CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[BrennanW]

On that note, AA/IB/BA are planning on BCN being a secondary spanish longhaul hub. MIA will be one of the first to see the A343s, does it look like ORD could get a flight also?

[denizen467]

To what extent is runway/taxiway accommodation for A380 craft included in the present ORD Modernization Plan? (I assume that jetway accommodation is further down the road.)

Are LAX and JFK the only airports handling them right now? Beyond those, are there other US hub airports capable of handling the A380 at present? I assume no US passenger carrier has expressed interest in acquiring one yet.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by denizen467

To what extent is runway/taxiway accommodation for A380 craft included in the present ORD Modernization Plan? (I assume that jetway accommodation is further down the road.)

Are LAX and JFK the only airports handling them right now? Beyond those, are there other US hub airports capable of handling the A380 at present? I assume no US passenger carrier has expressed interest in acquiring one yet.

Wikipedia says that, for all intents and purposes, any airport capable of handling 747s is capable of handling A380s, apart from some lighting and signage changes.

[Hot Rod]

I know Vancouver International has several gates to handle the A380, Im not sure about Toronto. Vancouver, Los Angeles, and JFK are the only airports in North America that are A380 service-able.

I think all ORD would need to do is reconfigure the some of the gates in T5 to be ready.

[denizen467]

Let me add some more background first. First, airports like ORD cannot handle the A380 because the taxiways (or spacing next to them) are not wide enough. This a recognized impediment at ORD. I am just not sure whether it's all over the ORD airfield or only at a limited number of points.

Second, for all practical purposes 2 jetbridges (or 2 tarmac stairs, except not in a northern city like Chicago) that can handle 2 different levels would be necessary for an airline to introduce A380 service. Unlike the 747, a huge number of people must schlep their carry-on luggage up to the 2nd floor, and it is unrealistic to expect 200+ people to use a 747-style measly interior staircase for this.

I am not sure whether existing jetbridges can serve the upper level of an A380 (there is a certain maximum incline for people to climb/descend with their luggage from the upper level). And of course getting 2 adjacent jetbridges to simultaneously serve the 2 opposite sides of an A380 is not a given; it might require a fair amount of gate area construction. Depending on the dimensions of hold rooms, jetbridges, jetbridge spacing, apron, etc., this could be a smaller or bigger project than the taxiway issue.

[urbanfan89]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

I know Vancouver International has several gates to handle the A380, Im not sure about Toronto. Vancouver, Los Angeles, and JFK are the only airports in North America that are A380 service-able.

I think all ORD would need to do is reconfigure the some of the gates in T5 to be ready.

Toronto is served by EK A380 three times per week.

[plinko]

Pretty sure that SFO has A380 service.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhal...102910.article

City testing 'new marketing concepts' at O'Hare
October 29, 2010

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
The next time you wash your hands in an O’Hare Airport restroom, you might see more than your own reflection in the mirror.

City Hall is testing “new marketing concepts” at O’Hare that call for ads to be plastered on everything from 3-D bathroom mirrors and marketing kiosks to escalator handrails, moving walkways, and motion sensor LCD screens.

City Hall is testing “new marketing concepts” at O’Hare that call for ads to be plastered on everything from 3-D bathroom mirrors and marketing kiosks to escalator handrails, moving walkways, and motion sensor LCD screens.

They’re even slapping ads on those plastic bins that passengers use to put their shoes and valuables in while they’re passing through security checkpoints.

They’re even slapping ads on those plastic bins that passengers use to put their shoes and valuables in while they’re passing through security checkpoints.

It’s yet another outgrowth of Mayor Daley’s five-year-old “municipal marketing’ plan to turn city assets into money makers.

The airport ads are expected to generate up to $750,000 next year. But, Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino insisted that money is not the only motivation. Some of the ads serve a dual purpose.

An ultra-violet light in the escalator ad “sanitizes the rail…For H1NI issues and others, it allows us to sterilize the handrail as well as greeting people when they’re entering the escalator—with a ‘Welcome to Chicago’ or some other ad,” Andolino said after testifying Friday at City Council budget hearings.

