CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[k1052]

Originally Posted by maru2501

20-min taxi would make me insane

A number of major airports have average taxi out times that well exceed that.

Also I'd much rather be on the ground rolling than circling endlessly over farm country waiting to land during poor weather east flow operations.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

I had hoped this would make more of an impact than only handling 5% of flights for half a billion $$, but I get it that it's going to be used at peak times and when things aren't ideal - so even though it's 5%, hopefully that 5% is used when it would otherwise be creating a lot of delays.

My understanding is that when it's used during peak times it will allow for a secondary east flow alignment that preserves departure capacity as well as maintains three arrival streams, which the previous scheme does not. I don't think the calculus is quite as simple as saying it only handles 5% without a greater context of what that means to operations. Less arrival and departure delays in poor weather benefit the entire national air system.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by k1052

Evans has flat out said she intends to address gate space soon. She'll have more leverage over United and American with gate leases expiring in 2018 and this phase of the OMP wrapped up.

That is what she said, but this should have already been in the works years ago. The only problem is that terminal expansion might cause one of the big two airlines to dehub ORD. Make it worth their while to stay. Stop charging the highest landing fees of any major airport in the US. Tag fees to what ATL does if you want to grow. Also give tax credits(storm event credits) for deicing to offset that massive cost that even effects the southern airports when they have ice storms/snow. Then maybe ATL and DFW won't implode when the weather gets bad since they will invest in more deice trucks. Might as well go completely socialist!!!

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by k1052

A number of major airports have average taxi out times that well exceed that.

Also I'd much rather be on the ground rolling than circling endlessly over farm country waiting to land during poor weather east flow operations.

It also takes a lot more fuel to fly then to taxi as they can shut engines down when on taxi.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

The only problem is that terminal expansion might cause one of the big two airlines to dehub ORD.

Neither United or American would dehub ORD. To do so would be tantamount to the unconditional surrender of the entire Chicago market at this point.

It will be interesting to see what Evans proposes. The city has threatened to finance construction of the western terminal without the airlines permission before to get them to agree to the now completing phase of the OMP. Dangling that again plus the prospect of loosing gates in a duopolistic situation is going to be potent leverage. My general expectation is that it will be the construction of T6, expansion of T3, and commitment to the final round of airfield improvements (though maybe phased). The only way I could see the western terminal actually getting built was if it turned into a new international terminal connected airside while T5 was converted to domestic only.

[k1052]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-ohare-delays-solutions-met-20151016-story.html

The city, which is effectively the landlord at O'Hare, wields considerable leverage to apply pressure on winning airline approval for a range of capital improvements at the airport as well as persuading the airlines to fine-tune their schedules to help customers get to where they are going on time. The airlines' current master agreements at O'Hare, covering landing fees, terminal rents and policies on whether aircraft gates are shared by multiple airlines or controlled by a single carrier, expire in 2018. The city's ability to negotiate a new long-term master agreement presents a prime opportunity to implement changes in many areas that would help O'Hare to become more reliable and traveler-friendly.

"Our constraint has moved from the airfield to the gate area,'' Evans said in an interview. She said discussions with the airlines are underway to build 12 new gates — six each at two so far undisclosed locations — by about 2018. It will take longer to develop a comprehensive plan for additional gates, she said, declining to specify how many gates O'Hare would need over the long haul.

"If we had two dozen more gates today, they would be fully utilized, no question,'' Evans said.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila

... I've always thought the problem could be solved inexpensively if you planned the airfield around a surface busway. The busway would be secureside with enclosed heated shelters like the one at Heathrow, so travelers could go through security on whichever side of the airport was most convenient, then take the bus over to each terminal on the west side.

Although then any passenger checking luggage, or even merely needing assistance from an agent at check-in, could enter at the opposite terminal only if his airline was operating a second bank of check-in counters at that terminal, and I wonder if even the megacarriers would consider it worth it to have such a running cost.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

Tunnel under the new south runway 10R-28L!

Actually no part of the tunnel is under the runway (the tunnel is basically east-west and so is the runway; QED) - however it does pass under a taxiway connector near the runway. No matter though; it is just as much a thrill driving Cargo Road now (and Irving Park Road, upon its reopening after the emergency closure last summer).

