CHICAGO: ORD & MDW discussion

[k1052]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ 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.

I think something like this is probably the future. The city seems to routinely bemoan the size/condition of T5 as the primary international gateway so it's days in this capacity are likely numbered.

[kbud]

Originally Posted by k1052

I think something like this is probably the future. The city seems to routinely bemoan the size/condition of T5 as the primary international gateway so it's days in this capacity are likely numbered.

I'm sure that image is a rough sketch. If it were accurate it shows a reduction in gates with chopping off a 1/3 of the C concourse and losing one of the fingers in T2.

I can't imagine American being content with United and Star getting the new T2 while they stay in T3. If the new T2 could encompass the current image and Eagle's one concourse then maybe both Star and One World would use it for int'l flights while Delta, Skyteam and independent international carriers occupy T5. I don't know where that leaves the low cost guys. Just brainstorming...

[k1052]

Originally Posted by kbud

I'm sure that image is a rough sketch. If it were accurate it shows a reduction in gates with chopping off a 1/3 of the C concourse and losing one of the fingers in T2.

I can't imagine American being content with United and Star getting the new T2 while they stay in T3. If the new T2 could encompass the current image and Eagle's one concourse then maybe both Star and One World would use it for int'l flights while Delta, Skyteam and independent international carriers occupy T5. I don't know where that leaves the low cost guys. Just brainstorming...

I presume that T2 would be shared by Star Alliance and Oneworld, particularly given it's location and size. I would think that long term AA/UA would be more amenable to a Delta+Skyteam expansion if it's out at T5 along with the independent internationals. AA's dumping a ton of money into the new double lounges in the H+K concourse so I don't think they're going anywhere for quite a while. I suspect whatever happens they'll end up with all of T3 to themselves. Where the LCCs go seems to still be an open question...maybe T5 if there is room and chop up some wide body gates for new common use narrow body and let them share plus their current leases moving over.

But yea, a lot of the diagram does not make a ton of sense yet but I'm sure things are being kept purposefully vague since the city is negotiating.

[maru2501]

meanwhile, holy shit to charlotte's departure increase

[denizen467]

^ AmericaWest was absorbed into US Airways, which grew Charlotte into its largest hub. Then this all combined with American Airlines, for which Charlotte is its second-largest hub (after Dallas and ahead of O'Hare), being located extremely well for the southeast (comparable to Atlanta) and much better than AA's former east coast stronghold in Miami. Charlotte also had space to add a 3rd parallel, and far separated, runway, and is planning on adding a 4th, though adjacent, parallel runway, while Miami and others are space-constrained.

[Kngkyle]

Some big Trumpian chest-thumping from the former AA boss and new UA boss -

https://skift.com/2017/02/15/chicago...-and-american/

“In Chicago, we have massive advantages,” Kirby told employees recently at a town hall meeting. “If people want to talk about our long-term plan for Chicago, it’s to grow it incredibly, and I hope to someday take over those gates that currently have the AA on them. We have the winning hand here. We should win in Chicago.”

In United’s case, all flights from the West Coast might arrive in Chicago at 4 p.m., and then take off for East Coast airports at 5 p.m. That approach makes some connections easier, but according to Kirby, United erred with how scheduled its banks, because it assumed connecting passengers would always travel West to East, or East to West.

But that’s not always the case. A United passenger in Indianapolis or Green Bay, Wisconsin might want to connect in Chicago to go to Los Angeles or New York. For Indianapolis customers, connecting in Chicago to reach New York is back-tracking, but not by so much that it’s not a viable option.

Later this year — perhaps as soon as this summer — United will introduce what are called “omni-directional” banks in Chicago. They will allow a customer from Indianapolis to fly East or West from Chicago, and have efficient connections either way.

“We have this huge catchment area in Chicago where customers are going both ways, and we can connect them in both directions,” Kirby said.

“We will also be filling out service from small cities that will feed the hub, places that don’t have service in but in certain cases, like at O’Hare, we have our principal competitor, American Airlines, that does,” Andrew Levy, United’s CFO, said Tuesday at an investor conference. “We are not going to allow that to happen being that we have a bigger footprint there.”

In addition, Kirby said United will bulk up its schedule to other airline hubs, such as Dallas/Fort Worth, where American is based.

“We are just going to keep doing that here in Chicago,” he said. “That will make us stronger and stronger when we grow a big hub like this. And it will do exactly the opposite to our competitor. And we’re just going to lean on them. And we are going to win here in Chicago.”

