[denizen467]

last September they gave the go-ahead for design to begin, and that process should take 9 months maximum.
I am thrilled about this. Not that I would ever really have a need for renting a car at ORD, but the antiquated system of balkanized surface lots and endlessly roving, gas-belching mini-buses just needs to go -- if for nothing else than to be more hospitable to visitors during blizzards and bitter cold (wait, do we have winter anymore?). Not long ago I was craning my neck at LAX arrivals waiting for a Hertz shuttle and it took like a half-hour, not helped by the fact that other commercial minibuses also use the yellow livery scheme. One frequent, unified shuttle, to one indoor facility, will work great. Obviously getting the ATS out there would make it even better.

Plus, it adds a new shiny construction project at ORD -- the first new public building there in 20 years (T5, 1993) I think?

[denizen467]

his bone-headed Peotone Airport boondoggle idea.
It even got creepy-boneheaded during his victory speech the other night; he was touting it as though it was the only thing between his citizens and the promised land. Can he not come up with economic stimulus ideas that don't involve pushing at windmills?
nobody can beat him until he dies or decides to resign.
Maybe the latter will come sooner rather than later if Mr. Obama appoints him as Deputy Secretary of this-and-that, or Ambassador to New Zealand or somewhere. Isn't Yusef or one of his brothers a lot more competent than him? Have him run to fill the seat and it would be a great improvement. Anyway, not to get political.

[ardecila]

Plus, it adds a new shiny construction project at ORD -- the first new public building there in 20 years (T5, 1993) I think?

The first ground-up building in awhile, yea. There have been minor terminal expansions and so forth, plus the huge canopy-and-stairs project that cost nearly 400 million dollars.

The RFP that came out a few years ago showed garages that looked very similar to the massive ones on the north side of Midway. I'll be interested to see what these look like.

[Kippis]

No, the bypass will run east of York and the railroad tracks. There's no room to the west without ripping out even more of Bensenville.

Since this stuff is within the Runway Protection Zone, everything has to be at-grade or lower, so there's a lot of earthmoving and overpasses. New UP alignment is blue. You can also see the new road into the cargo area.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8464/oharesw.jpg

ardecila, where did you find that image? I've been trying to find more visual info on this for a while; maybe my Google-fu is slipping...

This -- and the western terminal complex -- is the piece of the puzzle I'm most interested in, since the Elgin O'Hare as-built looks like it was designed to carry another lane in each direction. You can see that most notably at Meacham Rd: http://g.co/maps/4ktpb

And it's interesting to note that even without the proposed bypass, the new UP alignment over Irving Park Rd. will significantly reduce travel times from Bensenville to Schiller Park along that stretch. The overpass has already been constructed, but the new tracks aren't live as of this past weekend. When I lived out that way a few years ago, I always used Irving Park/Mannheim to get to O'Hare. Lots of times I wished I didn't have to deal with that occasional slow-moving freight train... ;)

[ardecila]

ardecila, where did you find that image? I've been trying to find more visual info on this for a while; maybe my Google-fu is slipping...

This -- and the western terminal complex -- is the piece of the puzzle I'm most interested in, since the Elgin O'Hare as-built looks like it was designed to carry another lane in each direction. You can see that most notably at Meacham Rd: http://g.co/maps/4ktpb

And it's interesting to note that even without the proposed bypass, the new UP alignment over Irving Park Rd. will significantly reduce travel times from Bensenville to Schiller Park along that stretch. The overpass has already been constructed, but the new tracks aren't live as of this past weekend. When I lived out that way a few years ago, I always used Irving Park/Mannheim to get to O'Hare. Lots of times I wished I didn't have to deal with that occasional slow-moving freight train... ;)

The linework is from the EIS for the West Bypass project. I took it into Illustrator and deleted some unneeded layers, then I overlayed it on an aerial. It only took about 5 minutes.

[Kippis]

The linework is from the EIS for the West Bypass project. I took it into Illustrator and deleted some unneeded layers, then I overlayed it on an aerial. It only took about 5 minutes.

Better you than me. There are times when I loathe Illustrator :rolleyes: ...but thanks for taking the time to do that; it's great to have that extra layer of info via the aerial.

[F1 Tommy]

Interesting aircraft sitting over at the UAL hangar, a United Airlines Charter 747-400. I did not know United was getting into dedicated charter services.

[nomarandlee]

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/11537930-537/airport-railroad-reach-agreement-runway-project-can-move-ahead.html

airport, railroad reach agreement; runway project can move ahead

by michelle l. Quinn post-tribune correspondent
march 26, 2012 11:16am

gary — the last and biggest piece of the gary/chicago international airport runway expansion has been signed, and now work can continue on the $162 million project without legal concern.

Mayor karen freeman-wilson announced at monday morning news conference at the airport that with the help of her office, the airport and canadian national railway have signed both the purchase and sale agreement for the easements needed for the track relocation and the design and engineering contracts governing the technical and engineering aspects of the project. The move brings the airport “one step closer to federal aviation administration guidelines,” she said.

“this really does what happens when partners work together,” freeman-wilson said. “while the expansion is not done, the written agreements give rise to it.”

the mayor said she and her administration, including corporate counsel niquelle allen, had 7:30 a.m. Conference calls daily with the airport and cn to iron out the last details. Those details, according to interim airport director steve landry, dealt with indemnification backing and guarantees with regards to liabilities and environmental issues.

Freeman-wilson also reminded the group that per that gary/chicago compact, the gary airport is the third airport, and the south suburban airport near peotone, ill., would be the fourth, even if it were larger.

“peotone could be set up more as an international presence, but gary is the third airport,” she said. “the expansion will bring construction jobs to the city as well as increased activity to the airport.”..........

Work on the relocation, meanwhile, won’t look like it starts immediately because it’s been going on all along, landry said. While signing the agreements were a relief for everyone, they were going to be signed eventually; it was just a question of “when” and not “if.”..........
..more in link

[ardecila]

Hopefully the runway expansion will mean Gary can actually get some regular service...

[202_Cyclist]

LOT Polish Airlines will likely offer O'Hare's first Dreamliner flight

By Gregory Karp
Chicago Tribune
March 28, 2012

"LOT Polish Airlines is the first airline to announce that it will offer a Chicago O'Hare flight aboard a revolutionary Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft.

LOT will begin service in January 2013 between Chicago and Warsaw, Poland, its CEO said Wednesday at a news conference in Chicago. "Chicago is our biggest market, not only in the U.S. but worldwide," said LOT Polish Airlines CEO Marcin Pirog. Last year, the airline flew 160,000 passengers between Chicago and Warsaw, he said.

O'Hare's most dominant airline, United Airlines, is scheduled to take delivery of a 787 slightly earlier -- scheduled for the second half of this year -- and would "likely" use a 787 on routes through Chicago, possibly as soon as the fourth quarter of this year, spokeswoman Mary Ryan said. However, United hasn't announced a flight schedule for the aircraft..."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-lot-polish-airlines-will-likely-offer-ohares-first-dreamliner-flight-20120328,0,2933248.story

[Kngkyle]

^ Interesting that Chicago is their biggest market. 160,000 yearly passengers is 438 per day, enough for a 747, not that they have them or that it would be a smart business move.

I also bet we'll see a United 787 in Chicago first. Although this might still be the first international 787 service. United will probably use it on hub-hub domestic routes at first for training purposes, like ANA is doing.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Interesting that Chicago is their biggest market. 160,000 yearly passengers is 438 per day, enough for a 747, not that they have them or that it would be a smart business move.

I also bet we'll see a United 787 in Chicago first. Although this might still be the first international 787 service. United will probably use it on hub-hub domestic routes at first for training purposes, like ANA is doing.

Chicago is one of the largest centers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_Chicago) of the Polish diaspora.

[Kngkyle]

Chicago is one of the largest centers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_Chicago) of the Polish diaspora.

I know that, it still seems odd that such a long route would be their biggest market. You would think Warsaw to London for example would be bigger since it's much closer. I suppose it depends on what he means by 'biggest market'- revenue? passengers? profit?. I was under the assumption it was passengers but that seems off.

[Nowhereman1280]

Chicago is one of the largest centers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_in_Chicago) of the Polish diaspora.

THE largest center.

I know that, it still seems odd that such a long route would be their biggest market. You would think Warsaw to London for example would be bigger since it's much closer. I suppose it depends on what he means by 'biggest market'- revenue? passengers? profit?. I was under the assumption it was passengers but that seems off.

There are more Poles in Chicago than in any other city on Earth except Warsaw. It would only make sense that the two largest concentrations of Polish people on the planet would be the biggest route for a Polish airline...

[N830MH]

Hopefully the runway expansion will mean Gary can actually get some regular service...

Yes, Allegiant Air will start flying from GYY once the runway extension is completed.

[ardecila]

There are more Poles in Chicago than in any other city on Earth except Warsaw. It would only make sense that the two largest concentrations of Polish people on the planet would be the biggest route for a Polish airline...

This is a common trope, but it's also a really really old one. If it was true at one point 80 years ago, I doubt it still is.

Chicago has lots of people who are descended from Polish immigrants (I'm one of them) but many of us are not really Polish culturally, outside of a few random traditions, and have little reason to visit the old country.

This is not to belittle all the recent Polish immigrants that populate the Northwest/Southwest Sides, but that wave of immigration is dwarfed by the previous one, whose descendants have all pretty much Americanized fully.

[jpIllInoIs]

Yes, Allegiant Air will start flying from GYY once the runway extension is completed.

Is this a fact? The rail removal and runway extension will not be completed for several years. Did the airline sign a contract and make a commitment to fly out of GYY in 2014? 2015?

[Standpoor]

Is this a fact? The rail removal and runway extension will not be completed for several years. Did the airline sign a contract and make a commitment to fly out of GYY in 2014? 2015?

Allegiant has already started flying out of GYY with twice weekly flights to MCO. The flights seem to be popular but whether or not they are profitable is a different matter entirely. If you mean do they have a long term commitment with the airport to provide service two three years from now, I do not know. Allegiant is not exactly known for keeping disappointing routes open for long. They did extend booking through the end of the year though.

[Nowhereman1280]

This is a common trope, but it's also a really really old one. If it was true at one point 80 years ago, I doubt it still is.

Chicago has lots of people who are descended from Polish immigrants (I'm one of them) but many of us are not really Polish culturally, outside of a few random traditions, and have little reason to visit the old country.

This is not to belittle all the recent Polish immigrants that populate the Northwest/Southwest Sides, but that wave of immigration is dwarfed by the previous one, whose descendants have all pretty much Americanized fully.

I suspect it is still true... Most of the original wave of Post WWII poles are still alive and more have joined them since the fall of communism.

[denizen467]

^ Interesting that Chicago is their biggest market. 160,000 yearly passengers is 438 per day, enough for a 747, not that they have them or that it would be a smart business move.

I also bet we'll see a United 787 in Chicago first. Although this might still be the first international 787 service. United will probably use it on hub-hub domestic routes at first for training purposes, like ANA is doing.

I believe the first 787 to be received by United was ordered by then-Continental, and their plan (even well after the merger) was to use it out of the Houston hub to Auckland NZ. Assuming that hasn't changed, a Chicago 787 might not be a domestic-only route. Roughly speaking the 787 is replacing 767-class aircraft, and my impression is that at ORD, 767s tend to go medium-haul to Europe or Hawaii, and not domestically in the lower 48 (though they might also be used medium-haul on coast-to-coast domestic routes). It would make sense to run the Chicago 787 on lucrative routes to 1st-tier European cities or 2nd-tier (or already-served 1st-tier) Asian cities.

You're right it's strange that LOT's "biggest market" would be Chicago, considering Poles presumably have lots of business and holiday travel to London, the Mediterranean, not to mention places in Germany or other adjacent countries. However, it turns out LOT is really a comparitively small airline, and behemoths like ever-growing Lufthansa (which acquired Swiss, etc) next door are not helping that situation.

[Kngkyle]

I believe the first 787 to be received by United was ordered by then-Continental, and their plan (even well after the merger) was to use it out of the Houston hub to Auckland NZ. Assuming that hasn't changed, a Chicago 787 might not be a domestic-only route. Roughly speaking the 787 is replacing 767-class aircraft, and my impression is that at ORD, 767s tend to go medium-haul to Europe or Hawaii, and not domestically in the lower 48 (though they might also be used medium-haul on coast-to-coast domestic routes). It would make sense to run the Chicago 787 on lucrative routes to 1st-tier European cities or 2nd-tier (or already-served 1st-tier) Asian cities.


When acquiring a new aircraft type airlines tend to run them on shorter domestic routes between hubs for training and maintenance purposes. New aircraft types do not have the dispatch reliability of mature models. After a few months of that is when traditionally they'd begin using the aircraft on long-haul routes. At least this has been the case with ANA, who have been flying Tokyo-Osaka/Fukuoka/Hiroshima with their 787s and will only this summer (iirc) begin flying Tokyo-Boston and Tokyo-San Diego. Although ANA was the very first customer so perhaps by the time United receives their first 787 this won't be as necessary.

