well saying Heathrow and Dubai are fine with 2 runways is maybe a bit of an understatement… Heathrow for example operates at something like 98/99% capacity, that’s insane… they‘re looking for ways to enable more resilient operations (heathrow with debating about expansion for years and Dubai building an entire new airport)
Debate of building 3rd runway for Heathrow is a task for every decade of the UK GOV and there are many airport built their 3rd/4th runway in the other part of the world already during their period of debate, such as AMS, FRT, HKG, SIN, ICN, PEK, BKK, HND etc.
@@ulysseslee9541 Heathrow definitely needs the 3rd runway, and the economic value of building it would be enough to pay every displaced person 4 million pounds per year.
@@ulysseslee9541heathrow used to have a third runway, though a crosswind runway, but they decommissioned it sometime in the late 2000s, and now, the new terminal 5 sits at the site of that old runway.
This was a very roundabout way to explain two simple things: (1) ORD has bad weather / unpredictable winds (2) more small planes fly thru ORD so need more runways
This also doesn't take into account the cargo traffic, which is heavier at O'Hare than most other airports that have the same amount of passenger traffic. The other airports focused on in this piece don't have nearly the cargo traffic.
Took the words right off my finger tips. Cargo is a huge part of ORD’s flights. Just like Chicago is the freight railway hub of the country, O’hare plays a significant role in US airfreight traffic. Granted, Atlanta is Fed Ex’s home base which is one of the reasons why it’s the busiest.
I can still remember flying into O'Hare in December '08 and the plane actually landed some 20 minutes early. But then we *taxied around the airport for over 45 minutes* until finally reaching the gate! It was insane.
ORD is my home base. Landing early often means you get put in a sin-bin or taxiied around because your company's gate is occupied. Just happened to me a couple weeks ago.
Also when I was flying New York to SFO they were stopping in Chicago but they used Milwaukee which is more often seen as a Chicago exurb airport. The Amtrak Hiawatha runs every 4 hours and takes a little over an hour to get to Union Station.
You are right of course....but see the comment above. This Y-T video and its story is a near total "whitewash" of local aviation history. Most stakeholders (eg. American Airlines, United Airlines, the pilots union, ATC, the NTSB, etc. etc.) have too much skin in the game to demand a factually credible dissertation on O'Hare and how it developed into an eight runway monstrosity.
I’ve flown on airplanes as big as the 777s and as small as twin engine piston propellers into ohare. 13000km nonstop from Hong Kong and 200 km from Michigan. Really shows how diverse the traffic at ORD is.
Right, Chicago isn’t a slacker of an airport. The person who did this video left so many facts out. Chicago was the number 1 airport in the world for decades way before Atlanta, historically it has been the leader in Aircraft movement and cargo tons. Just before 2019 passengers traffic 84,649,115 Increase1.69% aircraft movements 919,704 cargo metric tons 1,788,001 During that same time Emirates had 86,396,757. At the time Dubai was #4, Chicago was #6 busiest in the world. Even 2022 numbers are in Chicago is number 4 at 68,340,619 in the world vs Dubai at number 6 with 66,069,981, follow by LAX at number 6 with 65 million. If he only Google and presented the facts this would have been a clear cut video. Instead it is full of holes and not factually correct.
Look at the number of airports within 1000 miles of Chicago versus Dubai. That is why Chicago has more smaller aircraft. Chicago's location is why it was the hub of the nation's railroads.
As those from the area say, "You CAN fly from Milwaukee to Chicago, but it really would be faster to drive." And by drive, we mean we will literally drive you there ourselves and deal with Chicago drivers rather than let you be so stupid as to sit on those infernal runways. Charlie Berens is not kidding in his videos about Wisconsinites' willingness to drive someone to the airport. If we can't take you in our cars, though, we're probably still going to recommend the Greyhound or train over that waste of flight space between MKE and ORD. Especially if you're already south of Milwaukee about to drive north into there, wait in the airport, wait on the airplane, fly, and wait for an open gate. By the time that's all done, you've spent more time and money than you would've on the Greyhound or trains. At least that was true back in the day. Now, we'd probably tell you to hire an Uber or Lyft to take you because seriously, bro, that puddle jump isn't worth it.
You also have a lot of dedicated cargo traffic at Chicago due to the heavy railroad presence and central location of the city, which further adds to the planes in and out of ORD.
There are plenty of freighters coming in, particularly 747's from Asia. But they tend to arrive late in the evening because of the way FedEx and UPS hubs work. So most of them are outbound about 2am.
It’s funny how Ohare and Dubai are such mental airports for such similar reasons. Ohare is centrally located in North America so it sees a TON of smaller traffic. Dubai is centrally located between Europe and Asia so it pumps in huge numbers of international passengers.
Its actually not between Europe and Asia at all. The shortest route goes over Russia, even to the southernmost destinations. Sadly, Russia's war means routes get lengthened by up to 3500km, which obviously benefits Gulf states. But it's centrally located between Europe and Oceania + Africa and Asia.
Very interesting! I left Chicago right when they got approval to expand the airport. Never had a clue that this was how the runways there worked. Also didn’t know that Mitsubishi made CRJs.
Company is actually called Bombardier, the MODEL is called the Canadaair Regional Jet. Edit: Looks like Mitsubishi did buy out the CRJ program from Bombardier. I stand corrected.
@@miamisasquatch Apparently Mitsubishi bought the brand off Bombardier in 2020 and than promptly cancelled it… Given that they really never made planes under the brand I think it’s weird to call them Mitsubishi planes still.
KORD has changed so much over the last 20 years or so.....I didn't even realize both the old 14-32's were now completely gone. The fact KORD is a hub for both American and United, and the proliferation of all the RJ traffic, made things much worse from a traffic congestion perspective for the old 6 intersecting runway configuration. One of the interesting things about flying into and out of the old KORD configuration was the traffic patterns of arrivals and departures when using the non-parallel runways simultaneously. I distinctly remember being on an arriving flight on approach, and looking out the window seeing a departing flight pass right behind us at what I thought was way too close. I am sure the old configuration must have kept ATC and the pilots on their toes, relying on their TCAS, especially in low visibility conditions. I would think if KLAX can manage with 4 parallels, and KATL with 5 parallels, KORD should be able to manage with the same. If you want to talk about runway limitations, you should do a video on San Diego (KSAN) that operates with a single runway, which is unusual for an airport in a city of that size.
O'hare is also in the middle of an $8.5 billion terminal upgrade under the ORD21 project which is adding 2 new satellite terminals and rebuilding terminal 2 into a "global terminal". So it's adding 25% more gate space while allowing for additional satellite terminals to be built to the west if need be in the future.