“Our goal is [also] to have all of that new technology tie into our…alert system. So, if there was some type of an emergency, we would be able to override these systems and actually inform people—whether it be evacuation or information.”............

The city is also planning to offer “higher profile entertainment” at O’Hare and install more “recreational areas” to occupy antsy children enduring long delays while traveling with their parents............

More in link

[Jenner]

AFAIK, the new taxiways designed according to the OMP should be able to handle a Category VI (6) type aircraft, which include the A380. However, the existing taxiways cannot support this type of craft, meaning that no A380s or 747-8 type craft can use the terminal core or the terminal core taxiways.

Group I - < 49' (15m)
Group II - 49' (15m) - <79' (24m)
Group III - 79' (24m) - <118' (36m)
Group IV - 118' (36m) - <171' (52m)
Group V - 171' (52m) - <214' (65m)
Group VI - 214' (65m) - <262' (80m)

Boeing 747-4 wingspan: 211 ft 5 in (64.4 m) (wikipedia)
Boeing 747-8 wingspan: 224 ft 7 in (68.5 m) (wikipedia)
Airbus 380 wingspan: 79.75 m (261.6 ft) (wikipedia)

I've seen satellite images where a 747 is docked in Concourse C, so I'm guessing that the terminal core taxiways are Group V compliant. If they aren't, then the tower must give some kind of special clearance to ensure that the 747 has the right-of-way.

Good point about the apron changes and gate modifications. My guess is that this may only affect T5, since the A380 is generally an international flying machine, rather than domestic.

[spyguy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...next-year.html

Virgin America Sees Chicago O'Hare, Atlanta Flights Next Year
By Mary Jane Credeur - Nov 9, 2010

...Discussions with Chicago over gates at O’Hare airport, the nation’s second-busiest, have “moved forward” and may be resolved by year’s end, David Cush, chief executive officer of Virgin America, said yesterday in a telephone interview.

Virgin America wants to lease two gates in O’Hare’s Concourse L inside Terminal 3 that are now controlled by Delta Air Lines Inc., he said. The closely held carrier, based in Burlingame, California, has been trying to enter O’Hare for more than three years.

“If we can make progress in the next 60 days, I think you’ll see Virgin America in Chicago in April,” Cush said. “The city is making good progress in taking control of that concourse. We wish them success because we want in.”

[Hot Rod]

Originally Posted by plinko

Pretty sure that SFO has A380 service.

yep, SFO has or had dailies from Qantas.

[M II A II R II K]

Rethinking ORD: O'Hare Super Strip


11.12.2010

By Clare Lyster



Read More: http://archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4992

This proposal for O’Hare Airport in Chicago takes the current $15 billion O’Hare Modernization Program (OMP) as a starting point to imagine the airport not just as a transportation terminal but as a multi-programmed urban landscape that caters to travelers as well as a regional and local population that comes to the airport to shop, play, and work. A subsurface mega-strip formed by the new parallel runway configuration stretches across the 3 1/2-mile width of the airfield, connecting the existing airport terminals on the east side of the airfield with the proposed new terminal on the western edge. The strip hosts three large program clusters that aggregate around the terminals, linked by the CTA blue line, which, with the highway, is extended across the strip and into the city’s Northwest suburbs.

- East Zone: Research of route flow shows that 34 percent of flights in and out of O’Hare are to destinations within a 1 1/2-hour radius of Chicago. Given the high demand for regional connections, the east cluster zone by Terminal 5, the international terminal, provides for a large high-speed rail interchange with other metropolitan transportation connections supported by hotels and conference facilities and a regional commuter university.

- Mid Zone: Positioning amenities underground acknowledges safety measures imposed by air traffic control and flight paths and also provides acoustic isolation. Large voids are carved out of the thickened strip to allow light and air into the subterranean spaces. For example, a central void in the “mid-cluster zone” hosts one of the primary collective spaces of the project, a 45-acre public park that acts as a gateway from the lower level parking layer to Terminals 1, 2, and 3, the airport’s busiest spaces.

