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)

Tombstoner Nov 27, 2023 1:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twister244 (Post 10082616)
... Meanwhile, Delta has a nice comfy home over in T5 where they have a really nice new lounge. Shit, even SouthWest has access to the shiny new wing of T5.

Quick comment and question: I would say that the Delta home in T5, apart from a nice lounge, is a dumpster-fire. The few new added gates are nice and they are still putting in food outlets, but most of T5 has retained the ridiculously tight ticketing and baggage arrival areas. Most gate seating areas are miniscule and corridors leading past the gates are narrow, grubby, and NOTHING like what is planned for the new Global Terminal. Not to mention how difficult it is to get to T5 from the blue line (have to walk to T2 take an elevator up two floors to walk over to an escalator that crosses over the road to another escalator down to the train that takes you to T5--who came up with this? Added bonus, you have to do all this in reverse from T5 to get over to T2 to catch an Uber. Note that all of this means dragging baggage for several hundred yards). The Delta set-up at T5 is giving my wife and I serious thoughts of just changing over to UA after 20 years of platinum/diamond status at DL.

A question is whether most the work at T5 is really finished (which would be comical) or are there continued major renovations to come apart from the new parking structure?

All this is to say that if AA's presence is getting shabbier and uncompetitive at ORD vis a vis UA, the same can be said about DL.

twister244 Nov 27, 2023 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstoner (Post 10089051)
Quick comment and question: I would say that the Delta home in T5, apart from a nice lounge, is a dumpster-fire. The few new added gates are nice and they are still putting in food outlets, but most of T5 has retained the ridiculously tight ticketing and baggage arrival areas. Most gate seating areas are miniscule and corridors leading past the gates are narrow, grubby, and NOTHING like what is planned for the new Global Terminal. Not to mention how difficult it is to get to T5 from the blue line (have to walk to T2 take an elevator up two floors to walk over to an escalator that crosses over the road to another escalator down to the train that takes you to T5--who came up with this? Added bonus, you have to do all this in reverse from T5 to get over to T2 to catch an Uber. Note that all of this means dragging baggage for several hundred yards). The Delta set-up at T5 is giving my wife and I serious thoughts of just changing over to UA after 20 years of platinum/diamond status at DL.

A question is whether most the work at T5 is really finished (which would be comical) or are there continued major renovations to come apart from the new parking structure?

All this is to say that if AA's presence is getting shabbier and uncompetitive at ORD vis a vis UA, the same can be said about DL.

Those are good points too. I haven't had to go through T5 security since May and was assuming they were expanding the security checkpoints given the new additions and flights operating out of there now. I would hope that they are still working on that, or it's planned.

Also - I took a glance at the temporary gates at the end of C this past weekend. It looks like they are probably getting closer to getting those up and running as the concrete work at the bottom is mostly done.

OrdoSeclorum Nov 27, 2023 8:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstoner (Post 10089051)
Quick comment and question: I would say that the Delta home in T5, apart from a nice lounge, is a dumpster-fire. The few new added gates are nice and they are still putting in food outlets, but most of T5 has retained the ridiculously tight ticketing and baggage arrival areas. Most gate seating areas are miniscule and corridors leading past the gates are narrow, grubby, and NOTHING like what is planned for the new Global Terminal. Not to mention how difficult it is to get to T5 from the blue line (have to walk to T2 take an elevator up two floors to walk over to an escalator that crosses over the road to another escalator down to the train that takes you to T5--who came up with this? Added bonus, you have to do all this in reverse from T5 to get over to T2 to catch an Uber. Note that all of this means dragging baggage for several hundred yards). The Delta set-up at T5 is giving my wife and I serious thoughts of just changing over to UA after 20 years of platinum/diamond status at DL.

A question is whether most the work at T5 is really finished (which would be comical) or are there continued major renovations to come apart from the new parking structure?

All this is to say that if AA's presence is getting shabbier and uncompetitive at ORD vis a vis UA, the same can be said about DL.