I've flown in and out of O'Hare hundreds of times. Except for my flight to France when I moved here 2 1/2 years ago, those flights occurred 20+ years ago. I've even flown into O'Hare in the right seat of a personal twin turboprop. What I noticed from this video is that runway 34/16 is GONE. That was a surprise. I flew in and out on it regularly.
worth noting that midway has 2 sets of parallel runways and only 2 runways are used for the majority of traffic which happen to intersect each other. o'hare theroetically could have 6 planes taking off or landing simultaneously while midway only could theroetically have 2. while there is some overlap in airlines, Southwest is huge at midway (their largest airline) while Delta is huge at Ohare. Volaris seems to be split and Frontier, while having overlapping cities, have exclusives per airport. Chicago is in the middle of the country (for the most part) and so many connecting flighs happen here, not to mention the volume of cargo that happens at Ohare.
@@kareneverman9256 You beat me to it, America and United are what dominate O'Hare, with some Delta and some flights from Southwest now entering there as well. Midway is dominated by Southwest, with some flights from Frontier and some Delta as well. At Midway, the international flights are dominated by Volaris.
Don't forget that O'Hare (not the only airport in Chicago, as Midway is a major domestic hub for Southwest) is a main hub for two airlines, which is a rarity. So most all of the regional United and American flights either go to or come from O'Hare, along with the long haul (to the coasts) and international flights from the hub that the airlines (and their aligned partners) have. It's no wonder that ORD is one of the busiest airports on the planet.
There was a time that OHare was the primary hub for almost every major US Airline. Congestion convinced more of them to move. Then the end of the "hub and spoke" system due to increasing passenger traffic spread the load out even more.
Midway is no slouch, it handles about 20 million passengers/year. When I lived in Chicago, I used to fly private airplanes, mostly Cessnas, out of there.
I think you should do a video about the people movers of Dulles Airport. Dulles has 4 runways and plans to have a 5th runway that parallels their 12/30 runway. If that happens, Dulles should handle parallel takeoffs with a separation longer than the parallel takeoffs seen at San Francisco International Airport.
The IAD people movers are a holdover from when they were designed to move passengers to and from the main terminal and planes directly, and not between different terminals as they do now. It has been a very long time (10 years?) since I was on a people mover where we deplaned to a people mover taking us directly to the main terminal. I am sure it seemed like a great idea back in the 60’s
Chicago O'Hare is a major US hub, somewhat connecting people from the East to the West and probably even as a major hub between the US and Canada as well. As such, you need many runways to handle the traffic. I believe at one point and this may still be true, there is a plane taking off or landing like every 30 seconds (if you factor in that no flights take off/land bewteen the hours of midnight or 1 am to 5am; some red-eye flights may leave late but I think there is no flights after 1am because its location among other things.
Chicago also does a lot of cargo flights, both national and international. This also further reduces the average number of passengers per aircraft movement.
8 runways but when summer thunderstorms arrive and aircraft spacing is doubled 20 minutes of a microburst takes 4-5 hours of delay/catch up time. Used to cross the country via DFW or ORD 20 times a year. I got good at watching weather and arranging trips to avoid thunderstorms.
Some inaccurate information. Do not underestimate Ohare when it comes to passenger traffic and aircraft movements as it is still one of the top 5 in the world in 2022. There are lots of flights in Ohare, and i beleive the 6 functional runways make landings and take offs faster despite several flights. Im from Chicago and I take Ohare several times. I never experienced a delay in landing due to a congested or unavailable runway. Due to more runways, landings are more efficient.
@@BroadvayThis is new information to me! Do you know if they still manufacture them under the Bombardier name having been bought out by Mitsubishi or are they actually released under the make of 'Mitsubishi' now that they have been bought out? Super cool video and I learned a lot. Thank you!!!
to compare the total terminal area of ORD and DXB, DXB is with more larger area of terminal than DXB, Their T3 is the largest terminal in the world with more than 1.7Million SqM For ORD, it is a central hub of USA and it is the most aircraft movement in the world for many years due to huge numbers of interchange flights I agree that to have more runway for better flexibility of runway usage.
It is simply not true that London Heathrow operates "just fine" on two runways. The shortage of runway capacity at Europe's busiest airport is a major problem for the city, causing untold economic hardship for trade and commerce, and an ecological disaster as virtually every arriving aircraft must be placed in a holding pattern until a landing slot is available, causing thousands of tons of wasted jet fuel burned over the city every single day, while creating noise pollution and increased risk for residents. Those stacked holding patterns have largely been eliminated in the US, due to airport coordination, assignment of reserved slots, and above all ample runway capacity at most of America's busiest airports.
Can remember back in thec1960's when it seemed like planes from New York & Boston always stopped in Chicago on way to California. Heard they now have jets that can travel from New York to Hawaii without stopping. When I flew home from Viet Nam they stopped in Japan & Alaska before we landed in California.
Computer voice: “The Chicago airport has so many runway! It has 8 runway that equal just as many runway as Atlanta! And the runway at London Heathrow!”
Btw, it's incorrect to say that an airport can't use a runway just because it intersects another runway. My local airport often does both, despite intersecting.
I think the voiceover on this video might be AI. I'm not sure, but he makes several grammatical mistakes that I've never heard made by someone with such an impeccable American accent.
I driver by Ohare twice a day. The runway you say is rarely used (22R) is possibly the most used. planes are constantly landing using 22R over my head as I drive on i90
Not true. The E to W landing configuration is used 80% of the time. Landing on 22R would interfere with that. 22R is used much more in a takeoff configuration.
Okay, there are less seats per aircraft movement, inducing much more movements than say Dubai, but video failed to address why is that? (along with other reasons) 1) Chicago is in the middle of a continent size country with lots of routes, of all types. It's a city hub, with healthy business, and a myriad similar cities all around. To connect those, you need many flights, some routes operated several times a day for choice and flexibility, everyday, that's why the smaller planes. Cities like Dubai only have relevant demand on two axis, Middle East/Europe and Middle East/South East Asia and Oceania (mainly long haul except India). Chicago is much more similar to Atlanta, Paris, Frankfurt or Milan on that aspect than Dubai or Los Angeles. 2) What kind of city is Chicago? It's like London, Paris, Tokyo or New York. Population, ie, travelers doing businesses and goods to ship. You can't compare Chicago to a small city like Dubai, or to a poor city like Johannesburg. The city offers a huge amount of people who can afford air travel. As a comparison, take each capital of any african country, airports with one single runway mostly, because those cities cannot compare to Chicago alone in terms of wealth, population and economical activities. Even Addis Abeba or Johannesburg is nowhere near... no need for that much runways unless showing off.. 3) the reason why Charles de Gaulle or Los Angeles can cope with just 4 runways is..... O'Hare is the ONLY major airport at Chicago. Nearby is Midway, the other much farther are too small (not enough long runways) to be relevant. To compare Paris to Chicago, you must combine Charles de Gaulle, Orly and Vatry for cargo, that's 8 long runways. The same for London, New York, Los Angeles, and so many more. Actually, the isolated San Diego is one exceptionally "busy" airport. One airport such with "too many runways already" could be Sydney Kingsford Smith, or Honolulu. 4) Cargo volume. In cities like Dubai or Paris with another airport to handle time consuming cargo (un)loading, Chicago has nowhere but O'Hare. That's why the cargo traffic is so high there, no choice but cope with what you have. Sure, weather/wind is a factor, but if it was that relevant, most single runway airports would struggle half the time, though, that's not the case. A three day disrupted traffic due to polar blizzard, sure, that's something, but no, constantly changing winds is not really a cause of runway multiplication. Traffic density due to aircraft types of all size and operation, sure, many runways needed, but what I wrote above is the proper explanation of why, in the end, Chicago O'Hare dwarved every other seemingly similar airports in terms of number of runways because of geographical situation, healthy economics 360° around, and not having any other choice than that very airport.
