Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Destinations > America - USA > Midwest
Reload this Page >

Revamping O'Hare Airport

Revamping O'Hare Airport

Old Sep 20, 16, 9:30 pm
  #1  
BCH
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,220
Revamping O'Hare Airport

There have been a number of plans floated for the revamping of the airport. Some of them are being discussed in this Chicago Tribune article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...htmlstory.html
BCH is offline  
Old Sep 21, 16, 7:33 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 625
All conceptual given that UA and AA will have to pick up the cost for the majority of this, and in addition landing fees/rent charges will go up for all carriers.

One thing to note, T5 has to be done first before anything else starts. By adding on 9 gates, it opens up moving non UA/AA carriers to T5 from within the domestic core. How many non UA/AA carriers are there?

Also, this ties into the busing operation mentioned in another thread, the current checkpoint could not handle the amount of passengers being forecast.
ords is offline  
Old Dec 28, 16, 1:02 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,813
T5 is rundown as heck, really, for departure and arrivals, it sucks. TBIT, sets a new standard, that ORD should aspire for.

I agree, that T5 needs more gates, and a complete.......rebuild.
factory81 is offline  
Old Dec 29, 16, 10:22 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,024
The entire airport needs to be rebuilt from scratch. It's an overcrowded bus terminal that is way over capacity. PDX and SFO T2 should be the models for all U.S. airports going forward.
rjque is offline  
Old Dec 31, 16, 11:53 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: AA, HH, MR elite. Fly mostly AA/WN/B6.
Posts: 18,773
Originally Posted by rjque View Post
PDX and SFO T2 should be the models for all U.S. airports going forward.
PDX enplanements in 2015 were 16.8m passengers, ORD's were 76.9m passengers, so I don't think the former is a terribly pertinent model for the latter. PDX is geographically peripheral and hosts just 17 passenger carriers. O'Hare is a national crossroads serving about 45 airlines, not counting cargo, and AA and UA both hub there. Most of what people like about PDX (lack of congestion, cozy layout, short gate-to-gate walks) is not reproducible at a high-traffic transfer terminus like ORD.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Dec 31, 16, 9:32 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,024
Originally Posted by BearX220 View Post
PDX enplanements in 2015 were 16.8m passengers, ORD's were 76.9m passengers, so I don't think the former is a terribly pertinent model for the latter. PDX is geographically peripheral and hosts just 17 passenger carriers. O'Hare is a national crossroads serving about 45 airlines, not counting cargo, and AA and UA both hub there. Most of what people like about PDX (lack of congestion, cozy layout, short gate-to-gate walks) is not reproducible at a high-traffic transfer terminus like ORD.
PDX is not cozy at all. It has very high ceilings, much wider terminals than any ORD terminal (wider by quite a bit, despite the lower volume of traffic), and more than enough bathrooms to service the amount of traffic. Transferring from the end of C to the regional flights in A requires a lengthy walk, but the wider than ORD concourses make it a much easier transit. Plus, the dining options are fantastic, with a significant local restaurant presence. SFO T2 is similarly wide open, with plenty of seating and bathrooms.

Both PDX and SFO have invested quite a bit in infrastructure over the past several decades. ORD has not, and that lack of investment is very apparent when trying to do something as simple as use the bathroom on a Monday at 8 am.
rjque is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread