CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[Chicago29]

Originally Posted by kbud

The plan for the western terminal is relatively old. There is nothing concrete about that being built. Even when the plan was revealed it was never revealed who would occupy it.

ORD T5 is heavily restricted and is hampering int'l growth with more gates and larger gates, and desired service by the new carriers that want dedicated lounges.

So is T1. UA can only park the new 787s in 777 capable gates. Where as the 767s can park in between concourse C and B. It'll be interesting to see how United handles this, keep the 767 around for 40 years? I hope not as those planes are so crappy now.

I think a future western terminal is only feasible with the completion of the Elgin-O'Hare Western Access project, which in total may take nearly a decade to complete. The West Bypass is being worked on now but the north and south 'legs' around O'Hare are not even near starting.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by kbud

Yeah, that design is over a decade old now. But I still like that original plan to add T4 (AA & One World) and T6 (Delta). But I can't imagine UA accepting this if it doesn't also include bulldozing T2 for them and Star Alliance. I think the western terminal is overkill if you don't do T4 and T6 first.

There's no way UA would agree to letting AA have newer/nicer facilities. In fact I'd rather give both airlines the —. UA gets T2 gates after Delta goes to T6 and AA gets the entire L concourse after moving the smaller airlines to T4.

Sure Delta gets a new terminal (the same amount of gates or less) but they're almost insignificant compared to AA and UA's competition here.

[UPChicago]

it seems like this bypass would constrain any future runway expansions.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

it seems like this bypass would constrain any future runway expansions.

How so? Still plenty of room to stretch 9R when needed.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by UPChicago

it seems like this bypass would constrain any future runway expansions.

does the west bypass phase 1 open soon?
on google maps it looks half done...

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by k1052

There's no way UA would agree to letting AA have newer/nicer facilities. In fact I'd rather give both airlines the —. UA gets T2 gates after Delta goes to T6 and AA gets the entire L concourse after moving the smaller airlines to T4.

Sure Delta gets a new terminal (the same amount of gates or less) but they're almost insignificant compared to AA and UA's competition here.

Right, DL will moves into T6 for Skyteam alliance partners only and T5 is only for non-Alliance airlines, as well as UA & Star Alliance partners will be in T2. The entire T5 will be freed it up for non-alliance partners.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by k1052

How so? Still plenty of room to stretch 9R when needed.

Just seems like encircling the airport in highways would limit any future westward expansion if ever necessary that is.

[ardecila]

Future aircraft will likely not be larger than the current fleet, barring major changes in energy prices or engine technology. Why would ORD want to expand westward when the current runway length is plenty?

Even the current rounds of expansion are difficult enough politically. After the airfield re-organization is complete, there will be no way the authorities can force through future expansions. Denver had the foresight to reserve millions of acres for future expansion, but we don't have that at O'Hare. (On the flipside, Denver doesn't have anything like Rosemont/Cumberland because none of the land near the airport can be developed.)

At the point where western expansion is warranted, assuming we get there, then we do in fact need to start talking about a third airport. Gary would be my first choice due to its great rail access but is hemmed in tightly by rail lines and highways. For the cost of a new airport you could also build a true high speed rail link to MKE.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Future aircraft will likely not be larger than the current fleet, barring major changes in energy prices or engine technology. Why would ORD want to expand westward when the current runway length is plenty?

Even the current rounds of expansion are difficult enough politically. After the airfield re-organization is complete, there will be no way the authorities can force through future expansions. Denver had the foresight to reserve millions of acres for future expansion, but we don't have that at O'Hare. (On the flipside, Denver doesn't have anything like Rosemont/Cumberland because none of the land near the airport can be developed.)

At the point where western expansion is warranted, assuming we get there, then we do in fact need to start talking about a third airport. Gary would be my first choice due to its great rail access but is hemmed in tightly by rail lines and highways. For the cost of a new airport you could also build a true high speed rail link to MKE.

The Western Terminal plan has/had nothing to do with extending runways. It was strictly about a new terminal on land that is already airport property. Politically it's an easy sell.. the surrounding communities already support it. The ones that don't support it are AA and UA, at least not in the previous rendition of the plan.

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Future aircraft will likely not be larger than the current fleet, barring major changes in energy prices or engine technology. Why would ORD want to expand westward when the current runway length is plenty?

Even the current rounds of expansion are difficult enough politically. After the airfield re-organization is complete, there will be no way the authorities can force through future expansions. Denver had the foresight to reserve millions of acres for future expansion, but we don't have that at O'Hare. (On the flipside, Denver doesn't have anything like Rosemont/Cumberland because none of the land near the airport can be developed.)

At the point where western expansion is warranted, assuming we get there, then we do in fact need to start talking about a third airport. Gary would be my first choice due to its great rail access but is hemmed in tightly by rail lines and highways. For the cost of a new airport you could also build a true high speed rail link to MKE.

I think I would rather see a high speed rail link built to the Chicago/Rockford International Airport. That to me would be more politically feasible since they are both located in the same state, plus it is roughly the same distance to MKE as it is to Rockford.

[spyguy]

Publican (or some version of it) replacing Wolfgang Puck in T3

Summer House Santa Monica opening in T2

[k1052]

Extremely happy to see ORD's offerings pushed up several notches even on a piecemeal basis.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

I think I would rather see a high speed rail link built to the Chicago/Rockford International Airport. That to me would be more politically feasible since they are both located in the same state, plus it is roughly the same distance to MKE as it is to Rockford.

Possibly. But Wisconsin won't be managed by a bunch of knuckle-draggers forever. If you're investing in true high-speed rail, it makes sense to build it to a major city like Milwaukee before a third-tier city like Rockford.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Publican (or some version of it) replacing Wolfgang Puck in T3

Summer House Santa Monica opening in T2

Didn't they get rid the McDonalds out of O'Hare?

[Chicagoguy]

Came across this article and found it interesting. Happy to see a return of Icelandair to Chicago after so many years away!

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/...repping-for-a-big-return-to-chicago.html

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

Came across this article and found it interesting. Happy to see a return of Icelandair to Chicago after so many years away!

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/...repping-for-a-big-return-to-chicago.html

Interesting to see they will upgrade to 767's on June 3rd. The main reason they left the Chicago market the first time was the loss of a major cargo contract.

[spyguy]

Also mentions the possibility of an agreement for new gates being reached in the next 6-9 months and plans for two more hotels on airport property.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/2...unced-by-emanuel-administration-airlines

$1.3 billion deal reached for new O'Hare runway
January 30, 2016

The city and major airlines have reached agreement on a roughly $1.3 billion deal to build the last of the proposed new runways under the O'Hare Modernization Program—and new gates at the airfield are likely to be added to the mix soon, too.

Under a pact set to be formally announced tomorrow, the city and O'Hare's two largest carriers, United Airlines and American Airlines, agreed to construct an 11,245-foot-long east-west runway just north of existing passenger terminals and to make two other fixes much desired by the carriers: construction of a new crossfield taxiway system and of a central de-icing center.

[eleven=11]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/apps/pbcs...&cb=20160130063539&cci_ts=20160130063531

[eleven=11]

[k1052]

She mentioned existing terminal demand of another 2100 linear feet which by a hasty guesstimate is a middle teen number of new gates assuming they're for Group III aircraft.