The other thing to consider is how large of a cargo hub chicago is as well. The south runway complex is practically dedicated to cargo, unpess youre the unlucky RJ
yeah, you're right but you also have to consider that majority of cargo operation are carried at night when commercial operations are close to none, for example at ORD there's only 5 to 7 cargo departures in the peak hours of morning from 7 to 12AM.
This video repeats the same information over and over and over but with slightly different wording. Let's sum it up. Chicago O'Hare has 8 runways: 1. Because of wildly varying wind/weather conditions 2. The high number of takeoffs since it MOSTLY serves regional and domestic flights (81 ppp with 8 runways vs 180 ppp with 2 runways @ Dubai) The end.
Hey Love the content! Can you make a video about the comeback of A380 now that global airlines has also acquired some and its probably making a comeback!
Planes have a "slow" land speed and need clearance to cross every runway (even at the end) and the crossing is cycled with the takeoffs & landings - you're sometimes crossing 2 runways during taxi.
Chicago O'Hare was a cool airport to fly into. But that taxing time was whoa. Landed on time with 30 minutes to spare. But by the time we got to the gate. My connecting flight was boarding. Thankfully it was in the same Terminal.
Chicago isn’t a slacker of an airport. The person who did this video left so many facts out. Chicago was the number 1 airport in the world for decades way before Atlanta, historically it has been the leader in Aircraft movement and cargo tons. Just before 2019 passengers traffic 84,649,115 Increase1.69% aircraft movements 919,704 cargo metric tons 1,788,001 During that same time Dubai airport had 86,396,757. At the time Dubai was #4, Chicago was #6 busiest in the world. Even 2022 numbers are in Chicago is number 4 at 68,340,619 in the world vs Dubai at number 6 with 66,069,981, follow by LAX at number 6 with 65 million. If he only Google and presented the facts this would have been a clear cut video. Instead it is full of holes and not factually correct.
ORD only runs parallel 4s and 22s in rare circumstances. The prevailing winds have to be out of the Northeast or Southwest at or above 25 knots sustained. Otherwise they’re in east or west flow
You contradicted yourself with your closing statement in regards to using all 7 at once, as opposed to 6, and even 6 isn't safe to use. So in reality ORD has 5 runways. Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW), on the other hand, and surprisingly not mentioned or pictured in this video, has 7 runways, and can operate off all 7 at the same time. And the airport is getting safer with new end-around taxiways complete on the north and south ends of 35L/17R and 35C/17C, and those under construction currently on the south end of 18/36 L/R and once completed the north ends. Interesting video, though. Thanks for sharing.
DFW was able to grow a lot bigger before it started getting "hemmed in" by adjacent occupied infrastructure. A lesson they learned from OHare and Midway.
Even with that many runways, O'Hare operates at a fairly high capacity. It's not the busiest airport in the world in terms of aircraft operations any more - but it's still very high on the list.
From 1963 to 1998, O’Hare was the busiest airport in the world for passenger traffic…35 years in a row! Maybe that and the weather had something to do with 8 runways?
Chicago is busiest by number of flights per day. Atlanta is busier by total number of passengers bc they have more international flights which means larger planes
At 5:11 you show a couple of planes on final into San Francisco. A very interesting video would be about SFO and its two main arrival runways and why it so often gets delayed due to having to shut down one of them because they are too close together.
The old configuration is comparible with AMS nowadays. Also possible to land from every direction because of the variable Dutch weather. AMS has 6 runways, but like the old ORD only 3 can be used at the same time. Unlike ORD however it is not possible to reconfigure them. There is just no space.
Old ORD with 6 serious runways 1971-2007 had some good-weather configurations that used all 6 of them with careful spacing and go-around contingencies. For example, "Plan B" with light south winds and 5 miles visibility featured landings on 14R, 22R, and 9R (now 10L) with timed takeoffs on 14L, 22L and 9L (now 9R). ATC rules nowadays wouldn't allow that.
Long story short, this video highlights that Chicago O'Hare has eight runways because most of its flights are operated on a high frequency low capacity domestic/regional basis, using smaller aircraft such as the CRJ and B737, wheres Dubai has just two runways because most of it's flights are operated on a high capacity low frequency intercontinental basis, using larger aircraft such as the A380 and B777. Long story short, Chicago handles more overall flights than Dubai, despite around 90% of them being short haul city hopper flights.
ORD has lots of domestic/regional flights, and plenty of international flights as well. It has a huge volume of freight flights and most of them are B-747. Lots of varying demands on the airport. Taxiing is a bear at ORD, it usually takes about 15 minutes to get between the runway and the terminal. less runways would make that even longer.
@@alanstevens129615 minutes is normal for any airport lol. Do remember, 5 of those minutes come from just the pushback and engine start, while an additional minute can be added for the takeoff run.
But they only use 5 runways at most at a single time, so they don’t need 8 runways. Plus, 1 of the runways is never even used for either westbound operations or eastbound operations.
@@SYDAirlineEnthusiast Not at Richmond RIC. It can be as short as 5 minutes. I have flown to and from ORD at least 50 times in my life. That 15 minutes sometimes has another 5 or 10 minutes added while waiting just outside of the terminal area for a gate to free up.
Heathrow, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha airports are fine with just 2 runways. I think Dubai Airport is the busiest airport worldwide that uses just 2 parallel runways.
The major difference between all the airports named and ORD are the aircraft movements they get. ORD is the busiest airport in the world by aircraft movements. ORD also has much more variety in aircraft types. You can a small regional jet landing behind a 777 means you have to a lot of variances in separation requirements.