[ardecila]

The Draft EIS for the Elgin-O'Hare-West Bypass project is complete. I haven't looked through the documents thoroughly, but it doesn't seem like there's any new information.

http://elginohare-westbypass.org/DEIS_2012/Forms/AllItems.aspx

Unfortunately there will be no access from southbound 294 to the West Bypass, or from the southbound West Bypass to northbound 294. This means you won't be able to do loops around the airport.

[denizen467]

Unfortunately there will be no access from southbound 294 to the West Bypass, or from the southbound West Bypass to northbound 294. This means you won't be able to do loops around the airport.
So despite the new roadways, western suburbanites won't be able to get to T1 - T5 without going all the way around the north side of the airfield? And if there are gates at a new western terminal, from the northeast it won't be possible to get to the new terminal without doing the same? (This of course excludes the option of using Irving Park Road and assumes there is no subterranean shuttle connecting west and original terminals.)

Is there space left over to build the junction in the future?

Or is there some strategy here to avert induced demand by western suburbanites seeking a quicker way to get into the city via a south bypass and then the Kennedy (and vice versa)?

[ardecila]

No, you've got it backwards. The interchange at the West Bypass and the Northwest Tollway (Addams) has all possible ramps. The interchange at the West Bypass and the Tri-State does not.

I guess it's a strategy to separate city-to-suburbs traffic on the Elgin-Ohare and NW Tollway/Kennedy from circumferential traffic on the Tri-State.

Unfortunately, this massive new project will not eliminate my biggest pet peeve - you cannot go from the inbound NW Tollway to Rosemont directly. You have to go into O'Hare and loop around the terminals then backtrack, or take a circuitous detour via Mannheim. None of it is signed.

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/62/eowbsouth.jpg

[denizen467]

No, you've got it backwards. The interchange at the West Bypass and the Northwest Tollway (Addams) has all possible ramps. The interchange at the West Bypass and the Tri-State does not.
No, no; please reread my post - we are talking about the same thing. Just for clarity maybe I should have written "(via the Addams)" at the end of my first sentence.
Unfortunately, this massive new project will not eliminate my biggest pet peeve - you cannot go from the inbound NW Tollway to Rosemont directly. You have to go into O'Hare and loop around the terminals then backtrack, or take a circuitous detour via Mannheim. None of it is signed.
Are you saying you had hoped for a project that is on the W and S edges of the airport to ameliorate a problem on its NE corner? At best you'd end up with a gas-guzzling detour around the airport in order to finally arrive at Rosemont. Isn't the simplest prescription here to add an EB off-ramp around Higgins or something like that? It would need toll booths -- maybe all of this is already contemplated for the Addams rebuild?

[ardecila]

Are you saying you had hoped for a project that is on the W and S edges of the airport to ameliorate a problem on its NE corner? At best you'd end up with a gas-guzzling detour around the airport in order to finally arrive at Rosemont. Isn't the simplest prescription here to add an EB off-ramp around Higgins or something like that? It would need toll booths -- maybe all of this is already contemplated for the Addams rebuild?

The Elgin-Ohare project includes upgrades to surface arterials and even the Tri-State exit to North Avenue. Some limited modifications in the Rosemont area are not out of the question.

The closest thing is that IDOT is proposing a new diverging diamond interchange at Elmhurst Rd instead of the partial cloverleaf that they use now, which would allow for direct access to Higgins and - finally - an exit for inbound drivers on the endless stretch between Arlington Hts Rd and the Tri State. I'm not sure this will be any faster than the alternatives I mentioned above. Then again, a detour around the airport probably wouldn't be any faster either.

The reverse of my desired move - ie getting onto the outbound NW Tollway from Rosemont - is easy via a direct ramp at Devon. It only makes sense that there should be a counterpart somewhere - especially if the Rosemont Blue Line station is to fulfill its potential as a park and ride. The surface lot could be redeveloped into a garage to provide a much greater capacity - this might even be possible at no cost to CTA if they picked the right partner and landed a grant. Cumberland's garage virtually never fills up, but in order to get to Cumberland, you have to pass the terrible bottleneck where 90 and 190 merge. This is a huge disincentive to everyone except NW Side and Park Ridge residents who can access the garage via local streets.

One thing I have not seen seen addressed is the fate of the Des Plaines Oasis. It sits exactly where the interchange with the West Bypass will be, so it will either need to be eliminated or moved elsewhere.

[denizen467]

One thing I have not seen seen addressed is the fate of the Des Plaines Oasis. It sits exactly where the interchange with the West Bypass will be, so it will either need to be eliminated or moved elsewhere.
Interesting, since they just rebuilt it. I wonder how much it is utilized -- how profitable it is -- now, decades later, with many more new options for gas and food along the Addams (not necessarily just around Mt Prospect but anywhere from Desplaines to Rolling Meadows). One is inclined to question whether the costs of a complete rebuild at a new location could be recouped through profits within a reasonable time, at least just with a gas station and fast food places (i.e. not considering the idea of adding other types of tenant uses). In other words, if the average city gas station is barely profitable, how could it be profitable (even considering jacking up prices a bit) if you factor in the fixed costs of building highway off & on ramps and massive truck and bus parking, etc. In fact, having drivers instead exit and re-enter the tollway for gas and food could be more profitable, without outlaying any funds for a rebuild, since they'd be paying tolls each time.

[the urban politician]

^ I would hate to see any Oasis lost, to be honest.

The above-ground oases in the Chicagoland tollway system have always been unique and interesting, in my mind

[Kngkyle]

As predicted, Lufthansa will be sending their new 747-8s to Chicago. (+ LAX and IAD)
Not as big as the A380 but way better looking, in my opinion.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2006/12/06/2003464730.jpg

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/04/lufthansa-to-introduce-new-747-8-to-los-angeles-and-chicago/673205/1

[denizen467]

^ Indeed, way, WAY better looking.
The article also mentioned Lufthansa will have only 8 seats out of 362 in first class - seems kinda small for one of the premier airlines between Europe and the US.

I always hoped Boeing would rename the 747-8 when it came into service (like the 7E7 was renamed the 787, though at a much earlier stage) into something more in line with its existing convention, so that it would be the 747-600 or 747-800 or something. What was the reason for the uninspiring numbering?

[Kngkyle]

^ Indeed, way, WAY better looking.
The article also mentioned Lufthansa will have only 8 seats out of 362 in first class - seems kinda small for one of the premier airlines between Europe and the US.

Their A380s only have 8 first class seats as well.

