CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[Kngkyle]

^ thats a great design. I think you made it a little too big though. That is probably enough for all the passenger operations not just United. As you're well aware, United and American are unlikely to support expansion if it means more gates for LCCs. I'd love for them to just demolish all the terminals and build that though, too bad it can't really be done and would cost a ton.

Looking at the scale you used, that terminal would have about 250 gates. Right now all of the terminals total 182 gates. So way more than is realistic.

[chiphile]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

^ thats a great design. I think you made it a little too big though. That is probably enough for all the passenger operations not just United. As you're well aware, United and American are unlikely to support expansion if it means more gates for LCCs. I'd love for them to just demolish all the terminals and build that though, too bad it can't really be done and would cost a ton.

Looking at the scale you used, that terminal would have about 250 gates. Right now all of the terminals total 182 gates. So way more than is realistic.

Thanks for the feedback. Size wise though, that new terminal is 150 gates, easily countable with the scaled jets lined up (including 40 regional jets), not 250. Taking away the original demolished terminals 1 and 2 (which combined have 87 gates), the new design brings the total gates from your number of 182 to 245, for a total of just 63 new gates.

The new design is modeled to rival delta's hub in Atlanta. It's essentially a Delta hub laid on top of the old terminals 1 and 2. Nothing outrageous compared to what's being built in Dubai, Beijing, etc.

The numbers are also modest, a million flights per year (compared to the current 900K and 90-100 million passengers, compared to the current 70 million).

I really think this terminal is doable with 3 billion dollars, minus road improvements and/or western access. Perhaps the new United/Continental would be interested in something like this, if they don't, another city WILL build something similar and take the traffic.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by chiphile

Thanks for the feedback. Size wise though, that new terminal is 150 gates, easily countable with the scaled jets lined up (including 40 regional jets), not 250. Taking away the original demolished terminals 1 and 2 (which combined have 87 gates), the new design brings the total gates from your number of 182 to 245, for a total of just 63 new gates.

The new design is modeled to rival delta's hub in Atlanta. It's essentially a Delta hub laid on top of the old terminals 1 and 2. Nothing outrageous compared to what's being built in Dubai, Beijing, etc.

The numbers are also modest, a million flights per year (compared to the current 900K and 90-100 million passengers, compared to the current 70 million).

I really think this terminal is doable with 3 billion dollars, minus road improvements and/or western access. Perhaps the new United/Continental would be interested in something like this, if they don't, another city WILL build something similar and take the traffic.

Ah ok. I counted the regional jet concourse as having gates on both sides, I assumed you just forgot to put them or something. But since it was intentional, I think it would be better to shorten that middle concourse and have gates on both sides. It could be extended in the future if the capacity was needed.

[Kngkyle]

I decided to have a go at designing a new terminal as well.

I went with the similar design to Atlanta because I think it works perfectly and allows for easy expansion if needed. This terminal would be for all Star Alliance carriers and would have immigration and customs making the T5 arrivals unnecessary.



My inspiration for putting the widebody gates first comes from the McNamara terminal in Detroit. As you walk into the gate area you look into the eyes of a pair of 747s. International ops are the pride and glory of the airport and airline and should be shown off with this sort of grand entrance. 14 widebody gates is probably more than is needed but they can always be used for smaller aircraft. (unlike the reverse)

In this layout, concourses A B C D have a total of 153 gates. That would be an increase of 72 gates which is a bit much. So to start off they could just build A B C to start and build D and on as needed.

I know this will never happen but we can dream.

[chiphile]

^ And the winner is..... simplicity!

Nice job, goes with the current design without major changes and can actually be done with the current layout.

I like the idea of the big jets in the front, but for domestic business travelers who want the minimum distance between the road and their flights that may not be good.

Flights to NYC and DC may also want to be in concourse A for the aforementioned reason.

Otherwise I'll take your design over mine any day. I don't see why they couldn't easily build another midfield concourse west of the current concourse C.

[Jenner]

Something similar was proposed in the Master plan. You can look at the alternatives section, and Section 6 has something close to the above.

The major problem is the clearance for runway 4L/22R, as that runway would be unusable now. That would mean that you don't have parallel crosswind runways. Also the lack of a major taxiway between the concourses would mean that arriving airplanes may have to take long trips around the concourses to taxi.

I have some other ideas for terminal 2. Perhaps in the next couple of days I'll post those.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by Jenner

Something similar was proposed in the Master plan. You can look at the alternatives section, and Section 6 has something close to the above.

The major problem is the clearance for runway 4L/22R, as that runway would be unusable now. That would mean that you don't have parallel crosswind runways. Also the lack of a major taxiway between the concourses would mean that arriving airplanes may have to take long trips around the concourses to taxi.

I have some other ideas for terminal 2. Perhaps in the next couple of days I'll post those.

Ah you are right. I completely overlooked 4L/22R. I don't see how the taxiways are an issue though. Perhaps I will redesign something that wouldn't require the decommission of 4L/22R, which isn't gonna happen.

[spyguy]

This caught my eye:

2010/11/28 United Airlines Terminal Renovation airport terminal renovation Zemke Blvd, Chicago, IL 60666, USA Cook

Bidclerk doesn't provide much:

Renovation of a transportation facility in Chicago. Completed plans call for the extensive renovation of an airport terminal. ...

Anyone have a clue?

[F1 Tommy]

E/F-concourse.