Yep, Dubai is, but it also operates 24 hours compared to heathrow which shuts down at night. In terms of movements during open hours, heathrow might have an edge over Dubai
Yeah, probably along with Tokyo-Narita, London-Heathrow, Mexico City and São Paulo-Guarulhos, with the last probably getting less demand in the future due to plans of building an bigger international airport close to São Paulo soon.
Bogota airport also uses just two runways along with Lima airport, though it never uses both at the same time. Newark airport has three runways, but it never uses the crosswind runway cause it’s too short.
The A380 requires a 200 ft. width (Some circumstances allow operating with 150 ft. width which O'hare does not meet) and usually about 10,000 ft. length. Only 2 runways meet those requirements at O'hare: 10C/28C and 9C/27C
@@kylegrage8679disagree cause the two outboard runways in CDG are only around 8000 feet long and the A380 lands on them fine. Length is not an issue for landing as at sfo for reverse operations, 19L is the landing runway, and it is also around 8500 feet long. Also, Runway 24R at lax is around 8900 feet long, and the A380 lands mainly on that runway. For takeoff, it can handle 8500 feet as in rare cases, a Runway 1R takeoff has occurred at sfo with the A380.
They also close all but one runway overnight. Which runway remains open varies to try and spread out the noise to different surrounding communities to at least try and be a good neighbor.
I think I'm one of very few people who actually like airports like O'Hare and Liberty and even LAX. Dulles and Baltimore too. Baltimore does have an issue of TSA treating non black and older people kind of bad. Charlette is terrible, Phoenix is ok. IAH old terminal C needs to go away and never return besides that it's fine. I live in San Antonio so never needed to go through Austin but I haven't heard good or bad about it.
“THAT’S ENOUGH SLICES” “Nuh uh” “B-B-But” “Crosswind” “BUT YOU DONT EVEN NEED 8 WHY ARE YOU BUILDING MORE-“ “I said it, cross over runways” “YOU DONT EVEN NEED THAT MUCH, A380S DON’T LAND THAT MUCH YOU DONT NEED THAT SPACE-“ “Shhh”
I hope that with this new renovation thing that is going on some of them get renovated, but especially the international ones get better lounges! Long overdue!
the upcoming new airport in Delhi, India will have no less than 5 large runways, with a length of anywhere between 11,000 ft - 14,000 ft . . . one of the 5 runways will be reserved for the Indian Air Force . . .
@@JoaoPessoa86eh, not entirely accurate. Bombardier sold their CRJ program to Mitsubishi, not the whole company. Or, rather, Mitsubishi were forced, against their best interests, to buy the CRJ program for various reasons.
Now i understand why delhi is buidling another airport just 70-80km away from its current airport, IGI airport which has 3 terminals and 4 runways, 1 is angled a bit and other 3 are parallel Indian avaition industry is growing rapidly 5-7% yearly, also delhi being the capital will have a large amount of domestic flights for international connections, that is why we need a new airport, coz its planning for way in future, for all this future high domestic demand and ofc international aswell Its also insane mumbai operates on literally just one runway being the second busiest in india and also has 2 terminals
Its so wrong to keep on hearing O'Hare called Chicago all the time. Namely because Chicago Midway is Chicago's second airport. That would be like calling London Heathrow just 'London' all the time despite there being other Landon airports. So say it with me "Chicago O'Hare" or just "O'Hare" for short.
Difference is Heathrow is not the only London airport to take major traffic. Gatwick also has flights across the World. O'Hare is the main Chicago airport, it's where all the major international traffic goes. Midway is there for low cost operations, aside from Delta every airline that flies into Midway is a budget airline, its comparable to Stansted or Luton
A bit of nitpicking. CRJ (which I believe stands for Canadian Regional Jet) are made by Bombardier. They are not made by Mitsubishi. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ
The planes were made by Bombardier when in production, but the program is now owned by Mitsubishi so they're officially branded as Mitsubishi (as you'll see on the Wikipedia page you just linked).
well saying Heathrow and Dubai are fine with 2 runways is maybe a bit of an understatement… Heathrow for example operates at something like 98/99% capacity, that’s insane… they‘re looking for ways to enable more resilient operations (heathrow with debating about expansion for years and Dubai building an entire new airport)
Debate of building 3rd runway for Heathrow is a task for every decade of the UK GOV and there are many airport built their 3rd/4th runway in the other part of the world already during their period of debate, such as AMS, FRT, HKG, SIN, ICN, PEK, BKK, HND etc.
@@ulysseslee9541 Heathrow definitely needs the 3rd runway, and the economic value of building it would be enough to pay every displaced person 4 million pounds per year.
Exactly! Just take a look at all the holding patterns during peak hours in Dubai and London.
I think Heathrow needs to have both of its runways used for both takeoffs and landings to avoid go arounds.
@@ulysseslee9541heathrow used to have a third runway, though a crosswind runway, but they decommissioned it sometime in the late 2000s, and now, the new terminal 5 sits at the site of that old runway.
This was a very roundabout way to explain two simple things: (1) ORD has bad weather / unpredictable winds (2) more small planes fly thru ORD so need more runways
Many RUclips videos these days are like that, or almost every video from CNET
@@Zel-kr3qj Gotta get the length up for that ad revenue
exactly, he kept repeating the same thing over and over again and i just ended up pausing the video
This also doesn't take into account the cargo traffic, which is heavier at O'Hare than most other airports that have the same amount of passenger traffic. The other airports focused on in this piece don't have nearly the cargo traffic.
You beat me to it! Heck most of the 4-holers I see on flight aware at O’Hare are either Cargolux or Atlas.
Took the words right off my finger tips. Cargo is a huge part of ORD’s flights. Just like Chicago is the freight railway hub of the country, O’hare plays a significant role in US airfreight traffic. Granted, Atlanta is Fed Ex’s home base which is one of the reasons why it’s the busiest.
@@turkfiles Actually Memphis is home to FedEx.
@@turkfilesno, Memphis is
@@turkfiles FedEx is based outta Memphis
I can still remember flying into O'Hare in December '08 and the plane actually landed some 20 minutes early. But then we *taxied around the airport for over 45 minutes* until finally reaching the gate! It was insane.
ORD is my home base. Landing early often means you get put in a sin-bin or taxiied around because your company's gate is occupied. Just happened to me a couple weeks ago.
Had that happen to me a number of times on American Airlines. Very frustrating, but more common than I thought.
Yeah, I looked on google maps once while taxiing there, we just went in a circle around the whole thing for half an hour.🤔
1) They needed them.
2) They built them.
Also, because it doesn't have 7.
They never use more than 5 at a time.