This a temporary situation. For the next several years, Terminal 5 is going to be used more until the new Satellite Concourses are built off of Terminal 1. Terminal 5 is destined to become ORD's "low cost" concourse--which it is well suited for--but for the time being it's where extra gates exist for airlines that aren't UA or AA. No point in trying to get an airline to invest in or accept a medium term spot in Terminal 2 when it's going to be town down in a few years. Once the new Global Terminal is open it's going to be badass, but for most (or all) of this decade O'Hare is going to be limping toward the future.

kbud Nov 28, 2023 4:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstoner (Post 10089051)
Quick comment and question: I would say that the Delta home in T5, apart from a nice lounge, is a dumpster-fire. The few new added gates are nice and they are still putting in food outlets, but most of T5 has retained the ridiculously tight ticketing and baggage arrival areas. Most gate seating areas are miniscule and corridors leading past the gates are narrow, grubby, and NOTHING like what is planned for the new Global Terminal. Not to mention how difficult it is to get to T5 from the blue line (have to walk to T2 take an elevator up two floors to walk over to an escalator that crosses over the road to another escalator down to the train that takes you to T5--who came up with this? Added bonus, you have to do all this in reverse from T5 to get over to T2 to catch an Uber. Note that all of this means dragging baggage for several hundred yards). The Delta set-up at T5 is giving my wife and I serious thoughts of just changing over to UA after 20 years of platinum/diamond status at DL.

A question is whether most the work at T5 is really finished (which would be comical) or are there continued major renovations to come apart from the new parking structure?

All this is to say that if AA's presence is getting shabbier and uncompetitive at ORD vis a vis UA, the same can be said about DL.

I’ve been through T5 twice in the last month and I’ve had the opportunity to walk it thoroughly. My biggest takeaways were: 1) The Delta gate hold areas are tiny. 2) The walk from the Southwest gates to the terminal is like the, ‘running of the bulls.’ There are so many people walking from the new concourse extension into the original part of T5 that it creates a bottle neck. That section was not designed for people to walk back to the terminal as that was only departures, while arrivals went through the ground floor towards customs.

Why can’t ORD get it right? It seems like ORD development always
lacks looking to the future, is late at creating plans, and is slow at implementation. T2 sounds great, but it has slowed, won’t have a people mover to help move people, doesn’t address T3 (American operations will be at a huge disadvantage compared to United), and it is shoe horned around concourse G. The designs of aircraft parking by G looks goofy.

twister244 Nov 28, 2023 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbud (Post 10090060)
Why can’t ORD get it right? It seems like ORD development always
lacks looking to the future, is late at creating plans, and is slow at implementation. T2 sounds great, but it has slowed, won’t have a people mover to help move people, doesn’t address T3 (American operations will be at a huge disadvantage compared to United), and it is shoe horned around concourse G. The designs of aircraft parking by G looks goofy.

Well..... This is what you get with a airport that has been around for decades. It would be great if we could just bulldoze everything and build a shiny new airport like Istanbul or Abu Dhabi..... But we don't have the money, top-down government, or ability to do that.

I agree, there are aspects of this expansion that could have been done better. My biggest complaint (as of right now) continues to be the apparent security checkpoint bottleneck. To fix all of other logistics issues with T5, again, you would have to do a complete rebuild.

For AA..... If they really wanted to get in on major expansions, they could push for a Western Terminal that connects to a new set of an additional two larger satellites, then once those are up, totally rebuild T3 to be a shiny OneWorld terminal.

Again though... These things take time, money..... sign off from both the airlines and the city. It's going to be years before we even have the OGT up and running.

twister244 Nov 29, 2023 3:11 AM

Welp.... My last post didn't age well........

https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-ha...lights-chicago

Quote:

O’Shea said it is particularly “concerning” that United has revived a 2018 threat to move its corporate headquarters at Willis Tower out of Chicago.
Quote:

One option could be to economize on the Gang design that some in the industry have derided as an expensive “Taj Mahal.”
Quote:

“There are certain things they wanted. Those have already been delivered. … We modernized the runways. And we’re now going to modernize the terminals so it stays the premier, No. 1 airport and aviation hub not only in the United States, but in the globe.”
I read this in one of two ways:
1 - The airlines are bitching because they suddenly have to shell out more of their profit to upgrade their share of the airport. Or.......
2 - It's odd that suddenly AA and UA are on the same page after all of the drama from the Emmanuel days.

Is it possible this is UA secretly trying to extract more out of the modernization because AA is secretly trying to dehub?......