[Nowhereman1280]

The real question is what Boeing does when it runs out of iconic 7X7 designations to name its planes with. The next replacement model/line will use up the last number in that class with "797"...

[Dralcoffin]

What's after 797? The new Boeing 7107! I kid, I kid.

Edit: The date on the new Google imagery is March 12, so it's brand new. Now if they can only get the message about the Twin Cities (2001 imagery!).

[Kippis]

Google recently updated their aerial imagery for the Chicago region - while I was looking over the progress of the UP alignment at the southwestern end of the airfield, I noticed that they've begun laying out the subgrade for the future Irving Park Rd. configuration:

http://g.co/maps/w8253

[ardecila]

So they have. Various other construction projects are visible around Chicagoland as well.

[untitledreality]

Google recently updated their aerial imagery for the Chicago region - while I was looking over the progress of the UP alignment at the southwestern end of the airfield, I noticed that they've begun laying out the subgrade for the future Irving Park Rd. configuration:

http://g.co/maps/w8253

Wow, that is a really fresh update... can't be more than a month old.

[Dralcoffin]

Wow, that is a really fresh update... can't be more than a month old.

March 12, according to Google.

[Nowhereman1280]

Looks like the Elgin-O'Hare Bypass is continuing to move ahead. There was a meeting last night where they basically had everything drawn up and planned, no word on the status of aquisitions or condemnation yet though. Looks like this is what they are planning on building:

http://www.elginohare-westbypass.org/images1/T1_roadway_203D.jpg

The full site is here:

http://www.elginohare-westbypass.org/

[Mister Uptempo]

April 19, 2012 1:30PM

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter


Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s plan to forge ahead with construction of a fourth new runway at O’Hare Airport ran into turbulence Thursday when the CEO of United Continental Holdings said there’s not enough passenger demand to justify either more “concrete” at O’Hare or a third airport at Peotone.

Read More At: http://www.suntimes.com/12006727-417/united-airlines-ceo-no-need-for-ohare-expansion-new-airport.html

[Nowhereman1280]

I dunno United, my $1,100 ticket (booked three weeks in advance) to Houston says you do need more runways and more capacity to Houston. Fucking morons connect their two biggest hubs with $1k tickets? You have to be kidding me...

[the urban politician]

I dunno United, my $1,100 ticket (booked three weeks in advance) to Houston says you do need more runways and more capacity to Houston. Fucking morons connect their two biggest hubs with $1k tickets? You have to be kidding me...

^ WTF?

I've flown to San Francisco for cheaper! Hell, I think you can fly to Europe for cheaper than that.

I would never have paid that price, not even close. Did you try consider a flight out of Milwaukee?

[Kngkyle]

I dunno United, my $1,100 ticket (booked three weeks in advance) to Houston says you do need more runways and more capacity to Houston. Fucking morons connect their two biggest hubs with $1k tickets? You have to be kidding me...

$1,100???? Even a first class ticket doesn't cost that much based on my 20 second search. You got screwed. I flew from Orlando to Moscow for less than that.

And in a sense United is right. They don't need the southernmost runway. Just finish the one that is 1/2 done now and continue to improve the current terminals. The city trying to build the western terminal for new low cost carriers is an idiotic idea. If the city wants a western terminal, they need to convince either United or American to move into it and make it a Star Alliance / Oneworld hub, akin to the McNamara terminal in Detroit. But good luck convincing either of them to pay for that.

[Rail Claimore]

^ WTF?

I've flown to San Francisco for cheaper! Hell, I think you can fly to Europe for cheaper than that.

I would never have paid that price, not even close. Did you try consider a flight out of Milwaukee?

You can fly roundtrip to Tokyo for about that much. Definitely a ripoff...

[Nowhereman1280]

^ WTF?

I've flown to San Francisco for cheaper! Hell, I think you can fly to Europe for cheaper than that.

I would never have paid that price, not even close. Did you try consider a flight out of Milwaukee?

Nope, I book flights to Houston all the time and, unless you book about a month in advance, you are going to be paying around $1,000 from O'Hare or $1,500 from Milwaukee. The only way to beat those fares is to book Southwest which is usually about $600.

You are all probably booking flights that will stay for three days or more, when my bosses or I go it's only one or two nights...

I know it's shocking, but I've probably booked a dozen flights there for myself or others and checked prices myself and through a travel agency, but they charge out the ass if you are just going for one or two nights. I'm half tempted to try booking two one way flights on different airlines...

[Tom In Chicago]

I dunno United, my $1,100 ticket (booked three weeks in advance) to Houston says you do need more runways and more capacity to Houston. Fucking morons connect their two biggest hubs with $1k tickets? You have to be kidding me...

I fly to Houston every month on United and have never paid more than $390 with a 21 day advanced booking. . .

. . .

[Tom In Chicago]

. . . unless you book about a month in advance, you are going to be paying around $1,000 from O'Hare

I just checked for a flight leaving next week. . . the r/t rate is $641. . .

. . .

[Standpoor]

I just checked for a flight leaving next week. . . the r/t rate is $641. . .

. . .

That is for a Friday/Saturday turn, I imagine. All overnight weekday turns I see for next week are right around $1,000 and three weeks out the lowest I see is $849. There must be huge demand for business travel between the two hubs. You have to love fortress hubs and this is why I am skeptical of those on this forum who demand the city make it easier for United or American to dominate the market. Yes fortress hubs are the most profitable operations for airlines but the consumer ends up paying which can lead to unintended consequences.

[Tom In Chicago]

That is for a Friday/Saturday turn, I imagine. All overnight weekday turns I see for next week are right around $1,000 and three weeks out the lowest I see is $849. There must be huge demand for business travel between the two hubs.

14 day advanced weekday flights on United between ORD/IAH are still less than $400. . . I don't think it's at all absurd to think that airlines would want to charge a premium on tickets as the market demands. . . every flight I'm on between both cities (usually fly Thursday at around 5pm returning on a Monday morning flight leaving at 9am) are 100% booked. . . seems to me that if you can't make arrangements that far in advance and are not willing to pay a premium for booking so late in the process, a discount carrier like Southwest would be a logical choice. . .

. . .

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Again, you are using longer stays or something. I do this ALL the time and have booked them myself and through our company's travel agent and you can't get a 1 or 2 night stay for less than $850-900 unless you plan it 1 month or longer out. In any case it's absurd because I can book a round-trip ticket to Denver for $180 that far in advance and it's almost the same distance.