@@SYDAirlineEnthusiastthey do
Realest real of the ever real
@@avroarrow29 Are you trying to say something?
Atlanta is number one in passengers. Chicago is number one in flights. Somehow people mix these things up.
Chiraq 🔫🔫 bang bang
Come n find out
@@Llearez527gayest comment ever
@@bryancito00-00 yours? U got that right
Chiraq 🔫🔫 come n find out u wouldn’t make it pass the tsa before u merked
@@bryancito00-00 yet u scared to come to chiraq n find out
Extreme weather issues are “rare” have you been to Chicago during winter. There day to day winter weather is extreme to everyone else.
Also when I was flying New York to SFO they were stopping in Chicago but they used Milwaukee which is more often seen as a Chicago exurb airport. The Amtrak Hiawatha runs every 4 hours and takes a little over an hour to get to Union Station.
I think he was talking about rare in other places.
"Extreme to everyone else". You don't know what true extreme winter weather is
You are right of course....but see the comment above. This Y-T video and its story is a near total "whitewash" of local aviation history. Most stakeholders (eg. American Airlines, United Airlines, the pilots union, ATC, the NTSB, etc. etc.) have too much skin in the game to demand a factually credible dissertation on O'Hare and how it developed into an eight runway monstrosity.
Not Denver, but true for most other US airports.
I’ve flown on airplanes as big as the 777s and as small as twin engine piston propellers into ohare. 13000km nonstop from Hong Kong and 200 km from Michigan. Really shows how diverse the traffic at ORD is.
about the same as me except i flew out of ohare in the 747
Surprised it was t mentioned that O’hare was the busiest airport in the world for many years as a part of the need for its numerous runways.
Right, Chicago isn’t a slacker of an airport. The person who did this video left so many facts out.
Chicago was the number 1 airport in the world for decades way before Atlanta, historically it has been the leader in Aircraft movement and cargo tons.
Just before 2019
passengers traffic 84,649,115 Increase1.69% aircraft movements 919,704 cargo metric tons 1,788,001
During that same time Emirates had 86,396,757. At the time Dubai was #4, Chicago was #6 busiest in the world. Even 2022 numbers are in Chicago is number 4 at 68,340,619 in the world vs Dubai at number 6 with 66,069,981, follow by LAX at number 6 with 65 million.
If he only Google and presented the facts this would have been a clear cut video. Instead it is full of holes and not factually correct.
@daniel5808 oh, c’mon. Get real.
@@JeanClaudeCOCO yes, it seems that documentary videos really should review sources more thoroughly.
Look at the number of airports within 1000 miles of Chicago versus Dubai.
That is why Chicago has more smaller aircraft.
Chicago's location is why it was the hub of the nation's railroads.
Many times flying into Ohare on a regional (CRJ/ERJ/etc) you come in on the northern most runway and then taxi for almost as long as your flight is!
As those from the area say, "You CAN fly from Milwaukee to Chicago, but it really would be faster to drive."
And by drive, we mean we will literally drive you there ourselves and deal with Chicago drivers rather than let you be so stupid as to sit on those infernal runways. Charlie Berens is not kidding in his videos about Wisconsinites' willingness to drive someone to the airport.
If we can't take you in our cars, though, we're probably still going to recommend the Greyhound or train over that waste of flight space between MKE and ORD. Especially if you're already south of Milwaukee about to drive north into there, wait in the airport, wait on the airplane, fly, and wait for an open gate. By the time that's all done, you've spent more time and money than you would've on the Greyhound or trains. At least that was true back in the day. Now, we'd probably tell you to hire an Uber or Lyft to take you because seriously, bro, that puddle jump isn't worth it.
You also have a lot of dedicated cargo traffic at Chicago due to the heavy railroad presence and central location of the city, which further adds to the planes in and out of ORD.
Hasn’t O’Hare also increased its cargo capacity in the last several years? This would account for some of the aircraft movements.
There are plenty of freighters coming in, particularly 747's from Asia. But they tend to arrive late in the evening because of the way FedEx and UPS hubs work. So most of them are outbound about 2am.
Yes to answer your question
@@neils5539 but that still skews their pax to plane ratios
Yeah they expanded both the north cargo ramp and the south cargo ramp.
It’s funny how Ohare and Dubai are such mental airports for such similar reasons. Ohare is centrally located in North America so it sees a TON of smaller traffic. Dubai is centrally located between Europe and Asia so it pumps in huge numbers of international passengers.
Its actually not between Europe and Asia at all. The shortest route goes over Russia, even to the southernmost destinations. Sadly, Russia's war means routes get lengthened by up to 3500km, which obviously benefits Gulf states.
But it's centrally located between Europe and Oceania + Africa and Asia.
@@muzero2642you wouldn’t go over Russia for any where south of 30N, that’s more than half of Asia (in terms of population)
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 You definitely would. Stockholm-Hong Kong (22°N) has the shortest distance go north of Moscow
Very interesting! I left Chicago right when they got approval to expand the airport. Never had a clue that this was how the runways there worked. Also didn’t know that Mitsubishi made CRJs.
"Mitsubishi CRJ" doesn't exist.... The correct is "Canada Regional Jet CRJ"
*Canadair
Official Mitsubishi now that they bought the company. I just call them CRJs
@@claycarter3535 Was this perhaps a reaction to them canceling their own MRJ design during COVID?
Company is actually called Bombardier, the MODEL is called the Canadaair Regional Jet.
Edit: Looks like Mitsubishi did buy out the CRJ program from Bombardier. I stand corrected.
Look things up before you try and correct people, you smartass
Is this video AI generated?
Mitsubishi CRJ get you too?
Most probably yes.
A seven minute video that says “bad weather and small planes” over and over again…
@@miamisasquatch Apparently
Mitsubishi bought the brand off Bombardier in 2020 and than promptly cancelled it… Given that they really never made planes under the brand I think it’s weird to call them Mitsubishi planes still.
No
One nice part is the selection of different runways allows for quieter days for affected neighborhoods
so true. I live due east 4 miles of the newer "sunnyside" runway. when the wind is blowing in a certain way, they are over my house every few minutes/
KORD has changed so much over the last 20 years or so.....I didn't even realize both the old 14-32's were now completely gone. The fact KORD is a hub for both American and United, and the proliferation of all the RJ traffic, made things much worse from a traffic congestion perspective for the old 6 intersecting runway configuration. One of the interesting things about flying into and out of the old KORD configuration was the traffic patterns of arrivals and departures when using the non-parallel runways simultaneously. I distinctly remember being on an arriving flight on approach, and looking out the window seeing a departing flight pass right behind us at what I thought was way too close. I am sure the old configuration must have kept ATC and the pilots on their toes, relying on their TCAS, especially in low visibility conditions. I would think if KLAX can manage with 4 parallels, and KATL with 5 parallels, KORD should be able to manage with the same. If you want to talk about runway limitations, you should do a video on San Diego (KSAN) that operates with a single runway, which is unusual for an airport in a city of that size.