[denizen467]

^ another topic from the article:

the 366-seat Boeing 777-300ER [] probably won't be used from Chicago. It's too big, he said, with the airline preferring smaller planes, such as the Boeing 767 and Boeing 777-200, for long-haul routes. "The -300 is really only going to be an airplane that we fly only in a handful of markets that need that size and that range," Kirby said. "It's unlikely there will be any in Chicago in the long term. ... Those will most likely be West Coast airplanes over the long term."

Frankly, with the 10-abreast in economy, this is good news. (So long as Polaris retrofits come soon to the 772s and 767s.) The A350 and the 777-X will be much more desirable.

[F1 Tommy]

Well AA does not have any problem filling up 777-300ER's in Chicago on certain international routes along with most of the other international carriers

By the way, UAL is still using 747's out of Chicago.

Good for UAL on the growth plan.....We need to increase flights and seats at ORD and go after ATL.

[the urban politician]

^ You know, the focus continues being on OHare reclaiming its throne, but is being the busiest really important? I think having the most connections should be the better prize.

Look at New York--none of its airports are the busiest in the world but between JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark you are pretty much connected to everything. Chicago needs to leverage O'Hare but also do all that it can to optimize Midway. Just my 2 cents

[F1 Tommy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You know, the focus continues being on OHare reclaiming its throne, but is being the busiest really important? I think having the most connections should be the better prize.

Look at New York--none of its airports are the busiest in the world but between JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark you are pretty much connected to everything. Chicago needs to leverage O'Hare but also do all that it can to optimize Midway. Just my 2 cents

All very true, but ORD is loosing it's percentage share of US traffic, especially international. I don't care if they beat ATL, but they will need to get a lot closer.
Why shouldn't they!

Combined NYC airports have huge numbers, and they are not a main legacy hub.


By the way, the 787/10 rollout is coming up. I hear Trump will be there. The aircraft looks like a 767-400!!!

[kbud]

Originally Posted by F1 Tommy

Well AA does not have any problem filling up 777-300ER's in Chicago on certain international routes along with most of the other international carriers

By the way, UAL is still using 747's out of Chicago.

Good for UAL on the growth plan.....We need to increase flights and seats at ORD and go after ATL.

They actually don't. There's been a ton of press on their last 747 routes out or ORD earlier in the year. Only 777s to Asia.

United has a problem at ORD with their terminal layout for int'l or other wide body growth. There are only 7 gates that can handle the 77W, 772 and 788/9 in terminal 1. The interior gates between the B and C concourses cannot handle anything larger than a 767. The wingspans of the 788/9 are too wide. I can't imagine they'd simply wait for the Terminal 2 project/dream to be complete. That'll be 10+ years. So do they wait, majorly rework concourse C to squeeze in 2 or 3 wide body gates, or simply shift their 767 fleet there until retirement?

[Kngkyle]

United just added 24 daily flights to their schedule, including 6 new routes.

UA ORD-BTV JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
UA ORD-CHO JUN 0>0.7 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0
UA ORD-CMI JUN 0>3 JUL 0>3 AUG 0>3 SEP 0>3 OCT 0>3 NOV 0>3
UA ORD-COU AUG 0>2.0 SEP 0>2 OCT 0>2 NOV 0>2
UA ORD-DEN JUN 10>12 JUL 10>12 AUG 10>12 SEP 10>12 OCT 10>12 NOV 10>12
UA ORD-FLL JUL 1.8>3 AUG 1.9>3
UA ORD-GEG JUN 0>0.8 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0
UA ORD-GRR JUL 5>6
UA ORD-GSP JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
UA ORD-MHT JUN 1.9>3 JUL 1.8>3
UA ORD-PWM JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
UA ORD-RNO JUN 0>0.8 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0
UA ORD-RST JUN 0>3 JUL 0>3 AUG 0>3 SEP 0>3 OCT 0>3 NOV 0>3
UA ORD-RSW JUN 1.0>1.8 JUL 1.0>2 AUG 1.0>2
UA ORD-SEA JUN 5>6 JUL 4>6 AUG 4>5
UA ORD-SJU JUN 1.0>1.1 JUL 1.0>1.1
UA ORD-TUL JUL 3>4
UA ORD-TUS JUN 0.2>1.0 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0
UA ORD-YYZ MAY 6>7

[kbud]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

United just added 24 daily flights to their schedule, including 6 new routes.