[Tom In Chicago]

^^^ Again, you are using longer stays or something. I do this ALL the time and have booked them myself and through our company's travel agent and you can't get a 1 or 2 night stay for less than $850-900 unless you plan it 1 month or longer out. In any case it's absurd because I can book a round-trip ticket to Denver for $180 that far in advance and it's almost the same distance.

^^^Again, I just posted the facts. . . whether you chose to actually read what I wrote and interpret them in English is not my problem. . .

It sounds to me like you're getting hosed by your company's travel agent. . . this isn't rocket science. . . a simple visit to www.ual.com booking anything during the week/overnight or whatever gives you the same results as I do. . . I do this ALL the time too :rolleyes: and have never paid more than $400 r/t between ORD/IAH usually staying 3 days. . . [/rhetorical]

. . .

[Standpoor]

If my employer told me I had to stay three nights, I would tell him that he needed to get a new employee.

We have told you the facts as well, a weekday one night stay costs $1,000. Nowhereman paid the going rate, all your showing is that you take different trips.

[the urban politician]

I just searched United's website, looking for a flight from Houston 21 days from now, with a 2 night stay. I found a flight (round trip) in the $700's range.

Nowhereman, you're getting hosed

[denizen467]

^^^ Again, you are using longer stays or something. I do this ALL the time and have booked them myself and through our company's travel agent and you can't get a 1 or 2 night stay for less than $850-900 unless you plan it 1 month or longer out. In any case it's absurd because I can book a round-trip ticket to Denver for $180 that far in advance and it's almost the same distance.
Well comparing Tom In Chicago to Nowhereman, it just looks like the "Saturday night stay" rule is making Tom's fare cheaper and Nowhereman's expensive.

But there's also booking classes (refundability, etc.). Nowhereman, what booking class are you being given for your fare? The order (this assumes economy class), from most expensive to least expensive, is roughly:
Y (fully refundable), B; M, E, U; H, Q; V, W, G; S, T, K, L.
So, your travel agent might be getting you a slightly more expensive booking class so that you can avoid certain penalties/fees for cancellations and changes. Not too uncommon for business travel. Enjoy the frequent flyer miles (you can get a higher multiple with the highest booking classes).

[Nowhereman1280]

Just an fyi: I dont always use the travel agent. I actually explicitly said ive done it myself and tried the agent and gotten the same results. The facts are that you can't fly like I do to Houston unless you are willing to pay out the ass. I usually am not able to book three weeks in advance like i did this time and usually have two weeks notice max. I' ve gotten tickets for less before, but it depends on how high the demand to fly to Houston is during any given week. Ive seen prices at $1000 one month in advance before because some convention or something was going on so it is not as if there is some rule that says prices are $x three weeks in advance.

Also, for the record, I didnt use the travel agent this time and bought them off UALs website. Additionally prices can vary depending on what day you are booking them. For example, the most special fares show up on tuesdays for some reason so if you buy then you are more likely to get a discount rate. Airline fares are a voodo science at best, but the point is that UAL charges way too fucking much to go to Houston. Even at $600 they are charging way too much when I can get tickets to Denver or LA for about half that.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Southwest? Sure it's different airports both here and there, but with cab cost included, you should still be way cheaper than United, not to mention the free bag check.

[spyguy]

SATCT - 219 feet tall

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4063/satct1.jpg
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6117/satct2.jpg

[Kippis]

SATCT - 219 feet tall

^ http://www.exp.com/en/projectsviewer&market=infrastructureairports&projectid=934

:tup: Looking good! These are the same folks that designed the people mover system (soon to also be rehabbed/expanded)

[denizen467]

^^ I can't tell; is it short or is it wide?

[F1 Tommy]

That tower really is big. The second picture makes it look like the view from Willis Tower.

[denizen467]

^ Renders are usually exaggerated in non-material aspects, like having an unrealistically large number of people who are unrealistically happy, handsome, and well-dressed and engaged in unrealistically productive activities. Ever see a grumpy fat guy smoking in a building render? Here, someone took some liberties with the background landscape.

Per Emporis (sorry ex-Emporis guys!), ORD's existing towers are 255ft and 260ft, so this is much smaller. In the US, "quite tall" would be something approaching 400ft (recently built at ATL).

The glass escape stair seems not very tornado-ready. At all. I think I would want my ATC folks to feel safe & comfortable, when tornadoes loom.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ Renders are usually exaggerated in non-material aspects, like having an unrealistically large number of people who are unrealistically happy, handsome, and well-dressed and engaged in unrealistically productive activities. Ever see a grumpy fat guy smoking in a building render? Here, someone took some liberties with the background landscape.

Per Emporis (sorry ex-Emporis guys!), ORD's existing towers are 255ft and 260ft, so this is much smaller. In the US, "quite tall" would be something approaching 400ft (recently built at ATL).

The glass escape stair seems not very tornado-ready. At all. I think I would want my ATC folks to feel safe & comfortable, when tornadoes loom.

Just give them some parachutes.

[ardecila]

Ever see a grumpy fat guy smoking in a building render?

I've done rain and snow renderings. It's also fairly common for designers to slip themselves and/or friends, celebrities, war criminals, etc into rendering backgrounds.

[Kippis]

O'Hare Modernization Program Reaches Milestone With Railroad Track Relocation
May 11, 2012 05:00 PM

The O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP) earlier this week accomplished a significant achievement with the completion of a railroad relocation, airport officials said in a statement. Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) crews completed the tie-in points between the recently OMP-constructed railroad realignment and the existing UPRR tracks...

http://www.aviationnews.net/?do=headline&news_ID=205339

[denizen467]

^ Thanks Kippis, I think I would not have found that source on my own...
(Now if any railfan can come up with the same story in a rail industry journal, that would be perfect.)

[denizen467]

Hard to believe but it's been less than a year since Da Mare was last walking the Fifth Floor. And just 14 months ago, Crain's and others reported on a "Daley Compromise" with airlines about what is included in the current phase of OMP. The airfield layout was to look like this -- with only 1 OMP runway deferred to later:

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9475/compromise.jpg

This image and the articles are referenced in a discussion on 3/14/2011 on page 51 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=87889&page=51) of this thread.

My question is, at present is the Far South Runway (10R/28L) more or less a done deal, completely in limbo, or something in between? I think the local media may have been reporting controversy over it this week.

[Jenner]

I just noticed from the latest Google satellite imagery that the buildings near the flag poles are missing. The flag poles are at the entrance of the driveway to the parking garage. I thought one of these buildings was a firehouse or some other management building. Anyone know what these buildings were used for and what happened to them?