San Diego is a very small airport. Also, Tijuana airport serves San Diego too.
KSAN is the busiest single-runway airport in the US. I believe KRSW (Fort Myers, FL) is #2.
O'hare is also in the middle of an $8.5 billion terminal upgrade under the ORD21 project which is adding 2 new satellite terminals and rebuilding terminal 2 into a "global terminal". So it's adding 25% more gate space while allowing for additional satellite terminals to be built to the west if need be in the future.
I've flown in and out of O'Hare hundreds of times. Except for my flight to France when I moved here 2 1/2 years ago, those flights occurred 20+ years ago. I've even flown into O'Hare in the right seat of a personal twin turboprop. What I noticed from this video is that runway 34/16 is GONE. That was a surprise. I flew in and out on it regularly.
Recently flew into ORD from BOS on a ERJ175. Landed on 9L and taxied for nearly 30 minutes (with minimal stops) to get to the gate.
Chicago's other major airport, Chicago Midway, has four runways. That's 12 runways within 15 miles of downtown and within 15 miles of each other.
worth noting that midway has 2 sets of parallel runways and only 2 runways are used for the majority of traffic which happen to intersect each other. o'hare theroetically could have 6 planes taking off or landing simultaneously while midway only could theroetically have 2.
while there is some overlap in airlines, Southwest is huge at midway (their largest airline) while Delta is huge at Ohare. Volaris seems to be split and Frontier, while having overlapping cities, have exclusives per airport. Chicago is in the middle of the country (for the most part) and so many connecting flighs happen here, not to mention the volume of cargo that happens at Ohare.
Delta is not huge at O’Hare. United and American are huge at O’Hare. Southwest now has flights there as well.
@@kareneverman9256 You beat me to it, America and United are what dominate O'Hare, with some Delta and some flights from Southwest now entering there as well. Midway is dominated by Southwest, with some flights from Frontier and some Delta as well. At Midway, the international flights are dominated by Volaris.
Technically 13 if you count Schaumburg airport but I’m pretty sure it’s private. Still insane numbers though.
@@kareneverman9256delta has grown now that they have a good portion of gates at terminal 5
Don't forget that O'Hare (not the only airport in Chicago, as Midway is a major domestic hub for Southwest) is a main hub for two airlines, which is a rarity. So most all of the regional United and American flights either go to or come from O'Hare, along with the long haul (to the coasts) and international flights from the hub that the airlines (and their aligned partners) have. It's no wonder that ORD is one of the busiest airports on the planet.
There was a time that OHare was the primary hub for almost every major US Airline.
Congestion convinced more of them to move.
Then the end of the "hub and spoke" system due to increasing passenger traffic spread the load out even more.
Midway is no slouch, it handles about 20 million passengers/year. When I lived in Chicago, I used to fly private airplanes, mostly Cessnas, out of there.
I think you should do a video about the people movers of Dulles Airport. Dulles has 4 runways and plans to have a 5th runway that parallels their 12/30 runway. If that happens, Dulles should handle parallel takeoffs with a separation longer than the parallel takeoffs seen at San Francisco International Airport.
Denver Airport already having 6 runways, 4 in N-S. 2 in E-W and it is the airport in USA with the largest land size.
DFW has 7 runways, but only uses the 5 north-south runways most of the time. Sometimes, it will use the crosswind runways, but only rarely.
The IAD people movers are a holdover from when they were designed to move passengers to and from the main terminal and planes directly, and not between different terminals as they do now. It has been a very long time (10 years?) since I was on a people mover where we deplaned to a people mover taking us directly to the main terminal. I am sure it seemed like a great idea back in the 60’s
Chicago O'Hare can already handle 4 parallel takeoffs and landings at once. Which is the most of any airport in the world.
Chicago O'Hare is a major US hub, somewhat connecting people from the East to the West and probably even as a major hub between the US and Canada as well. As such, you need many runways to handle the traffic. I believe at one point and this may still be true, there is a plane taking off or landing like every 30 seconds (if you factor in that no flights take off/land bewteen the hours of midnight or 1 am to 5am; some red-eye flights may leave late but I think there is no flights after 1am because its location among other things.
O’Hare used to have Runways 14R-32L and Runway 14L-32R. They stopped using them. Plus runway 4L-22R is rarely used. It’s crazy
Chicago also does a lot of cargo flights, both national and international. This also further reduces the average number of passengers per aircraft movement.
This was awesome!! Drove by O'Hare yesterday and I am still amazed at this place.
Before 9/11, it was common to see cars parked on the side of Irving Park Road, near Mannheim Road watching planes arrive and depart.
@@whatsamattayu3257 my stepdad and i used to chill exactly there in the late 80s when i was a child. bird watching lol good times.
O'Hare has 8 runways
Midway has 4 runways.
Both aforementioned airports are in Chicago.
8 runways but when summer thunderstorms arrive and aircraft spacing is doubled 20 minutes of a microburst takes 4-5 hours of delay/catch up time. Used to cross the country via DFW or ORD 20 times a year. I got good at watching weather and arranging trips to avoid thunderstorms.
To be honest, it seems like 22R is used more during the Chicago air show than for crosswinds
I have done 8 flights into Heathrow in the past 5 months and every one was delayed due to flow control based on runway shortages.
Yeah, LHR is so far from "ok"
Some inaccurate information. Do not underestimate Ohare when it comes to passenger traffic and aircraft movements as it is still one of the top 5 in the world in 2022. There are lots of flights in Ohare, and i beleive the 6 functional runways make landings and take offs faster despite several flights. Im from Chicago and I take Ohare several times. I never experienced a delay in landing due to a congested or unavailable runway. Due to more runways, landings are more efficient.
Interior airport footage at 4:32 is from DTW (Detroit), not ORD.
thanks for the info ive always wanted to know why. And btw the video was really well put together
Glad you enjoyed!
My brain got derailed when you said Mitsubishi CRJ TWICE 💀
I don't know everybody keep saying it's bombardier, but actually bombardier sold the crj program to Mitsubishi in June 2020.
Yeah the only plane that Bombardier manufactures anymore is the Global 7,500
@@BroadvayThis is new information to me! Do you know if they still manufacture them under the Bombardier name having been bought out by Mitsubishi or are they actually released under the make of 'Mitsubishi' now that they have been bought out? Super cool video and I learned a lot. Thank you!!!
