FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Cathay Pacific | Cathay (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay-487/)
-   -   Airside Connection ORD (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-cathay/1358766-airside-connection-ord.html)

Houston Traveler Jun 20, 2012 2:13 pm

Airside Connection ORD
 
Can anyone tell me if there is an airside connection between the AA terminal and the CX terminal in ORD? I believe I read there is one for BA flights but curious about CX.

Thanks

Houston Traveler

3Cforme Jun 20, 2012 2:36 pm

There is not. CX arrivals are T-5, AA departures T-3. There's an inter-terminal train outside security.

Short hair Francis Jun 20, 2012 5:14 pm

The BA flights in T5 have a inside-security bus leaving from G and I think K?
But thats' not for the CX flight only for BA ones

ernestnywang Jun 21, 2012 4:28 am

I have written to CX several times about this (and LAX) but so far no improvement.

mach92 Jun 22, 2012 10:38 am

None....... you must exit T-3 take the train to T-5 and re-clear security.


Originally Posted by Houston Traveler (Post 18790864)
Can anyone tell me if there is an airside connection between the AA terminal and the CX terminal in ORD? I believe I read there is one for BA flights but curious about CX.

Thanks

Houston Traveler


goingbananas Jun 23, 2012 3:19 pm

I really wish AA and CX could work out an agreement to tow the bird over from the INTL terminal (after it arrives) to the AA gates for Departure and convenience of the people making connections there at ORD going onto HKG....

Cathay Boy Jun 23, 2012 8:04 pm


Originally Posted by Short hair Francis (Post 18791803)
The BA flights in T5 have a inside-security bus leaving from G and I think K?
But thats' not for the CX flight only for BA ones

Any reason CX couldn't do this? Cheapness? Freaking pain going through T-3 security (or any security at ORD for that matter).

jetsetter1k Jun 23, 2012 8:36 pm

JFK too !! It makes so much more sense for CX to be in the AA Terminal.

ernestnywang Jun 24, 2012 2:06 am


Originally Posted by Cathay Boy (Post 18809399)
Any reason CX couldn't do this? Cheapness? Freaking pain going through T-3 security (or any security at ORD for that matter).

I believe it is due to cost-saving. Besides BA who operates buses in ORD between T3 and T5, QF also operates buses in LAX between TBIT and T4.

ernestnywang Jun 24, 2012 2:09 am


Originally Posted by jetsetter1k (Post 18809513)
JFK too !! It makes so much more sense for CX to be in the AA Terminal.

I remember hearing that construction is underway to merge T7 and T8 (with the old T9) so that AA, AB, AY, LA as well as BA, CX, IB, QF will all be in the "same" terminal.

Cathay Boy Jun 24, 2012 2:12 am


Originally Posted by ernestnywang (Post 18810319)
I remember hearing that construction is underway to merge T7 and T8 (with the old T9) so that AA, AB, AY, LA as well as BA, CX, IB, QF will all be in the "same" terminal.

Forget it, Port Authority of New York is always whining to the City Government about not having any money. There won't be any major projects anytime soon.

jetsetter1k Jun 24, 2012 2:44 am


Originally Posted by ernestnywang (Post 18810312)
I believe it is due to cost-saving. Besides BA who operates buses in ORD between T3 and T5, QF also operates buses in LAX between TBIT and T4.

CX should just operate from the AA terminal in ORD like JAL does. Forget about the bus.

CrazyJ82 Jun 24, 2012 6:48 am

While it is inconvenient, let's not overstate it. At the time of day CX departs I haven't found the security line to be too long. And while we've all agreed T5 isn't the best in terms of amenities, if CX ever did move over to T3 we'd all start complaining about how dumpy it is, how you have to fight through all the AA kettles at security, how T5 was so much simpler to use... I'm no CX apologist, but I'd rather have them spending money on other things than on an airside bus service at ORD.

Cathay Boy Jun 24, 2012 9:21 am


Originally Posted by CrazyJ82 (Post 18810983)
While it is inconvenient, let's not overstate it. At the time of day CX departs I haven't found the security line to be too long. And while we've all agreed T5 isn't the best in terms of amenities, if CX ever did move over to T3 we'd all start complaining about how dumpy it is, how you have to fight through all the AA kettles at security, how T5 was so much simpler to use... I'm no CX apologist, but I'd rather have them spending money on other things than on an airside bus service at ORD.

Why don't we not understate it? T5 is a dump, pure and simple. There are no restaurants or anything for that matter. It's just a dump that they call "International Terminal". T3 on the other hand have shops, restaurants, and Admiral's Club. If CX does wise up and can convince the powers to be that they belong with T3 and not the ridiculous T5 then it's hallelujah for everyone.

ernestnywang Jun 24, 2012 12:24 pm


Originally Posted by Cathay Boy (Post 18811602)
Why don't we not understate it? T5 is a dump, pure and simple. There are no restaurants or anything for that matter. It's just a dump that they call "International Terminal". T3 on the other hand have shops, restaurants, and Admiral's Club. If CX does wise up and can convince the powers to be that they belong with T3 and not the ridiculous T5 then it's hallelujah for everyone.

I have not taken CX807 (ORD-HKG) yet (though have done CX806, HKG-ORD). How does the Admiral's Club compare to the LX lounge and the SK lounge? I have been to both ACs in ORD and would not want CX to use them, unless the LX lounge and / or the SK lounge is even worse.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.