[denizen467]

At first I had no idea what flags you are talking about, but fortunately the sun was low when the satellite photo Google uses was taken so it was easy to find a long row of many gigantic flags (at least their shadows). It's just a couple dozen yards outbound of the main cashier booths for the main garage, right? Looking at the same area on Bing's satellite photos, the only buildings that were there looked like temporary sheds or trailers. Maybe they were temporary offices for the construction company doing the giant departure level awning project, or something? Also, from the photos you can see there is a driveway leading to an underground part of the area you identified, so who knows what all is down there anyway.

Regardless, there is lots of delicious LAND available in those surface lots, upon which new terminals or facilities will hopefully be built.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-new-ohare-cargo-facility-promises-11000-jobs-20120514,0,6023980.story


New O'Hare cargo facility promises 11,000 jobs

Tribune staff

10:55 a.m. CDT, May 14, 2012
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Monday announced the construction of a cargo facility atO'Hare International Airport that promises 11,000 jobs.

Aeroterm, which was chosen as developer for the project in 2009, plans an 840,000-square-foot facility with an aircraft ramp that can accommodate planes including Boeing's 747-800 series.

Aeroterm will cover $130 million of the $200 million cost, with $62 million coming from airport funds.

,,

[ITB495]

Hard to believe but it's been less than a year since Da Mare was last walking the Fifth Floor. And just 14 months ago, Crain's and others reported on a "Daley Compromise" with airlines about what is included in the current phase of OMP. The airfield layout was to look like this -- with only 1 OMP runway deferred to later:

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/9475/compromise.jpg

This image and the articles are referenced in a discussion on 3/14/2011 on page 51 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=87889&page=51) of this thread.

My question is, at present is the Far South Runway (10R/28L) more or less a done deal, completely in limbo, or something in between? I think the local media may have been reporting controversy over it this week.

It's a done deal. Runway 10R/28L was a key component in the Daley compromise. I haven't seen anything official that says exactly when construction of 10R/28L will begin in earnest, but it'll probably be sometime in 2013. Runway 10C/28C (the second new runway) is scheduled to complete late 2013.

What's happening presently is that Rahm has decided to move up negotiations on the construction of a new 4th runway (9C/27C), and the extension of 9R/27R. These discussions, agreed upon as part of the compromise, were planned to begin in 2013. The major O'Hare airline tenants, United and American, are not particularly pleased with the accelerated schedule, hence the news stories.

[Jenner]

Regardless, there is lots of delicious LAND available in those surface lots, upon which new terminals or facilities will hopefully be built.

My thoughts exactly. I was doodling around a potential concourse A that would hold regional aircraft for United, which would occupy the surface lot. An underground tunnel can connect B to A. If the tunnel is placed correctly, you could have a shorter access time from the curb to the RJ's, assuming that most folks aren't checking in luggage for the RJ's. This would immediately remove many of the RJs at concourse F, but not all. The biggest problem would be an A to F connection, as that would be the longest distance to traverse. In the end, United still needs gates in F, although it could release gates in E if A were built. If that happened, other airlines could jump in, which would increase competition, which is what United doesn't want.

The access road would need to be sunk 15 - 20 feet to allow taxiway access across, which would be a major cost.

http://jenner1a.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/ohare_Con_A1.jpg?1337055853497

Additionally, this would impair the possibility of expanding the garage on the west side, since Concourse A would stand in its way.

BTW, did United and American pay for the changes in concourses F and G to have basement level seating and boarding?

[spyguy]

http://www.journal-topics.com/news/article_e44ae42a-9f6c-11e1-8cdf-0019bb30f31a.html

Extension Of Second Entrance To O'Hare Through Rosemont Moves Forward
By TODD WESSELL Wednesday, May 16, 2012

By the end of 2013, a second roadway will likely be in operation that will allow motorists to drive into and out of O’Hare Airport.

...Plans call for Balmoral to extend over Mannheim Road in an S-curve design and link with Bessie Coleman Drive to the west. An exit for southbound traffic onto Balmoral will be built at Mannheim.

The project also includes the widening of Mannheim Road from Irving Park Road on the south to a point north of Higgins Road to the north.

[F1 Tommy]

Interesting photo taken from the Bensenville railroad yard looking north in June 1943. This land looking north is now O'hare airport. They had at this point already built a airport called Douglas Field next to the Douglas C54/DC4 plant. I think to the right you can see the industrial complex off in the distance. This photo came from the National Archives and is from Kodak Kodachrome large format color film.




http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd85/F1tommy/00aaaaaaa1a34810u.jpg

[ardecila]

http://www.journal-topics.com/news/article_e44ae42a-9f6c-11e1-8cdf-0019bb30f31a.html

Extension Of Second Entrance To O'Hare Through Rosemont Moves Forward
By TODD WESSELL Wednesday, May 16, 2012

By the end of 2013, a second roadway will likely be in operation that will allow motorists to drive into and out of O’Hare Airport.

...Plans call for Balmoral to extend over Mannheim Road in an S-curve design and link with Bessie Coleman Drive to the west. An exit for southbound traffic onto Balmoral will be built at Mannheim.

The project also includes the widening of Mannheim Road from Irving Park Road on the south to a point north of Higgins Road to the north.

Interesting. I was just annoyed the other day at how stupidly the Rosemont Blue Line station is designed. It should really have a much stronger pedestrian connection to the hotel/entertainment area, but it has no southern entrance and there's a huge interchange to the south with minimal sidewalks.

Maybe if some traffic can be shifted to Balmoral instead of 190, they can rebuild this interchange in a more compact form and open up more land for development, using the proceeds to fund a new southern entrance to the station and wide sidewalks with proper crosswalks.

[N830MH]

Interesting. I was just annoyed the other day at how stupidly the Rosemont Blue Line station is designed. It should really have a much stronger pedestrian connection to the hotel/entertainment area, but it has no southern entrance and there's a huge interchange to the south with minimal sidewalks.

Maybe if some traffic can be shifted to Balmoral instead of 190, they can rebuild this interchange in a more compact form and open up more land for development, using the proceeds to fund a new southern entrance to the station and wide sidewalks with proper crosswalks.

Well, is that Blue Line will extend service from O'Hare to Rosemont station? When they will starting?

[untitledreality]

Well, is that Blue Line will extend service from O'Hare to Rosemont station? When they will starting?

What on earth did you just say? Can anyone translate? Ive tried a few times but it still doesn't make sense to me. Does he think that the Blue Line doesnt service Rosemont?

[Kippis]

What on earth did you just say? Can anyone translate? Ive tried a few times but it still doesn't make sense to me. Does he think that the Blue Line doesnt service Rosemont?

Not from the area, I'd say. But yeah, I think he's asking if the Blue Line services both O'Hare and Rosemont along the same route. To end the suspense: yes, yes it does.