Either way, I'm not happy with this news. I was looking forward to the OGT, but this puts the entire design in jeopardy.

Kngkyle Nov 29, 2023 1:09 PM

Probably shouldn't have picked an architect that had zero experience with airports... :shrug: I can't wait to see what the airport equivalent of a blow-through floor and obnoxious ventilation panels is.

k1052 Nov 29, 2023 3:07 PM

Cost is up and biz travel at ORD hasn't, and likely won't, fully recover.
I'm not particularly surprised they're balking now.

The city indisputably needs new facilities though so not sure how successfully the airlines are going to be able to pare things back.

ChiMIchael Nov 29, 2023 5:48 PM

I don't really follow the airport industry, but I have I feeling that it's trying to divest in Chicago. UA seems to have one foot out of the door.

twister244 Nov 29, 2023 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael (Post 10090758)
I don't really follow the airport industry, but I have I feeling that it's trying to divest in Chicago. UA seems to have one foot out of the door.

Not sure about that - Right now it may appear they are all in on DIA, but that's because DIA is in the middle/finishing stages of building out a significant amount of terminal space, so there's space/gates up for grabs. My guess is UA is all on-board with the new satellites, but doesn't want to shell out all of this money for a huge OGT that is just moving existing flights into place - UNLESS there's some sort of concessions.

F1 Tommy Nov 30, 2023 2:13 PM

United just wants the public to pay for more of the terminal. AA is much smaller now at ORD so who knows what they will do. I don't think they even know.

I said a long time ago in this thread, Chicago O'hare charges to much for everything, and most of the airport is not that great. Some of these magazines that give high scores to ORD in their rankings are not being honest.

On the bright side, places like Dallas are not as cheap to live and move a company to anymore. They have caught up and sometimes past Chicagoland in costs. The airports need to also become closer in costs.

ChiMIchael Nov 30, 2023 5:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy (Post 10091434)
United just wants the public to pay for more of the terminal. AA is much smaller now at ORD so who knows what they will do. I don't think they even know.

I said a long time ago in this thread, Chicago O'hare charges to much for everything, and most of the airport is not that great. Some of these magazines that give high scores to ORD in their rankings are not being honest.

On the bright side, places like Dallas are not as cheap to live and move a company to anymore. They have caught up and sometimes past Chicagoland in costs. The airports need to also become closer in costs.

I'm not as big of a traveler as other members of the forum (my career and income doesn't warrant it), but I never had a big issue with ORD. I've never taken more than 45 minutes to get from check-in to the gate. My major issues are the it needs to modernize and the retail and restaurant options are lacking. MDW has better restaurants imo.

SIGSEGV Nov 30, 2023 7:02 PM

ORD has Frontera, everything else is a moot point.

Roy_Batty Dec 4, 2023 12:54 AM

I’ve recently used T5, particularly low cost carriers, and it’s awful the amount of time and effort you need to waste to walk from the new extension (Southwest), to the baggage claim, then take the people mover to get to Terminal 2 to grab an Uber. I had to take 4 elevators since I travel with kids and a stroller.

Why they don’t just allow ride sharing apps to arrive directly to Terminal 5? Why they don’t add a more direct access out of the security zone from the eastern concourse without having to walk all the way to the western concourse? What about upgrading the elevators?

Those things seem like an easy fix to make the experience less horrible.

SIGSEGV Dec 4, 2023 1:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy_Batty (Post 10093749)
I’ve recently used T5, particularly low cost carriers, and it’s awful the amount of time and effort you need to waste to walk from the new extension (Southwest), to the baggage claim, then take the people mover to get to Terminal 2 to grab an Uber. I had to take 4 elevators since I travel with kids and a stroller.

Why they don’t just allow ride sharing apps to arrive directly to Terminal 5? Why they don’t add a more direct access out of the security zone from the eastern concourse without having to walk all the way to the western concourse? What about upgrading the elevators?

Those things seem like an easy fix to make the experience less horrible.

I imagine there's not enough curb space with the construction?