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Actually no part of the tunnel is under the runway (the tunnel is basically east-west and so is the runway; QED) - however it does pass under a taxiway connector near the runway. No matter though; it is just as much a thrill driving Cargo Road now (and Irving Park Road, upon its reopening after the emergency closure last summer).

You might be thinking of the South Access Road tunnel, which does run under a taxiway roughly parallel to 10R-28L. This tunnel is at Post Office Road, and does, in fact run directly under the new runway closer to the east end. It's inside the fence line, and not open to general public traffic.

[k1052]

Site for the CONRAC is being cleared/excavated now. My view wasn't the best but the site work for the big new Aeroterm cargo faculty looked well underway also.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by k1052

Site for the CONRAC is being cleared/excavated now. My view wasn't the best but the site work for the big new Aeroterm cargo faculty looked well underway also.

what is the Aeroterm?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Although then any passenger checking luggage, or even merely needing assistance from an agent at check-in, could enter at the opposite terminal only if his airline was operating a second bank of check-in counters at that terminal, and I wonder if even the megacarriers would consider it worth it to have such a running cost.

Really only the kiosks are needed, with the option to pay in advance for the checked bag. The airlines could just gate-check any luggage for such passengers.

It's a convenience for the airlines to handle the checked bag between the counter and the gate, but it's not strictly necessary.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

what is the Aeroterm?

http://www.aeroterm.com/chicago/site.html

[kbud]

After looking at the aeroterm picture, I just realized how much land was available for this project. I'm surprised that I've never heard any mention of using that real estate for a passenger terminal(s). It could easily connect to the existing ATS, it's closer to downtown and it can take advantage of the already built eastern airport access and amenities. It's probably because a cargo terminal is cheap to build and we'll never see new passenger terminals be built again in my lifetime

[k1052]

Originally Posted by kbud

After looking at the aeroterm picture, I just realized how much land was available for this project. I'm surprised that I've never heard any mention of using that real estate for a passenger terminal(s). It could easily connect to the existing ATS, it's closer to downtown and it can take advantage of the already built eastern airport access and amenities. It's probably because a cargo terminal is cheap to build and we'll never see new passenger terminals be built again in my lifetime

A huge cargo terminal is being built because there is huge cargo demand at ORD, particularly after (and because of) the port strike on the west coast.

Mid-field is the optimal place for a large new passenger terminal anyway and no major expansion is being built that isn't the western terminal which has been long promised.

[maru2501]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...g-around-met-1102-2-20151102-column.html

how about 30 minutes

[k1052]

Originally Posted by maru2501

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...g-around-met-1102-2-20151102-column.html

how about 30 minutes

The LL taxiway work has been throwing a wrench into the flow well before 10R opened. Once it's complete next year the taxi-in times will probably fall into the projected range.

[Kngkyle]

China Eastern today (11NOV15) opened reservation for planned new US service, where it plans 3 weekly Shanghai Pu Dong – Chicago flights. First flight is scheduled on 18MAR16, using Boeing 777-300ER aircraft.

--

Another new international carrier and more service to China.

[trvlr70]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

China Eastern today (11NOV15) opened reservation for planned new US service, where it plans 3 weekly Shanghai Pu Dong – Chicago flights. First flight is scheduled on 18MAR16, using Boeing 777-300ER aircraft.

--

Another new international carrier and more service to China.

Wow! That's an amazing 3 flight to Shanghai on 3 different carriers. Incredible!! And I believe 7 total flights a day to China from ORD.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by trvlr70

Wow! That's an amazing 3 flight to Shanghai on 3 different carriers. Incredible!! And I believe 7 total flights a day to China from ORD.

Yep, next summer we'll have 3 flights on 3 different carriers to both Beijing and Shanghai, plus 2 more daily flights to Hong Kong. Capacity from Chicago to China is almost as much as to England.

Fares are definitely competitive though, suggesting they're struggling to fill all the capacity. Last week I saw United had some round trips to Beijing for as low as $603 all-in. If it wasn't for the low fuel prices they'd all probably be losing their shirt on these routes. (and they might be anyway)