[F1 Tommy]

Forgot who had to argue this would not happen, but I thought I should post this. O'hare will be the biggest United hub under the merger.


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"Houston was thrust into the middle of a battle between United Airlines and Southwest Airlines after the city approved a proposal by Southwest to build a five-gate extension for international flights from William P. Hobby Airport.

The city’s 16-1 vote last month angered United, which has a major hub 30 miles north of Hobby, at George Bush Intercontinental Airport. It argued that its own international business would be hurt by the international gates at Hobby.

Shortly after the vote, United, which is based in Chicago, said that it would cut 1,300 jobs at Bush airport and that its plans for a $700 million expansion at Bush, Houston’s biggest airport, were now “in significant doubt.”

“Unfortunately, the city of Houston will suffer the consequences of this decision for decades to come,” Jeff Smisek, United’s chief executive, said at the time. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/business/building-boom-takes-hold-at-us-airports.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

[denizen467]

^ A little surprised about that seemingly spiteful response. There must be a lot of history in the Continental-Houston relationship though, perhaps some of it rocky.

For me, the bigger takeaway from that article is another example of the New York Times giving short shrift to Chicago. It describes a host of multi-billion-dollar airport projects around the country -- and ignores O'Hare's OMP, which overall is bigger than all the others. There is only passing mention of Chicago. Yes, some of OMP's work includes the Bypass and cargo facilities, which are perhaps outside of the scope being discussed in the article, but OMP does have plenty of runway and taxiway work, including work for accommodating the newest jumbo jets, which are definitely covered in the article. The only other explanation would be wanting to provide cover for Obama, because widespread awareness of this massive investment in Chicago might give an impression he is favoring his home city. I kind of doubt that's the case here though. There would have been a natural lead-in to O'Hare discussion after the Smisek remarks, but they blew it off.

Maybe we are just better off flying under the radar of public perception, as far federal funding to local projects goes?

[F1 Tommy]

^ A little surprised about that seemingly spiteful response. There must be a lot of history in the Continental-Houston relationship though, perhaps some of it rocky.

For me, the bigger takeaway from that article is another example of the New York Times giving short shrift to Chicago. It describes a host of multi-billion-dollar airport projects around the country -- and ignores O'Hare's OMP, which overall is bigger than all the others. There is only passing mention of Chicago. Yes, some of OMP's work includes the Bypass and cargo facilities, which are perhaps outside of the scope being discussed in the article, but OMP does have plenty of runway and taxiway work, including work for accommodating the newest jumbo jets, which are definitely covered in the article. The only other explanation would be wanting to provide cover for Obama, because widespread awareness of this massive investment in Chicago might give an impression he is favoring his home city. I kind of doubt that's the case here though. There would have been a natural lead-in to O'Hare discussion after the Smisek remarks, but they blew it off.

Maybe we are just better off flying under the radar of public perception, as far federal funding to local projects goes?

You noticed that..The NY media always downplays anything in Chicago, unless it is negative like southside shootings. They must be worried about something:)

As far as United, I am not sure what type of flight increases they are planning for ORD next year, but with AA in Bankruptcy this might be their big chance to do some damage in Chicago wich would be a very bad thing in the long run. I don't think they will pull down Houston to much more or they risk giving AA more of Texass(along with Southwest, although SW has no long range international service).

[Rail Claimore]

Who cares? Nothing is being cut at IAH by UA that they hadn't planned on doing anyway. It's good that Houston doesn't feel the need to suck up to UA the same way Atlanta does to DL or any other city does to an airline that dominates their airport.

[N830MH]

Who cares? Nothing is being cut at IAH by UA that they hadn't planned on doing anyway. It's good that Houston doesn't feel the need to suck up to UA the same way Atlanta does to DL or any other city does to an airline that dominates their airport.

Right, it will not going away for a very long time. UA is here to stay and UA isn't leaving from Houston. They don't have worry about WN.

[ardecila]

For me, the bigger takeaway from that article is another example of the New York Times giving short shrift to Chicago.

The cities that got the full-length shrift were mainly those with substantial terminal projects, of which Chicago has none.

With the exception of the insanely beautiful (and insanely expensive) Helmut Jahn-designed canopy/curbside project, all of Chicago's work is on the airfield and travelers will never experience it except in the form of reduced delays and more daily flights.

[F1 Tommy]

Right, it will not going away for a very long time. UA is here to stay and UA isn't leaving from Houston. They don't have worry about WN.

I agree with that 100% on Houston. UA can't afford to pull down anymore and they will be back. I think the UA/AA should also pay more attention to Southwest.

[denizen467]

The cities that got the full-length shrift were mainly those with substantial terminal projects, of which Chicago has none.

With the exception of the insanely beautiful (and insanely expensive) Helmut Jahn-designed canopy/curbside project, all of Chicago's work is on the airfield and travelers will never experience it except in the form of reduced delays and more daily flights.
Though, the article wasn't limited to consumer-facing developments - it enumerates some of the projects at Philadelphia, all of which were mere runway projects. Also, Chicago does indeed have projects with semi-direct traveler impact - the airfield improvements will enable the newest jumbo jets to use ORD (at least the 747-8; last I read the A380 would still need taxiway upgrades in addition to the obvious gate construction, but maybe those have in fact been added by now), and the forthcoming consolidated car rental facility is typologically close enough to being an airport project that some of the other listed cities' overall project costs probably include on-site airport-affiliated garages. Anyway by many measures (particularly airport capacity) Chicago is No 2 in the country so to omit discussion of it in an article like this stands out a bit too much.
It's a done deal. Runway 10R/28L was a key component in the Daley compromise. I haven't seen anything official that says exactly when construction of 10R/28L will begin in earnest, but it'll probably be sometime in 2013. Runway 10C/28C (the second new runway) is scheduled to complete late 2013.

What's happening presently is that Rahm has decided to move up negotiations on the construction of a new 4th runway (9C/27C), and the extension of 9R/27R. These discussions, agreed upon as part of the compromise, were planned to begin in 2013. The major O'Hare airline tenants, United and American, are not particularly pleased with the accelerated schedule, hence the news stories.
I'm delighted that we could have a 4th parallel runway 18 months from now (I hope there is no more fuss with the 2 cemeteries - is there even anyone living today who ever knew any of the people interred there? In the same era that those people died, the 19th Century I believe, various European cities were un-burying graves after just 5 or 10 years due to cemetery crowding and moving the remains, so I hope this doesn't categorically offend anybody.) and a 5th parallel runway in just a couple years. I wonder what prompted Rahm to bring forward the talks? Maybe AA's situation had something to do with it. Maybe he just likes doing stuff early. Or maybe he wants to get things moving while LaHood and Obama are certain to still be office (random thought).

