they are intent on scaling back O'hare expansion plans.

Also - It seems like a backwards way of thinking to suggest we shouldn't expand the airport given we are the only airport in the world with six parallel runways (to my knowledge). Seems like a complete waste of money not to fully leverage the infrastructure that's been put into place.

twister244 Dec 7, 2023 4:11 AM

No "news" in this article, but..... The one quote I took out of it may suggest the actual contract agreement with the airlines is $6 billion.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/fran-sp...randon-johnson

Quote:

Senior mayoral adviser Jason Lee refused to say whether Johnson would follow Emanuel’s advice or be more amenable to modifying the scope of terminal work to reduce costs.

Lee said only that after dragging on for months, negotiations have recently heated up as both sides bring in “additional people.”

“The most important thing to keep in mind is that there’s agreement between the city and the airlines to spend $6.1 billion modernizing O’Hare, which is a huge opportunity for the city. And that’s a really good place to be,” Lee said.

chiphile Dec 11, 2023 10:18 AM

You guys are missing the bigger picture. Airlines and businesses in general would only behave this way if the numbers don’t make sense for them. O’Hare is just another casualty of Chicago’s free fall. All other airports are back in full swing from the pandemic. AA knows there’s no point and is investing heavily in DFW and Charlotte. United knows Houston and Denver are the future. Denver - of all places - was busier than O’Hare last year. Once a major international connection point after JFK, LAX, and MIA, O’Hare now
has the same or similar international traffic as Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. Just look at the expansion projects around the country - actual construction is in full swing everywhere, no airline balking. Making AA and UA into bad guys here is just typical Chicago and city hall foolishness. United will add capacity and support a world class terminal if this city had any reason for it - basics like keeping business headquarters and a thing called population that actually fills the seats.

OrdoSeclorum Dec 11, 2023 3:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099526)
United will add capacity and support a world class terminal if this city had any reason for it - basics like keeping business headquarters and a thing called population that actually fills the seats.

In the decade from '13 to '22 Chicago saw a 52% increase in taxpayers earning $100,00 to $200,000 and an *80%* increase in those earning over $500,000. This accompanied an 11% decrease in the number of people claiming the EITC.

About as many of those employed people live in Chicago as in the cities of Atlanta, Seattle and San Francisco combined--1.4M.

UA and Charlotte are expanding because 1) United and AA each have monopolies there. Every other airport in the country has a situation like that. Chicago is so awesome that two of the three major airlines hold their noses and team up to serve it. 2) because Chicago's travel is especially business-travel heavy. That hasn't returned to pre-pandemic levels anywhere and it affects Chicago the most.

Chicago's international travel has dipped because Terminal 5 absolutely sucks and transferring from 5 to 1 or 3 sucks even worse. It's amazing anywhere that requires you to grab and re-check your bags after going through customs has the volume ORD does. We need a new terminal here to fix that.

sentinel Dec 11, 2023 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099526)
You guys are missing the bigger picture. Airlines and businesses in general would only behave this way if the numbers don’t make sense for them. O’Hare is just another casualty of Chicago’s free fall..

"Free fall"?? What?? :uhh:

twister244 Dec 11, 2023 6:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099526)
You guys are missing the bigger picture. Airlines and businesses in general would only behave this way if the numbers don’t make sense for them. O’Hare is just another casualty of Chicago’s free fall. All other airports are back in full swing from the pandemic. AA knows there’s no point and is investing heavily in DFW and Charlotte. United knows Houston and Denver are the future. Denver - of all places - was busier than O’Hare last year. Once a major international connection point after JFK, LAX, and MIA, O’Hare now
has the same or similar international traffic as Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. Just look at the expansion projects around the country - actual construction is in full swing everywhere, no airline balking. Making AA and UA into bad guys here is just typical Chicago and city hall foolishness. United will add capacity and support a world class terminal if this city had any reason for it - basics like keeping business headquarters and a thing called population that actually fills the seats.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this. Besides the numbers Ordo already posted - He's making a good point about the uniqueness of O'Hare being a dual-hub for UA/AA. If UA could monopolize the terminals - They would because again - O'Hare has SIX parallel runways that they could leverage. The infrastructure is there. While I do see the dip in business travel playing a role, it's a short-sighted viewpoint that doesn't think long-term for making O'Hare a world class hub.

chiphile Dec 11, 2023 7:47 PM

This is forum koolaid - and I don’t want to hijack the discussion about Chicago’s economy. The usual excuses followed by white collar earners trickling in was what I expected.

