HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1901  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2017, 7:00 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
So are the statistics available yet as to whether ORD was world's busiest airfield in 2016?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1902  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2017, 5:36 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
https://twitter.com/united/status/816442472972828672

Quote:
United
@united
Jan 3

Today, our last scheduled 747 service at @fly2ohare departed for Tokyo.

Is Lufthansa left as the only pax 747 operator at ORD or are there some other Asian (or European) carriers as well?

Note: A supersized version of this gorgeous photo is available through the twitter post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1903  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2017, 5:56 AM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
https://twitter.com/united/status/816442472972828672



Is Lufthansa left as the only pax 747 operator at ORD or are there some other Asian (or European) carriers as well?

Note: A supersized version of this gorgeous photo is available through the twitter post.
There are a handful of other 747 pax operators. British Airways, KLM, and Lufthansa first come to mind. Lufthansa flies their new 747-8i, so the queen of the skies is nowhere near becoming extinct at ORD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1904  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 9:15 PM
kbud kbud is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
There are a handful of other 747 pax operators. British Airways, KLM, and Lufthansa first come to mind. Lufthansa flies their new 747-8i, so the queen of the skies is nowhere near becoming extinct at ORD.
Asiana sometimes uses the 74M and Korean the 748 to ORD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1905  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2017, 10:09 PM
Tom In Chicago's Avatar
Tom In Chicago Tom In Chicago is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sick City
Posts: 7,285
I was going to say Air India, but I see they're flying 777s now. . .

. . .
__________________
Tom in Chicago
. . .
Near the day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth in the sky.

Last edited by Tom In Chicago; Jan 17, 2017 at 10:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1906  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2017, 8:40 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,054
First UAL 777-300 came into ORD last Friday. One is sitting by the UAL hangar today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1907  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2017, 12:24 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Fuel economy of various jetliners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
over 6,000 n.miles, 11,000 kilometers
747-400 = 11.11 kg/km (39.4 lb/mi) or 3.26 L/100 km (72 mpg-US
777-300ER = 8.49 kg/km (30.1 lb/mi) or 2.84 L/100 km (83 mpg-US)

United 747-400 seating capacity https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...7/default.aspx
= first 12, business 52, economy plus 88, economy 222, Total 374
United 777-300ER seating capacity https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...0/default.aspx
= business 60, economy plus 102, economy 204, Total 366

With about the same number of seats, the 777 is (?) more fuel efficient as the 747.
kg/km = 23%, lb/mi = 23%, L/100 km = 13%, and mpg = 13%
When jetliners fly thousands of miles each and every day, that's a lot of fuel savings per plane. And this one statistic has had more impact than others on why twin engine wide body aircraft are replacing four engine aircraft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1908  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2017, 5:57 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^ People aren't fond of the 747 just because of its beautiful form, and its illustrious history, but also because airlines now have decided to configure the 777 as incredibly uncomfortable. Smaller and fewer lavatories, yet 10-abreast, while still not new enough to attain higher pressurization and humidity or larger windows like the 787 or 350. Pointing out the widely known fact of twin engine efficiency doesn't change any of those sentiments.

I might get excited about the folding wings of the 777X or its slightly wider cabin, but it still won't be a 747.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1909  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2017, 9:50 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
Smaller and fewer lavatories, yet 10-abreast, while still not new enough to attain higher pressurization and humidity or larger windows like the 787 or 350. Pointing out the widely known fact of twin engine efficiency doesn't change any of those sentiments.
It's those twin engine efficiencies that allow cheaper fares, or higher profits at the same fares, whatever the particular airline company prefers.

Technically, Being could redesign the 747 wing to support the heavier engines and reconfigure it as a twin engine jet if they wished. But I'm not sure any airline would buy it instead of a 777.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1910  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2017, 11:46 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,092
O'Hare FY 2016 traffic numbers are in..

77,960,588 passengers, increase of 1.3% over 2015
867,635 operations, decrease of 0.9% over 2015
1,726,362 cargo tonnes, decrease of 0.9% over 2015

http://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollec...%20SUMMARY.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1911  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 11:10 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^ I though operations were on trajectory to hit a million; are they decreasing because of cargo? Why is cargo down?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1912  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 11:32 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
And, the future begins, now.





It's clearly a very rough draft, but this represents the end of 20 years' dormancy in terminal expansion and the first discernible kickoff of the next decade or two of ORD's life. (So to recognize 2017 as a landmark year here, I'm making this my 3000th post on SSP.) (Ok, total coincidence.)

www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170128/ISSUE01/170129841/at-chicagos-ohare-airport-negotiations-with-airlines-get-serious

The article has some depressing statistics on flaccid passenger growth at O'Hare versus virtually all other big hubs in the country over the last fifteen years. But it adds one interesting factor:

Quote:
...what the big airlines want most is to keep a lid on landing fees that O'Hare charges airlines to pay for operations and the debt required for expansion. The airlines' per-passenger cost at O'Hare was about $14.55 in 2015. That's in line with Los Angeles and San Francisco but well ahead of Denver, which was $11.82, Dallas-Fort Worth at $8.75 and Atlanta at $4.86.