- West Zone: Since 1996, the O’Hare Noise Compatibility Commission has spent $435 million on noise abatement programs in the surrounding neighborhoods to address the significant and dangerous noise levels in and around O’Hare. The program cluster on the west edge of the strip is zoned for institutional use and accommodates the schools, religious institutions, and community programs currently located on the periphery of the airfield in areas above the FAA’s 65 DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level). The cluster is linked to parking and the CTA, allowing easy access to outlying residential areas.

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7054790.story

U.S. offers $3.4 million to design control tower at O'Hare
By Jon Hilkevitch

Although Chicago still has not lined up funding to build the final new runway planned at O'Hare International Airport, the U.S. government offered $3.4 million Monday to design an air-traffic control tower to serve the future airstrip.

The proposed tower, to be located on the south airfield, would be the third control tower at O'Hare. It would serve the planned 7,500-foot runway 10 Right/28 Left, the southern-most runway of six east-west runways envisioned in the $15 billion O'Hare expansion project.

...LaHood offered another surprise. He said no one has approached him during his almost two years as transportation secretary about the proposed south suburban airport in Will County.

[Jenner]

Is the southern control tower only for the proposed southern most runway 10R/28L, or is it going to be used to control all of the runways on the south end of the field? Seems odd that you'd need 1 control tower for a single runway (or at least that is what I gathered from the article).

[ardecila]

I'm not sure, exactly. Most parallel-runway airports have the runways fairly closely-spaced (DFW, LAX, SEA) but O'Hare will have very widely-spaced runways. That makes the job of the ATCs more difficult. I wonder if the central tower will be taken out of commission, to be replaced with the existing and future mid-field towers?

[Jenner]

I looked at some sample airports, and DFW has 3 towers, ATL has 1 (biggest in US), and DTW has 1. My guess is that the ORD central tower may not be tall enough to see the entire airfield, and thus ancillary towers are needed to see the outer-most runways. This seems to be the model for DFW. ATL created one massive tower in order to see the whole airfield.

[denizen467]

Having 2 or 3 is way cooler than having 1 big one. Especially given the sexy design they used for ORD (and the cookie cutter design used at ATL).

I wonder how many others have 3 -- it's probably an extremely short list (DEN?) if there are any at all. FYI the DFW towers look pretty smallish per satellite photo.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,7124874.story

Northwest suburbs still waiting for lift from O'Hare expansionStalled project continues to anger some, disappoint others

........Promises of a new access road and terminal helped convince suburban lawmakers to support O'Hare expansion. In 2001, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley proposed a $6.6 billion project to build four additional runways and a western terminal at O'Hare in a bid to increase airport capacity and reduce congestion.

Planning has proceeded for the highway entrance, but the fate of the terminal is unclear. Its uncertain status has some critics questioning whether the project's promised economic boost justified destruction of hundreds of homes and businesses, as well as increased noise and pollution in the area.

With the western terminal on hold, some expansion opponents are saying, "I told you so." Boosters, who once envisioned new hotels, restaurants and businesses, are still waiting for development.

It isn't likely to happen soon. In 2008, six airlines whose landing and rental fees would help pay for the plan came out against the western terminal, calling it ill-conceived. They warned it was too far from the main terminal to permit easy passenger and baggage connections.

As city officials in September approved a $1 billion bond issue to keep the project going, Daley conceded the terminal wasn't an essential part of airport expansion. Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino said the terminal's construction would depend on future demand.

Chicago has constructed one new runway, extended one and built an additional control tower. The city still needs $3 billion to build three runways and extend another. The cost of airport improvements has reached $15 billion, while the number of flights declined the past two years..............

Last year, several communities agreed on the path of the bypass linking the Jane Addams and Tri-State tollways, as well as an extension of the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway into the airport. Plans call for a rail or bus line to be built in the median of the expanded Elgin-O'Hare and up to the Addams Tollway (Interstate Highway 90).

Last month, Gov. Pat Quinn announced the formation of an advisory council to advance plans for the project.

Peter Harmet, lead project manager for the Illinois Department of Transportation, said the road work is needed, with or without a terminal, to reduce traffic congestion on the west side of the airport.

