AA (& UA) negotiating move to new ORD “Global” terminal > 2024
Feb 26, 2018, 3:45 pm
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,477
If the negotiations conclude as hoped, it eliminates the T3 <—-> T-5 trek. Let us hope ORD becomes the third Airport to offer ITI baggage through-checking (as currently offered in DFW, MIA) so AA, AY, BA, CX, IB, QR and other interline partners could offer ITI from Asia, Europe or Middle East onward to S. America, etc. (Even better would be airside flight connections separate from immigration, but that almost seems too much to hope, like AA declining to through check on separate ticketing.)
Airport construction being what it is, 2030?
Airport construction being what it is, 2030?
Feb 26, 2018, 3:50 pm
#17
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Having done outbound Intl-to-Intl connections at both YYZ and YUL, the mechanism in place there would be a vast improvement over what is currently required. As you imply, the dedicated flight connection stream makes all the difference. The introduction of through-checked baggage at some ports of entry is a step in the right direction as noted earlier.
Feb 26, 2018, 4:38 pm
#18
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DFW
Programs: UA 1K, AA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 466
So it looks like United will benefit most from this. Terminal 3 doesn't look to get much love as it is the original footprint like Terminal 2 is now. AA's gates need to widened out too. I also wonder if there will be an airside connection from Terminal 5 to the others. I hate having to transfer terminals landslide when needing to switch airlines. This is on advantage to ORD today unless you have to trek over to 5 which for me is almost never.
Feb 26, 2018, 5:11 pm
#19
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
So it looks like United will benefit most from this. Terminal 3 doesn't look to get much love as it is the original footprint like Terminal 2 is now. AA's gates need to widened out too. I also wonder if there will be an airside connection from Terminal 5 to the others. I hate having to transfer terminals landslide when needing to switch airlines. This is on advantage to ORD today unless you have to trek over to 5 which for me is almost never.
Feb 26, 2018, 7:27 pm
#20
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: South Park, Metropolis
Programs: AA LT PLT 3MM, Hilton/Marriott/SPG/Club Carlson GLD, IHG PLT
Posts: 4,608
It's about time! Sounds like A380s are coming to ORD "The 55-year-old Terminal 2 would be torn down to make way for a new “Global Terminal” with wider concourses and gates to accommodate the larger aircraft that embark on international flights to places like Hong Kong and Dubai."
Feb 27, 2018, 5:56 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 852
Looking at the intended terminal map, I am getting a very confused picture. If you look at the map closely, you can find the intended Satellite Terminal 1 (S1), which connect to the current United Satellite Terminal, will be the main wide body gates before T2 being demolished. So that would be the main international departures and arrivals for T1 and T3. If that is the case, the Satellite 2 (S2) which will be connected via underground train to the main terminal via S1, is actually all narrow body gates (assume to be domestic only). So, how the airport is going to handle the international arrivals before T2 is rebuilt? Then, how do you handle the arrivals from S2 to the main terminal via assumed international only S1? Assume the new T2 main wing is for international traffic as well, that means split operation in T2 and S1 for internationals. Headaches already before we even think about ITI procedures...
What is being shown on the map is the final layout once everything is completed. As for AS/AA, starting on May 12th, AS/VX (the same but people still see both planes at times) will move over to L2A and L3, this will be through October then they'll be moving over to G2, G4, while B6 gets G6 and AA picks up L2a, L1 and L3.
Feb 27, 2018, 6:08 am
#22
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EP, UA Gold-MM, UA 1K (former), GS (former),SPG LT Platinum, Hyatt Diamond, HH Diamond
Posts: 2,299
Looking at the intended terminal map, I am getting a very confused picture. If you look at the map closely, you can find the intended Satellite Terminal 1 (S1), which connect to the current United Satellite Terminal, will be the main wide body gates before T2 being demolished. So that would be the main international departures and arrivals for T1 and T3. If that is the case, the Satellite 2 (S2) which will be connected via underground train to the main terminal via S1, is actually all narrow body gates (assume to be domestic only). So, how the airport is going to handle the international arrivals before T2 is rebuilt? Then, how do you handle the arrivals from S2 to the main terminal via assumed international only S1? Assume the new T2 main wing is for international traffic as well, that means split operation in T2 and S1 for internationals. Headaches already before we even think about ITI procedures...
From the article:
As the new concourses and gates are built, flights that arrive and depart from Terminal 2 would be relocated to the satellite concourses and an expanded Terminal 5. That would clear the way to tear down the aging Terminal 2 without hindering the airport’s overall capacity and operations, Evans said. The details of exactly which airlines move, in what order and to where is still the subject of intense negotiations, city officials said.
Note - I am not 100% sure but I don't see that map in the article so I think the person that posted it may have done so from an article a few months ago and because of that and since this isn't yet formally finalized the ultimate design could be altered.
Feb 27, 2018, 7:26 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Here and there
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,551
I like it the concept. Looking forward to details of the design, interior etc. The current setup is getting very tired and cramped. I'd like to see a dedicated track to facilitate the sprint I always seem to be doing from TSA to H17.
Feb 27, 2018, 11:41 am
#24
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: New York, NY
Programs: AA EXP Plat, Mariott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 165
Feb 27, 2018, 12:26 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,107
Feb 28, 2018, 9:48 am
#26
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rolling Lakes Yacht Club
Posts: 4,985
Now AA is opposing the expansion, citing a last-minute-back-room deal the city made with UA
American Airlines opposes Emanuel?s $8.5B O?Hare expansion, alleges secret deal cut with United - Chicago Tribune
American Airlines opposes Emanuel?s $8.5B O?Hare expansion, alleges secret deal cut with United - Chicago Tribune
Feb 28, 2018, 11:28 am
#27
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winston Salem, NC USA
Posts: 1,074
Now AA is opposing the expansion, citing a last-minute-back-room deal the city made with UA
American Airlines opposes Emanuel?s $8.5B O?Hare expansion, alleges secret deal cut with United - Chicago Tribune
American Airlines opposes Emanuel?s $8.5B O?Hare expansion, alleges secret deal cut with United - Chicago Tribune
Feb 28, 2018, 11:44 am
#28
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,107
AA had another hub not far from there. If the city wants to give backroom deals (allegedly) to UA, then AA could always pull out and go back to ORD as a spoke vice hub. I’m sure their previous airport in the region would be happy to have them back.
Not that something like that would happen, but how far up the creek without a paddle would ORD be if if did? Dropping 37% of your business probably isn’t the smartest plan. Of course neither is cutting your nose off to spite your face by vetoing much needed improvements for years and years.
Not that something like that would happen, but how far up the creek without a paddle would ORD be if if did? Dropping 37% of your business probably isn’t the smartest plan. Of course neither is cutting your nose off to spite your face by vetoing much needed improvements for years and years.
Feb 28, 2018, 11:54 am
#29
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Winston Salem, NC USA
Posts: 1,074
Not that something like that would happen, but how far up the creek without a paddle would ORD be if if did? Dropping 37% of your business probably isn’t the smartest plan. Of course neither is cutting your nose off to spite your face by vetoing much needed improvements for years and years.