O'Hare's costs are set to soar because of runway construction already completed. The cost-per-enplanement will hit $20 in 2018 and $25 by 2025, according to Fitch.

"Chicago will be going higher (on landing fees), but most of the large hub airports will be going higher as well," Heffintrayer, the Moody's analyst, says. "Everyone will be coming up to what Chicago is likely getting to."

New York's JFK has a $10 billion capital plan; Los Angeles is spending $6.8 billion; Atlanta plans about $6 billion; Dallas is shooting for $2.7 billion; San Francisco has penciled in $2.6 billion.
Demonstrates how City finance issues have a lasting impact on customer growth at airports over the long term.

Last edited by denizen467; Feb 15, 2017 at 7:16 AM. Reason: linked image was not displaying
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1913  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2017, 11:54 PM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Although the above proposal looks like a rough sketch (Concourse C looks the wrong size; can't really imagine they'd shorten it), it's consistent with the fact that runway 15/33 will be the next crosswind to be eliminated. Expansion westwards from Concourse C could still happen as well, but that would most likely require 4L/22R closure, which would be further down the timetable if it happens at all.

Moreover, per the same article, it looks like no terminal project is planned for the west end of the airfield.
Quote:
The city is no longer pushing a western terminal, which was part of the O'Hare Modernization Program approved in 2005. ... "(It) did nothing for our current tenant airlines, which is why they correctly hated it," Evans says.
I think this is the right decision; among other things it would have been expensive and complicated to set up and operate simultaneous airside and landside shuttles between west and east terminals (compounded by the fact they'd be upwards of 1 mile apart, and serving nothing else along that stretch). Access from the west suburbs to the terminal complex can instead be facilitated by simpler means. Chicago also has every incentive to refrain from diverting hotel, car rental, parking, etc. development, jobs, and tax revenue to Bensenville or Elk Grove.

Last edited by denizen467; Jan 29, 2017 at 12:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1914  
Old Posted Jan 29, 2017, 1:19 AM
eleven=11 eleven=11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,053
west end was probably always not a good idea
keep everything on east side - also chart from 2002
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1915  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 5:02 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by denizen467 View Post
And, the future begins, now.


So...Is terminal 2 going to be international & domestic flight? Will they have CBP facility at entire terminal 2? They don't have to go to entire terminal 5 anymore. UA will stays at entire terminal 1 & 2, as well as United Express gates. What about Delta? Will they ever moved to new terminals or not?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1916  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 7:38 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
Probably a good bet they will include international arrivals facilities. They need more of them, even if T5 gets some expansion. Also, alliances really want to co-locate. Finally, this sketch suggests a pretty large main building for T2, large enough for international arrivals -- and for the $$-producing duty free shopping mall that modern airport developers crave.

As for Delta, the only inference here is that there will be an increase in number of gates and there will be more space for them. It's probably meaningless to make further predictions over this sketch at this stage though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1917  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2017, 1:17 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
I know it's vague sketch but if they are going to take part of the G concourse for the T2 expansion I guess AA will end up with all of T3 and the low cost guys will head over to T5. Doubting that AA would have put a new lounge in the L concourse if they didn't envision getting all of it eventually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1918  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 4:43 AM
denizen467 denizen467 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,212
^ That has to be an inaccuracy in the diagram; it would be a weird tradeoff to give up the entire west side of Concourse G just for one additional T2 widebody.

The idea of making T5 a low-cost terminal is tantalizing, as it's aging and isolated, and other airports often site LCCs in a separated, slightly less convenient area. So, plan T2 so that eventually (after some phases) it will house all international arrivals and foreign carriers. If T5 doesn't get filled up by LCCs, maybe it also could be a mini Skyteam hub.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1919  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 6:13 AM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
I know it's vague sketch but if they are going to take part of the G concourse for the T2 expansion I guess AA will end up with all of T3 and the low cost guys will head over to T5. Doubting that AA would have put a new lounge in the L concourse if they didn't envision getting all of it eventually.
Yes, I am pretty confident that. ULCC will moved over to terminal 5. That way AA will takeover at the entire concourse L gates. I remember when Delta used at the entire concourse L gates for over 2 decades now. When they moved to terminal 2 right after Northwest airlines is merged with Delta.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1920  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2017, 3:23 PM
F1 Tommy's Avatar
F1 Tommy F1 Tommy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
Yes, I am pretty confident that. ULCC will moved over to terminal 5. That way AA will takeover at the entire concourse L gates. I remember when Delta used at the entire concourse L gates for over 2 decades now. When they moved to terminal 2 right after Northwest airlines is merged with Delta.

T5 has no plan for all the low cost carriers yet(notice all the open spots on one of the concourses). T2 most likely will get international UAL and partner flights. The city is changing plans as they go along so it's anybody's guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:53 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.