Roy_Batty Dec 4, 2023 4:10 AM

I think they could easily fit something. I’m not sure if ride sharing apps were allowed previous to the construction anyway, but if this is actually the case and there is indeed no space available in the current curbside (I do not believe this is correct though), they could easily plan a temporary area somewhere around the parking as part of construction mitigation actions.

jonesrmj Dec 4, 2023 5:44 PM

Chicago must keep pushing forward on O’Hare expansion project
 
A followup article from Chicago Sun-Times on the situation with United and American wanting the ORD Global Terminal to be scaled back.

Quote:

United and American Airlines want to scale back or slow down the massive project to replace Terminal 2. Both Illinois senators and former Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who forged the plan with the airlines, say a deal’s a deal.
Read more - https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/12...orth-editorial

To me this all sounds like a pathetic attempt from United and American to get out of contributing as much money to the Global Terminal project. Hopefully it still happens as planned!

twister244 Dec 4, 2023 6:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesrmj (Post 10094126)
A followup article from Chicago Sun-Times on the situation with United and American wanting the ORD Global Terminal to be scaled back.



Read more - https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/12...orth-editorial

To me this all sounds like a pathetic attempt from United and American to get out of contributing as much money to the Global Terminal project. Hopefully it still happens as planned!

Agreed - The airlines could come to the table with a constructive attitude saying - "Hey - We are struggling with the escalating costs - What can we do?". Instead of - "Hey, we think this thing should just be canned"

nomarandlee Dec 4, 2023 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesrmj (Post 10094126)
A followup article from Chicago Sun-Times on the situation with United and American wanting the ORD Global Terminal to be scaled back.


Read more - https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/12...orth-editorial

To me this all sounds like a pathetic attempt from United and American to get out of contributing as much money to the Global Terminal project. Hopefully it still happens as planned!

The problem is the incentive structure is just not there for us to have nice things in air travel in this country. Much like train and bus travel, this country's air travel is about maximizing volume and margins.

The airlines are strictly utilitarian. They want expenses only as far as operations go so they do not suffer compared to competitors in baggage loss and flight delays. With common-use gates that are theoretically open to all airlines, they feel even less compelled to take ownership of their terminals, which may provide a unique advantage to draw customers.

The airlines know they have a captive market. It is more of a matter of them worrying about pricing out leisure travelers with higher ticket fares and cutting into thin profit margins.

That said, the cost overruns are likely on par with the other massive rebuilds going in LAX, NYC, Atlanta, DFW, Denver, and others. Maybe Gang's gigantic skylight could be done with; that seems like it could involve a rather large and needless upkeep expense.

I wonder if instead of all the expensive staging and expense of tearing down and rebuilding Terminal 2 as well as the mid-field terminals if it would be less expensive to just build a new Far West Terminal complex and an underground train link to join the east and west sides of the airport. Scrap the mid-field terminals and the wholesale T2 rebuild, and build a modest renovation to T2 with a nice train link station.

twister244 Dec 4, 2023 8:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 10094241)
I wonder if instead of all the expensive staging and expense of tearing down and rebuilding Terminal 2 as well as the mid-field terminals if it would be less expensive to just build a new Far West Terminal complex and an underground train link to join the east and west sides of the airport. Scrap the mid-field terminals and the wholesale T2 rebuild, and build a modest renovation to T2 with a nice train link station.

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

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.

nomarandlee Dec 20, 2023 1:01 AM

Quote:

https://www.dailyherald.com/20231219...nal-3-in-2024/



Chicago plans a $200 million remodel of O’Hare’s Terminal 3. Here’s what you can expect

December 19, 2023 2:19 pm
Marni Pyke

A major remodel at O’Hare International Airport’s Terminal 3 will kick off soon, Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner Jamie Rhee said.

Specifics of the revamp include:

· Reconfiguring the U.S. Transportation Safety Administration checkpoint to allow for new screening equipment.

˙ Tripling the width of the passenger corridor between concourses K and L.

˙ Adding 10,000 square feet of concessions.

˙ Renovating restrooms.

Also coming are new gates in Terminal 3’s L Concourse.

“A three-gate extension project is well under way and it will provide approximately 11,000 square feet of space for concessions and for new gate hold rooms,” Rhee said.

“Two of these gates will open early next year with a third gate to open late in 2024.”....
..
Some very good after news for O'Hare after some bouts of bad news lately.

Chicagoguy Dec 20, 2023 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 10106161)
..
Some very good after news for O'Hare after some bouts of bad news lately.