@@45scienceprojectI own a bombardier myself. A 96 sea doo bombardier rotax 701. Nice little ski😂😂
to compare the total terminal area of ORD and DXB,
DXB is with more larger area of terminal than DXB, Their T3 is the largest terminal in the world with more than 1.7Million SqM
For ORD, it is a central hub of USA and it is the most aircraft movement in the world for many years due to huge numbers of interchange flights
I agree that to have more runway for better flexibility of runway usage.
O'Hare is more limited on available space.
I only used O’Hare to transfer to connecting flight but Detroit and Minneapolis or DFW was more convenient.
It's sorta wild that you're using random B-roll if different airports. At 4:30ish the teriyoure showing isn't ORD, it's DTW's McNamara terminal.
It is simply not true that London Heathrow operates "just fine" on two runways. The shortage of runway capacity at Europe's busiest airport is a major problem for the city, causing untold economic hardship for trade and commerce, and an ecological disaster as virtually every arriving aircraft must be placed in a holding pattern until a landing slot is available, causing thousands of tons of wasted jet fuel burned over the city every single day, while creating noise pollution and increased risk for residents. Those stacked holding patterns have largely been eliminated in the US, due to airport coordination, assignment of reserved slots, and above all ample runway capacity at most of America's busiest airports.
Can remember back in thec1960's when it seemed like planes from New York & Boston always stopped in Chicago on way to California. Heard they now have jets that can travel from New York to Hawaii without stopping. When I flew home from Viet Nam they stopped in Japan & Alaska before we landed in California.
Computer voice: “The Chicago airport has so many runway! It has 8 runway that equal just as many runway as Atlanta! And the runway at London Heathrow!”
Not to mentioned Chicago Midway also has an addition 4 runways to complement O'hare's 8
Being able to alternate runway usage would also help in extending the lifetime of the surface and reducing costs
Btw, it's incorrect to say that an airport can't use a runway just because it intersects another runway. My local airport often does both, despite intersecting.
In fact, today, they had one depart just one minute ahead of another plane on the other intersecting runway.
Oh, now two landing planes from the same origin city are landing on different intersecting runways.
Chicago has a crap ton of freight traffic. It’s a major transportation hub and transfer between air and ground.
I think the voiceover on this video might be AI. I'm not sure, but he makes several grammatical mistakes that I've never heard made by someone with such an impeccable American accent.
Yup this is the beginning of lazy RUclips content with fake voiceovers
I driver by Ohare twice a day. The runway you say is rarely used (22R) is possibly the most used. planes are constantly landing using 22R over my head as I drive on i90
Not true. The E to W landing configuration is used 80% of the time. Landing on 22R would interfere with that. 22R is used much more in a takeoff configuration.
Okay, there are less seats per aircraft movement, inducing much more movements than say Dubai, but video failed to address why is that? (along with other reasons)
1) Chicago is in the middle of a continent size country with lots of routes, of all types. It's a city hub, with healthy business, and a myriad similar cities all around. To connect those, you need many flights, some routes operated several times a day for choice and flexibility, everyday, that's why the smaller planes. Cities like Dubai only have relevant demand on two axis, Middle East/Europe and Middle East/South East Asia and Oceania (mainly long haul except India). Chicago is much more similar to Atlanta, Paris, Frankfurt or Milan on that aspect than Dubai or Los Angeles.
2) What kind of city is Chicago? It's like London, Paris, Tokyo or New York. Population, ie, travelers doing businesses and goods to ship. You can't compare Chicago to a small city like Dubai, or to a poor city like Johannesburg. The city offers a huge amount of people who can afford air travel. As a comparison, take each capital of any african country, airports with one single runway mostly, because those cities cannot compare to Chicago alone in terms of wealth, population and economical activities. Even Addis Abeba or Johannesburg is nowhere near... no need for that much runways unless showing off..
3) the reason why Charles de Gaulle or Los Angeles can cope with just 4 runways is..... O'Hare is the ONLY major airport at Chicago. Nearby is Midway, the other much farther are too small (not enough long runways) to be relevant. To compare Paris to Chicago, you must combine Charles de Gaulle, Orly and Vatry for cargo, that's 8 long runways. The same for London, New York, Los Angeles, and so many more. Actually, the isolated San Diego is one exceptionally "busy" airport. One airport such with "too many runways already" could be Sydney Kingsford Smith, or Honolulu.
4) Cargo volume. In cities like Dubai or Paris with another airport to handle time consuming cargo (un)loading, Chicago has nowhere but O'Hare. That's why the cargo traffic is so high there, no choice but cope with what you have.
Sure, weather/wind is a factor, but if it was that relevant, most single runway airports would struggle half the time, though, that's not the case. A three day disrupted traffic due to polar blizzard, sure, that's something, but no, constantly changing winds is not really a cause of runway multiplication.
Traffic density due to aircraft types of all size and operation, sure, many runways needed, but what I wrote above is the proper explanation of why, in the end, Chicago O'Hare dwarved every other seemingly similar airports in terms of number of runways because of geographical situation, healthy economics 360° around, and not having any other choice than that very airport.
Most of the cargo goes to Chicago-Rockford now, though o'Hare gets plenty.
The other thing to consider is how large of a cargo hub chicago is as well.
The south runway complex is practically dedicated to cargo, unpess youre the unlucky RJ
yeah, you're right but you also have to consider that majority of cargo operation are carried at night when commercial operations are close to none, for example at ORD there's only 5 to 7 cargo departures in the peak hours of morning from 7 to 12AM.
@@Broadvaybut it still skews pax to plane ratios
This video repeats the same information over and over and over but with slightly different wording. Let's sum it up. Chicago O'Hare has 8 runways: 1. Because of wildly varying wind/weather conditions 2. The high number of takeoffs since it MOSTLY serves regional and domestic flights (81 ppp with 8 runways vs 180 ppp with 2 runways @ Dubai) The end.
Hey Love the content! Can you make a video about the comeback of A380 now that global airlines has also acquired some and its probably making a comeback!
thank you so much, I'll probably make one if I can point out something new.
I can tell you that as a former fueler at ohare it really is one of a kind.
Really? Why?
I worked at O'Haea when Butler Aviation was the big fueling company at the airport. They did all of the private and small airline fueling.
I guess 32R is gone where AA191 took off from in May 1979 and crashed by the trailer park on Touhy Ave. I'll never forget that...
Was this narrated and written by AI. Such weird grammer
now explain why it takes 35 minutes to taxi after landing to a gate at ORD
50 minutes from St Louis to Chicago, 40 minutes taxying at O-Hare🤣
Planes have a "slow" land speed and need clearance to cross every runway (even at the end) and the crossing is cycled with the takeoffs & landings - you're sometimes crossing 2 runways during taxi.