[Kngkyle]

Looks like the promised 10% capacity cut on IAH is starting to be loaded into the schedules, to the benefit of ORD and DEN. I believe this now makes ORD the largest hub.

Change in number of flights for this fall:
IAH -17
DEN +12
ORD +8

[Standpoor]

^
When do these changes go into effect. For summer 2012=IAH:649, ORD=642. So if it is a change from these numbers, that would indeed make ORD the largest hub by number of flights. And what about EWR which currently has four more flilghts then DEN, will they see any change or will DEN become the third largest ORD hub.

[Kngkyle]

^
When do these changes go into effect. For summer 2012=IAH:649, ORD=642. So if it is a change from these numbers, that would indeed make ORD the largest hub by number of flights. And what about EWR which currently has four more flilghts then DEN, will they see any change or will DEN become the third largest ORD hub.

The changes I listed go into effect mostly in October and November. So yes, they would not be incorporated into your Sumer 2012 numbers. EWR saw little change.

I'm getting my information from this topic:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5492754/

[Kngkyle]

United giving Chicago some more love:
http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1713262&highlight=

New service to Monterrey, Thunder Bay, Nassau, Jackson, and Anchorage. Good to see the airline growing.

Also, they cut another 30 daily flights this week from Houston, so Chicago will undoubtedly be the largest hub.

[Kngkyle]

Airberlin just announced new service to Chicago from Berlin. First time any airline has flown this route, according to the press release at least.

http://www.airberlin.com/en-DE/site/pressreleases_dr.php?ID=4601

[Vlajos]

Airberlin just announced new service to Chicago from Berlin. First time any airline has flown this route, according to the press release at least.

http://www.airberlin.com/en-DE/site/pressreleases_dr.php?ID=4601

Direct Berlin/Chicago flights will be real nice!

[Kngkyle]

Hainan Airlines has announced 4x weekly service between Beijing and Chicago with 787s starting next year. This could be interesting as both United and American already fly the route daily, so that is a lot of capacity. This will be Hainans second US destination, the other being Seattle.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120718-718303.html

[denizen467]

^ The article (and a similar article in USA Today) indicates that this route could be inaugurated with aircraft comparable to 787 if Chinese regulators require additional domestic proving by Hainan of the 787 before permitting them on the international routes. Apparently, according to WSJ, "Chinese regulators have in the past taken time before authorizing new aircraft types on long-haul routes, requiring its carriers to have extensive proving runs on domestic flights. China Southern has been flying its huge Airbus A380s on domestic services for a year." (Who knew Chinese regulators were concerned about anything occurring beyond their borders. Maybe they are genuinely now embracing a role of leadership and integration with the world economy and its norms as opposed to just exporting into it. It will be an interesting adolescence to watch mature.)

[atlwarrior]

Right, it will not going away for a very long time. UA is here to stay and UA isn't leaving from Houston. They don't have worry about WN. I also must remind that Delta headquarters is in Atlanta, so obviously there will be noticeably favoritism and not sucking up. The only reason Houston is not showing favoritism to Chicago based United is because of the loss of its Continental Headquarters .

[spyguy]

New T5 concessions
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3741/30929042466974756889620.jpg
Epstein/ Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.424669720902232.82570.320818271287378&type=1)

[ardecila]

This is LONG overdue. The T5 concessions are pitiful, cramped, and bunched up around the security lines. Hopefully they can take over some of the space from one of the air lounges to expand.

I like the design screen-printed onto the glass panels up above, too - it screens that balcony and provides a slick modern backdrop without interrupting Perkins+Will's original design. I wonder if Gensler anticipates that design changing over time?

[BrennanW]

I spy an 'M' Burger. I'm excited - since my last trip its a new Chicago tradition for me!

[denizen467]

^ Amen to both of the last two comments.

===============

And here finally is a long-awaited reveal:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-united-to-try-out-787-on-chicagohouston-flights-20120829,0,7051935.story

United to try out 787 on Chicago-Houston flights

... United Continental Holdings, parent of United Airlines, will announce Thursday that it will begin a number of domestic 787 flights before putting those planes on international routes. It will include temporary flights between Chicago O'Hare and Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport. ...

The first 787 Chicago flights to Houston will begin Nov. 4 and end Dec. 3. That service will operate six days a week during that time, with the Chicago flight departing at 11:15 a.m. After that, daily service will restart Jan. 4 and run to March 29. ...

The 787s will initially be based in Houston and operate between Houston and United's domestic hubs: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Newark, Cleveland, Denver and Dulles near Washington, D.C. ...

[N830MH]

New T5 concessions
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/3741/30929042466974756889620.jpg
Epstein/ Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.424669720902232.82570.320818271287378&type=1)

Wow! Finally! Just about time! Looking good! Can't wait to give a try.

[nomarandlee]

O'Hare E-letter.......

Chicago Department of Aviation

Bid Opportunity

Rental Car Concessions for Future Joint Use Rental Car and Public Parking Facility at O'Hare

RFQ Questions and Clarifications Due:

Thursday October 25, 2012, 5 p.m.

........Description:

The City of Chicago ("City"), acting through the Chicago Department of Aviation ("CDA"), requests the submission of statements of qualifications from any responsible car rental companies interested in entering into a Concession License and Lease Agreement to operate a rental car concession at the future Joint Use Rental Car and Public Parking Facility. CDA is developing this Facility at O'Hare International Airport. Qualified Respondents will be invited to subsequently respond to a Request for Bids for a Concession License and Lease Agreements to be awarded for Rental Car Concessions at the Facility.

The Facility is located at the site of the current Public Parking Lot F. The first three (3) levels of the Facility will be utilized for rental car vehicle parking and the remaining levels for public parking. The present Facility concept contains approximately 4,100 equivalent rental vehicle parking stalls on the three (3) rental car parking levels. The Facility will include a new Automated Transit System ("ATS") station for use by rental car customers and other Facility users traveling to and from the passenger terminals, as well as connections to other modes of public transportation.

Qualified Respondents whose Bids are accepted by the CDA will then be required to enter into a Concession Agreement for the space package awarded to it based upon its Bid. The Concession Agreement is currently estimated to commence upon completion of the Facility, which is expected in the year 2016.

[k1052]

Maybe once the ATS extension is done Metra can buy a few DMUs and do an express service out of Union operating every 15 minutes or so. Seems a little more cost effective than CTA spending hundreds of millions to do it.