UA ORD-BTV JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
UA ORD-CHO JUN 0>0.7 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0
UA ORD-CMI JUN 0>3 JUL 0>3 AUG 0>3 SEP 0>3 OCT 0>3 NOV 0>3
UA ORD-COU AUG 0>2.0 SEP 0>2 OCT 0>2 NOV 0>2
UA ORD-DEN JUN 10>12 JUL 10>12 AUG 10>12 SEP 10>12 OCT 10>12 NOV 10>12
UA ORD-FLL JUL 1.8>3 AUG 1.9>3
UA ORD-GEG JUN 0>0.8 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0 OCT 0>1.0 NOV 0>1.0
UA ORD-GRR JUL 5>6
UA ORD-GSP JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
UA ORD-MHT JUN 1.9>3 JUL 1.8>3
UA ORD-PWM JUN 3>4 JUL 3>4
UA ORD-RNO JUN 0>0.8 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0
UA ORD-RST JUN 0>3 JUL 0>3 AUG 0>3 SEP 0>3 OCT 0>3 NOV 0>3
UA ORD-RSW JUN 1.0>1.8 JUL 1.0>2 AUG 1.0>2
UA ORD-SEA JUN 5>6 JUL 4>6 AUG 4>5
UA ORD-SJU JUN 1.0>1.1 JUL 1.0>1.1
UA ORD-TUL JUL 3>4
UA ORD-TUS JUN 0.2>1.0 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0
UA ORD-YYZ MAY 6>7

Yeah. More regionals out of ORD... Pretty crazy the ratio that UA and AA have at ORD of regionals vs. mainline.

[denizen467]

^ What does the notation mean? It's hard to decipher, some have decimals, a lot have zeroes, the number "8" can't be a day of the week, etc.

Are these going to be regional jets left over after upgauging other routes? Anyway, feeding more people into ORD will also boost mainline routes a little bit.

[MayorOfChicago]

Originally Posted by maru2501

meanwhile, holy shit to charlotte's departure increase

I've been flying through there recently and I've noticed that *every* time there seem to be delays and it's quite hectic.

Each time we've been stuck on the ground or delayed at takeoff because of heavy traffic and a lack of gates. Last time we stood on the ground for an hour in Charleston because of traffic and gate troubles in Charlotte.

I notice when I'm in there that people seem to be REALLY rushed and always racing around the airport. I think there are tight connections and the extreme traffic and lack of gates causes a lot of near misses or missed connections.

That airport is huge though, far larger than what I had been expecting. I really hope they have some sort of plan in the mix to increase capacity, they're sorely lacking for what American is trying to push through.

[Ant131531]

Hmm, if the 2016 prelim stats are correct, LAX would now be the 2nd busiest airport in the country now surpassing O'Hare.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Hmm, if the 2016 prelim stats are correct, LAX would now be the 2nd busiest airport in the country now surpassing O'Hare.

that' not a new development. LAX has been edging out ORD for #2 spot in passenger volume for the past 4 years now.

neither are anywhere close to ATL.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by denizen467

^ What does the notation mean? It's hard to decipher, some have decimals, a lot have zeroes, the number "8" can't be a day of the week, etc.

Are these going to be regional jets left over after upgauging other routes? Anyway, feeding more people into ORD will also boost mainline routes a little bit.

2>3 would mean it's going from 2 daily flights to 3 daily flights. 0.5>2 would mean its going from an average of .5 flights per day over the course of a month (so 15x a month) to 2 daily flights. etc. etc.

Many of them are indeed regional jets.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You know, the focus continues being on OHare reclaiming its throne, but is being the busiest really important? I think having the most connections should be the better prize.

You're 100% spot on. Being the busiest isn't good for any practical purpose. Having a modern facility with plenty of flight options and reliable transportation to and from O'Hare is all we need.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You know, the focus continues being on OHare reclaiming its throne, but is being the busiest really important? I think having the most connections should be the better prize.

Look at New York--none of its airports are the busiest in the world but between JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark you are pretty much connected to everything. Chicago needs to leverage O'Hare but also do all that it can to optimize Midway. Just my 2 cents

The two typically go hand and hand. New York is a unique animal that isn't really comparable. I actually wouldn't be that surprised if Chicago airports serve more destinations than New York ones. Granted, they aren't exactly equal... Chicago will have three po-dunk Iowan cities with RJs and New York will have Johannesburg. One is a little more prestigious than the other.

Atlanta on the other hand could in no way shape or form support all of the destinations they do if it wasn't for the crapton of connecting passengers that flow through it. But to your point, Atlanta may be easily the busiest in the world, but they still fall behind Chicago and many other US cities in international destinations/traffic. Atlanta is just exceptional at getting you from Daytona Beach to Wichita. Not so much at getting you from Atlanta to Hong Kong.