AA has already ceded O’Hare - UA could get its effective monopoly if it wanted (up to 70% of all seats) if it told the city it would occupy all of the western satellite concourses in the master plan at the top of this page. But UA doesn’t listen to forumers - they have consultants who get the market and demographic trends - that’s who they listen to.

You guys keep comparing Chicago to itself. Compare it to other places. You can get to New Zealand from O’Hare? Yes, as well as Dallas, Houston, and a handful of other places. Atlanta has had flights to South Africa for decades. Everything mentioned about O’Hare here is no big deal anywhere else.

moorhosj1 Dec 11, 2023 9:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099940)
You guys keep comparing Chicago to itself. Compare it to other places. You can get to New Zealand from O’Hare? Yes, as well as Dallas, Houston, and a handful of other places. Atlanta has had flights to South Africa for decades.

It is just as much "kool-aid" to focus on travel to South Africa and New Zealand as some sort of damning point.

American Airlines recently cancelled 21 routes from Austin's airport, 15 domestic and 6 international. Is Austin in a "free fall" too? Were the consultants wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099940)
Everything mentioned about O’Hare here is no big deal anywhere else.

Except the parallel runways that haven already been mentioned.

Steely Dan Dec 11, 2023 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099940)
This is forum koolaid -

LOL! :haha: :haha: :haha:

And of course you were never trying to provoke any kind of defensive reaction with your asinine "free-fall" bullshit.



We're a little too experienced around here to fall for the old innocence routine.

Go troll somewhere else.

OrdoSeclorum Dec 11, 2023 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiphile (Post 10099940)
This is forum koolaid - and I don’t want to hijack the discussion about Chicago’s economy. The usual excuses followed by white collar earners trickling in was what I expected.

AA has already ceded O’Hare - UA could get its effective monopoly if it wanted (up to 70% of all seats) if it told the city it would occupy all of the western satellite concourses in the master plan at the top of this page. But UA doesn’t listen to forumers - they have consultants who get the market and demographic trends - that’s who they listen to.

You guys keep comparing Chicago to itself. Compare it to other places. You can get to New Zealand from O’Hare? Yes, as well as Dallas, Houston, and a handful of other places. Atlanta has had flights to South Africa for decades. Everything mentioned about O’Hare here is no big deal anywhere else.

In 2019 Chicago was the 6th busiest airport in the world. Now it's the 4th busiest.

If demographics are what matters, why are you talking about Denver and Charlotte? The metro population of Denver is about 1/3 of Chicago's. Charlotte is smaller than that. Demographics don't enter into it. It's absurd and you are just making stuff up because you want to make people feel as bad as you do. Between 2000 and 2013, Chicago metro gained 545,484 people with college degrees. *snort* That's 77% of Denver's entire city population

DEN is active because, like Chicago and Dallas, it's a big airfield in the middle of the country. Charlotte is growing because, like Atlanta, it's a big airfield within the densely populated East Coast and close enough to Latin America and Europe to serve as a de facto "double hub" for two regions. Neither of those airport's growth has anything to do with demographics. Nothing against either town, but they have the cultural and business relevance of Kansas City or Columbus.

twister244 Dec 11, 2023 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum (Post 10100133)
In 2019 Chicago was the 6th busiest airport in the world. Now it's the 4th busiest.

If demographics are what matters, why are you talking about Denver and Charlotte? The metro population of Denver is about 1/3 of Chicago's. Charlotte is smaller than that. Demographics don't enter into it. It's absurd and you are just making stuff up because you want to make people feel as bad as you do. Between 2000 and 2013, Chicago metro gained 545,484 people with college degrees. *snort* That's 77% of Denver's entire city population

DEN is active because, like Chicago and Dallas, it's a big airfield in the middle of the country. Charlotte is growing because, like Atlanta, it's a big airfield within the densely populated East Coast and close enough to Latin America and Europe to serve as a de facto "double hub" for two regions. Neither of those airport's growth has anything to do with demographics. Nothing against either town, but they have the cultural and business relevance of Kansas City or Columbus.