[denizen467]

Zemke is way up north near the long-term parking. Maybe this is about UA's cargo or maintenance hangars.

[bnk]

I do not believe it myself but I will post this here nonetheless.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,1638524.story

Magazine says O'Hare best airport in North America

Associated Press

6:07 AM CST, December 4, 2010

CHICAGO


It may surprise some of the hordes of passengers passing through O'Hare International Airport, but the Chicago Department of Aviation says the facility has been once again won Global Traveler's award for "Best Airport in North America."

The department says O'Hare has now won the magazine's award every year since 2005, and notes that the airport won a similar award from Business Traveler every year from 2000 to 2004.

Global Traveler says O'Hare was recognized by business travelers who participated in a survey conducted between January and August of this year. The magazine says its readers are frequent premium travelers who average 16 round-trip international and 16 domestic flights a year.

[ardecila]

I guess the City That Works also has an airport That Works.

Most regular schmoes hate the size and complexity of O'Hare, but you gotta admire its efficiency. Atlanta may have more travelers passing through the airport, but that's inflated by layovers. I think O'Hare has many, many more passengers actually arriving and departing from the terminals to destinations in Chicago and the region. That means far more security lines, bag checking, a much bigger ground transportation system, etc.

The airport does a seemingly good job with this - I got through security on last Monday (one of the busiest of the year) in 20 minutes.

Many of the worst issues with O'Hare's operations were solved by the last new runway. The other new ones will strengthen the system even more. Any remaining issues are caused by the weather, which is hardly a factor in the control of O'Hare's planners and ATCs.

I think the airlines are right, on some level - a new Western Terminal isn't needed. The city just needs to improve the ground transportation system to GET people to the airport faster. If this means a Western Transportation Hub with a subway/people mover extension, then that's cool.

[spyguy]

http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_...0007d21c39____

Chicago Becomes Cathay Pacific's Next U.S. Destination
6 December 2010

Cathay Pacific will launch daily nonstop passenger service between Hong Kong and Chicago on Sept. 1, 2011. The route will be served by a Boeing 777-300ER aircraft. Chicago will be the airline’s first new American destination since 1998. The carrier currently serves Los Angeles, New York JFK and San Francisco in the United States with more than 50 flights per week.

...Cathay Pacific flight CX807 will depart Chicago daily at 3:25 p.m. Central and arrive in Hong Kong at 8 p.m. local the next day. Flight CX806 will depart Hong Kong at 11:45 a.m. local time and arrive Chicago at 1:45 p.m. Central time the same day.

[nomarandlee]

United is getting some competition. CP's entry would seem to be a good indicator that Uniteds HNK-ORD route is very strong

[saxman]

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_...0007d21c39____

Chicago Becomes Cathay Pacific's Next U.S. Destination
6 December 2010

Cathay Pacific will launch daily nonstop passenger service between Hong Kong and Chicago on Sept. 1, 2011. The route will be served by a Boeing 777-300ER aircraft. Chicago will be the airline’s first new American destination since 1998. The carrier currently serves Los Angeles, New York JFK and San Francisco in the United States with more than 50 flights per week.

...Cathay Pacific flight CX807 will depart Chicago daily at 3:25 p.m. Central and arrive in Hong Kong at 8 p.m. local the next day. Flight CX806 will depart Hong Kong at 11:45 a.m. local time and arrive Chicago at 1:45 p.m. Central time the same day.

Perhaps to feed into the AA hub at Chicago. Cathay is a Oneworld member.

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by saxman

Perhaps to feed into the AA hub at Chicago. Cathay is a Oneworld member.

Yup, but AA better increase its seats into ORD back up to 2005 levels if they want to keep up with UAL and support the connecting traffic. Cathay Pacific also already has several daily cargo flights into ORD using 747 equipement. Now if Singapore will only come back with passenger service(Singapore also has a 747 cargo flight daily to ORD).

[ChicagoChicago]

I like O'Hare's terminal efficiency. However, I HATE the transportation setup. The trains are too far away and most of the moving walkways don't work. The rental car locations are a nightmare. I've flown 50 segments through O'Hare alone this year, and the travel options all suck, with the exception of getting a cab. Cabs are always easy.

[denizen467]

^ Has a contractor been selected for the unified car rental facility building yet? Get that darn thing going already.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by saxman

Perhaps to feed into the AA hub at Chicago. Cathay is a Oneworld member.

Does AA already fly DFW to HKG? If not, then it's interesting that CX didn't pick DFW - shows how much more SE Asia demand there is in Midwest/East versus the Southwest/Southeast. (Not surprising I guess.)

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Does AA already fly DFW to HKG? If not, then it's interesting that CX didn't pick DFW - shows how much more SE Asia demand there is in Midwest/East versus the Southwest/Southeast.

AA's only Asia service out of DFW is 2x daily to NRT. It's geography more than anything else: Why connect in DFW when ORD gives you almost as many connection options without having to backtrack back north? And CX already serves LAX and SFO, neither of which are major One World hubs to begin with. Not to mention SFO is a much more convenient transfer point for Star Alliance passengers originating at IAH, which serves the metro area and greater region (Gulf Coast) that has the largest SE Asian population in the Sunbelt outside of Southern California.

Regardless, this is great news for Chicago, and a bit of an eye-opener. Did not see this one coming, but it makes a lot of sense.