It also has the support of elected officials in the affected communities. Construction could start in 2013 and take at least two or three years to complete.

The $3.6 billion project still lacks funding, however. And with the state deep in debt, the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is considering making them toll roads..............

More in link

[ardecila]

Eh... it's all overblown. Planning for the highway is going gangbusters. Every few weeks, they're having meetings and determining new things about how the massive new highway will look, function, and be constructed. It makes the CTA look laughable with their glacially-slow study process.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by chiphile

I've had some frustrations over this entire ORD expansion over the years and thus I must vent here. I hope the cronies running the aviation department take a look at this - it seems like no one has given them any advice that makes any sense.

First, O'Hare's website is not even appropriate for a 3rd world dirt air strip. What a shame: http://www.flychicago.com/OHare/OhareHomepage.shtm

Second, the last 30 years has been nothing but a steady decline in O'Hare and Chicago's place in aviation. Don't tell me about Boeing. I'm talking aviation infrastructure quality. Yes Midway is nice now, but it's small and has reached its max capacity. The two global hubs, United and American, have both drastically declined. And ORD, the one long time busiest airport in the world, has now slipped from 35 years of 1st place to 4th, yes FORTH. Atlanta on the other hand handles more passengers and flights than both O'Hare AND midway combined.

Finally, this expansion project has been handled poorly by the department of aviation and its treatment of the airlines, United and American.

They keep saying nonsense about more competition via the new western terminal. The airlines do not need more competition, there is plenty of it, Southwest owns Midway, and we already pay rock bottom prices for flying.

It's all about THE HUB.

Atlanta is what it is because of Delta. It offers over 1,000 daily flights to destinations around the globe, across America, and is considered the largest hub operation. It is the single most important factor in Atlanta emerging as a global city due to the air connections.

More "competition" at O'Hare means what, jet blue giving O'Hare its 48th flight to New York City? Some cheap airline with $80 flights to Florida? Let the vacationers go somewhere else, O'Hare needs to build its hubs.

The Western Terminal should go to United. It can serve as the North American Star Alliance hub, where United and all of its international partners operate out of. United's domestic operation can expand in terminal one and take over a new terminal 2. This is a perfect opportunity with United's merger with Continental.

With Star Alliance partners out to the new western terminal, American Airlines should have all of terminal 3 for its domestic operation and all of International Terminal 5 should go to the international One World Alliance.

All left over carriers can be housed in the new terminal 6.

Businesses book airline contracts with the airline that can give them the single most non-stop connections, domestic and international, with nice business lounges, frequency, and a good frequent flier plan. Spirit airlines to Florida is not that, United and American are. Stronger United and American hubs means a stronger O'hare, period.

Here's what I meant for the new United terminal.

This is what we have now:






This is what could be:




So, I really thought this one through. The western (left) satellite terminal is the United and Star Alliance International terminal with 23 gates for jumbo jets. This is accessible only from an underground train from the main terminal, the one with the 3 piers/concourses.

The middle concourse if you notice has only one side with aircraft, that's because there would not be enough taxi room if both sides did, and also if you notice, the middle concourse is devoted entirely to small regional jets. Since most regional jet travelers are connecting, their gates are conveniently located in the middle of the entire complex.

The concourse sizes are also very wide, to prevent crowding and ample gate seating areas, something people often complain about in U.S. airports.

For departing international passengers, they would proceed to the north side of the main terminal, check in, eat at a fancy restaurant, the ride an express train straight to their gates (the yellow line).

For international arriving passengers, those who have connecting flights have an immigration AND customs facility right in the international terminal, so they can connect to their domestic flights in the main terminal without ever leaving security. For international passengers headed home to Chicago, they have an express train straight to the main terminal (orange line) that takes them to a customs facility just for them and their luggage. Immigration is only done in the international terminal.

For domestic passengers, yes the concourses are long but you have a train, plenty of moving walkways inside the concourses, and all the things you need or wished you needed. Connections are made easy with underground walkways and frequent trains (red line).

United, Chicago, anyone listening?