I know I keep harping on the parallel runway shit, but it really does matter. These things always move so slowly, but since the completion of the last runway, we've added additional L stinger gates, a newly completed T5 expansion, and a handful of stinger L gates on their way to becoming finished. Remember - Heathrow only has TWO runways - That's it.

From here, it's straight up new concourse construction (minus T2 tear-down). The airlines have all of the room to grow to the West when they are ready to shift their expansion work from Denver/Charlotte back to ORD.

DIA is expanding because they have the room to do it, and adding more gates doesn't involve complex, tiered construction schedules. I don't know much about Charlotte, other than it's dominated by AA.

I would much rather see ORD focus on the global access with airlines than becoming a domestic hub like DIA, but that's me.

OrdoSeclorum Dec 12, 2023 3:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244 (Post 10100148)
DIA is expanding because they have the room to do it, and adding more gates doesn't involve complex, tiered construction schedules. I don't know much about Charlotte, other than it's dominated by AA.

Man, I was just visiting Denver for the first time in a few years and I'm always surprised how far away the airport is from Denver. It's almost as far from Denver as Boulder is. When you look at a map it looks adjacent to the city but in reality it's adjacent to the metro-area. It's sort of like if ORD was in Aurora. Denver isn't big enough to have gnarly traffic so your taxi can drive 70 and it doesn't feel quite so bad. But if I had a job that required constant travel, DIA wouldn't be the home airport I'd select.

twister244 Dec 12, 2023 4:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum (Post 10100344)
Man, I was just visiting Denver for the first time in a few years and I'm always surprised how far away the airport is from Denver. It's almost as far from Denver as Boulder is. When you look at a map it looks adjacent to the city but in reality it's adjacent to the metro-area. It's sort of like if ORD was in Aurora. Denver isn't big enough to have gnarly traffic so your taxi can drive 70 and it doesn't feel quite so bad. But if I had a job that required constant travel, DIA wouldn't be the home airport I'd select.

Is it really that much more of a trip than from the loop to O'hare?......

They have a new train line that goes to DIA, but honestly, I don't think it's much different in time-to-airport than taking the Blue line from the loop or driving on the Kennedy. Yes, ORD is closer to the city, but it's not like it doesn't take time to get out there.

Steely Dan Dec 12, 2023 4:53 PM

As of right now according to Google maps:

Denver City Hall - DEN:
- 18.5 miles as the crow flies
- 35 minutes drive time
- 62 minutes transit time


Chicago City Hall - ORD:
- 15 miles as the crow flies
- 25 minutes drive time
- 52 minutes transit time


ORD is a little closer in, but it's not a radical difference.

I think DEN "feels" much further out because of all the uninhabited scrubland you go through on the way out there.

ChiMIchael Dec 12, 2023 6:42 PM

Chicago is much vaster than Denver, so even though ORD is more connected to thr city, there much more city to through which to travel to get to the airport.

moorhosj1 Dec 12, 2023 9:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 10100666)
ORD is a little closer in, but it's not a radical difference.

I think DEN "feels" much further out because of all the uninhabited scrubland you go through on the way out there.

It's also that a lot of people's final destination isn't Denver. They are heading to the mountains, which is another 1-2 hour drive. Total trip from airport to Breckenridge (or wherever) is 2-3 hours.

Compared to a place like Salt Lake City where you get from the airport to the city in 15 minutes. In another 40 minutes, you are in Park City.

OrdoSeclorum Dec 13, 2023 1:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 10100666)

I think DEN "feels" much further out because of all the uninhabited scrubland you go through on the way out there.

No doubt some of it is perspective and scale. The Denver metro isn't even three million people. And goes Denver > Suburbs > Aurora > Nothing > DIA > Nothing > Omaha.

While ORD isn't dramatically closer to downtown, it is extremely close to Chicago and other stuff, including Chicago neighborhoods and suburbs in each direction. A couple years ago I landed at ORD from Germany and only a few minutes after customs I was in a bar in Rosemont watching MSU thump Michigan in football.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.