Do we know if there have been any renderings of the 3-gate extension?

sentinel Dec 20, 2023 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 10106161)
..
Some very good after news for O'Hare after some bouts of bad news lately.

Indeed, but I hope these smaller scale projects aren't meant as diversionary tactics to soften a potential blow for the global hub possibly not moving forward, being shelved or even excessively VE'd :(

nomarandlee Dec 20, 2023 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel (Post 10106859)
Indeed, but I hope these smaller scale projects aren't meant as diversionary tactics to soften a potential blow for the global hub possibly not moving forward, being shelved or even excessively VE'd :(

Maybe it's too much conjecture, but I look at this announcement optimistically, thinking things are getting hashed out behind the scenes.

The city would be wise to play hardball on Terminal 3 upgrades and improvements until AA is willing to indicate that they are to sign off on Terminal 2 funding. If the city is going full steam with T3 upgrades while AA is still intent on playing hardball, then the city's negotiations are much worse than I fear they could be.

OrdoSeclorum Dec 22, 2023 12:44 AM

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.

Germane to this specific point, I was just part of a discussion about college football and media rights and someone presented the Nielsen Demographic Market Area data. These are rankings that Nielsen produces that assign metro areas business value by looking at size, income and demographics. This is essentially the same data airlines consider. Below are the top-12 U.S. DMAs. A couple things jump out. The top 3 markets are obvious. Atlanta, Philly, Boston, San Francisco and Seattle are more important than their population ranking would suggest. Houston, Dallas, Washington, Miami and Phoenix have less value to business than their size would suggest.


1 New York

2 Los Angeles

3 Chicago

4 Philadelphia

5 Dallas-Fort Worth

6 Atlanta

7 Houston

8 Washington-Hagerstown

9 Boston-Manchester

10 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose

11 Phoenix-Prescott

12 Seattle-Tacoma

Tombstoner Dec 22, 2023 3:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 10106161)
..
Some very good after news for O'Hare after some bouts of bad news lately.

Not to beat a dead horse, but given the HUGE money put into Terminal 5 and the resultant crap outcome (except for a few shiny new gates) I don't think a mere $200M will buy anything that qualifies as "very good news." O'Hare can't seem to re-tile bathrooms for that amount of money.

F1 Tommy Dec 22, 2023 1:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 10106161)
..
Some very good after news for O'Hare after some bouts of bad news lately.

Those are shared regional gates.

nomarandlee Dec 22, 2023 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tombstoner (Post 10107830)
Not to beat a dead horse, but given the HUGE money put into Terminal 5 and the resultant crap outcome (except for a few shiny new gates) I don't think a mere $200M will buy anything that qualifies as "very good news." O'Hare can't seem to re-tile bathrooms for that amount of money.

You are right. They will likely be nothing much more than some cosmetic upgrades, but I am intrigued by the phrasing "Tripling the width of the passenger corridor between concourses K and L".

I am guessing that means the rather short distance between the concourses just beyond TSA and not the concourses themselves. In either case, I look forward to seeing that.

jonesrmj Jan 12, 2024 7:35 PM

ORD Global Terminal Satellite Concourses
 
Just out of curiosity, when do you think we will get an update on the Satellite Concourses for the Global Terminal project? I know they've been reorganizing the gates on the south end of the C concourse so they must be breaking ground sometime soon? I thought I remember the timeline saying they would break ground either in 2023 or 2024. We also still haven't gotten any renderings for them.

Though maybe it's delayed/modified if American and United are fighting the project behind the scenes like the previously posted articles said.

Kngkyle Jan 12, 2024 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonesrmj (Post 10119407)
Just out of curiosity, when do you think we will get an update on the Satellite Concourses for the Global Terminal project? I know they've been reorganizing the gates on the south end of the C concourse so they must be breaking ground sometime soon? I thought I remember the timeline saying they would break ground either in 2023 or 2024. We also still haven't gotten any renderings for them.

Though maybe it's delayed/modified if American and United are fighting the project behind the scenes like the previously posted articles said.

Ground has definitely been broken as the area is full of construction equipment poking around. It's probably just preliminary infrastructure work though - drainage, electrical, plumbing, etc.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14 PM.

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