Chicago O'Hare was a cool airport to fly into. But that taxing time was whoa. Landed on time with 30 minutes to spare. But by the time we got to the gate. My connecting flight was boarding. Thankfully it was in the same Terminal.
if Chicago still had their old runways, they would have 10 which is crazy
Kudos to Chicago for having the vision (and political courage) to overall the runway layout. This will make O’Hare more competitive in the future.
Terminals are being done now
Chicago isn’t a slacker of an airport. The person who did this video left so many facts out.
Chicago was the number 1 airport in the world for decades way before Atlanta, historically it has been the leader in Aircraft movement and cargo tons.
Just before 2019
passengers traffic 84,649,115 Increase1.69% aircraft movements 919,704 cargo metric tons 1,788,001
During that same time Dubai airport had 86,396,757. At the time Dubai was #4, Chicago was #6 busiest in the world. Even 2022 numbers are in Chicago is number 4 at 68,340,619 in the world vs Dubai at number 6 with 66,069,981, follow by LAX at number 6 with 65 million.
If he only Google and presented the facts this would have been a clear cut video. Instead it is full of holes and not factually correct.
ORD only runs parallel 4s and 22s in rare circumstances. The prevailing winds have to be out of the Northeast or Southwest at or above 25 knots sustained. Otherwise they’re in east or west flow
"Mitsubishi CRJ"
Really, Mitsubishi has had a bigger hand in the Tuna market than the CRJ.
You contradicted yourself with your closing statement in regards to using all 7 at once, as opposed to 6, and even 6 isn't safe to use. So in reality ORD has 5 runways.
Dallas/Fort Worth International (DFW), on the other hand, and surprisingly not mentioned or pictured in this video, has 7 runways, and can operate off all 7 at the same time. And the airport is getting safer with new end-around taxiways complete on the north and south ends of 35L/17R and 35C/17C, and those under construction currently on the south end of 18/36 L/R and once completed the north ends.
Interesting video, though. Thanks for sharing.
DFW was able to grow a lot bigger before it started getting "hemmed in" by adjacent occupied infrastructure.
A lesson they learned from OHare and Midway.
Even with that many runways, O'Hare operates at a fairly high capacity.
It's not the busiest airport in the world in terms of aircraft operations any more - but it's still very high on the list.
From 1963 to 1998, O’Hare was the busiest airport in the world for passenger traffic…35 years in a row! Maybe that and the weather had something to do with 8 runways?
Chicago is busiest by number of flights per day. Atlanta is busier by total number of passengers bc they have more international flights which means larger planes
Can you cover how Boston manages it's ridiculous airport configuration?
Quite well actually. They usually don’t have near the volume of ORD or ATL.
At 5:11 you show a couple of planes on final into San Francisco. A very interesting video would be about SFO and its two main arrival runways and why it so often gets delayed due to having to shut down one of them because they are too close together.
Love videos like this. I’ve only landed at O’Hare once but the views were stunning even in the snow ❄️
The old configuration is comparible with AMS nowadays. Also possible to land from every direction because of the variable Dutch weather. AMS has 6 runways, but like the old ORD only 3 can be used at the same time. Unlike ORD however it is not possible to reconfigure them. There is just no space.
Old ORD with 6 serious runways 1971-2007 had some good-weather configurations that used all 6 of them with careful spacing and go-around contingencies. For example, "Plan B" with light south winds and 5 miles visibility featured landings on 14R, 22R, and 9R (now 10L) with timed takeoffs on 14L, 22L and 9L (now 9R). ATC rules nowadays wouldn't allow that.
This is interesting I am subscribing. Maybe next you can do why DEN has the longest Runway.
Elevation plus hot summers.
Has to be more than that. It's also 100 feet wider.
@@Twinsen764 if you study the murals close enough, you will find the answer 😉
There has to be coincidence
I have been to O'Hara Airport once cause I went up their for a trip with my grandmother
for some reason they're always saying it's at capacity and needs to expand... sounds like you're saying it's future-proofed
And depending upon which runway you land on you can easily tack on another half of an hour before you get to your gate !
Long story short, this video highlights that Chicago O'Hare has eight runways because most of its flights are operated on a high frequency low capacity domestic/regional basis, using smaller aircraft such as the CRJ and B737, wheres Dubai has just two runways because most of it's flights are operated on a high capacity low frequency intercontinental basis, using larger aircraft such as the A380 and B777.
Long story short, Chicago handles more overall flights than Dubai, despite around 90% of them being short haul city hopper flights.
ORD has lots of domestic/regional flights, and plenty of international flights as well. It has a huge volume of freight flights and most of them are B-747. Lots of varying demands on the airport.
Taxiing is a bear at ORD, it usually takes about 15 minutes to get between the runway and the terminal. less runways would make that even longer.
@@alanstevens129615 minutes is normal for any airport lol. Do remember, 5 of those minutes come from just the pushback and engine start, while an additional minute can be added for the takeoff run.
But they only use 5 runways at most at a single time, so they don’t need 8 runways. Plus, 1 of the runways is never even used for either westbound operations or eastbound operations.
@@SYDAirlineEnthusiast
At other single times when the wind is different they use they other 3 runways.
@@SYDAirlineEnthusiast
Not at Richmond RIC. It can be as short as 5 minutes.
I have flown to and from ORD at least 50 times in my life.
That 15 minutes sometimes has another 5 or 10 minutes added while waiting just outside of the terminal area for a gate to free up.
Heathrow, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Doha airports are fine with just 2 runways. I think Dubai Airport is the busiest airport worldwide that uses just 2 parallel runways.
Another mega world class airport that operates two parallel runways is Tokyo-Narita (NRT).
The major difference between all the airports named and ORD are the aircraft movements they get. ORD is the busiest airport in the world by aircraft movements. ORD also has much more variety in aircraft types. You can a small regional jet landing behind a 777 means you have to a lot of variances in separation requirements.
Yep, Dubai is, but it also operates 24 hours compared to heathrow which shuts down at night. In terms of movements during open hours, heathrow might have an edge over Dubai
Yeah, probably along with Tokyo-Narita, London-Heathrow, Mexico City and São Paulo-Guarulhos, with the last probably getting less demand in the future due to plans of building an bigger international airport close to São Paulo soon.
Bogota airport also uses just two runways along with Lima airport, though it never uses both at the same time.
Newark airport has three runways, but it never uses the crosswind runway cause it’s too short.
Nah dxb having 2 runways and Heathrow having 2 makes me wonder how they even operate
Quantity else... are all Chicago runways capable of handling code F aircraft like A380?
The A380 requires a 200 ft. width (Some circumstances allow operating with 150 ft. width which O'hare does not meet) and usually about 10,000 ft. length. Only 2 runways meet those requirements at O'hare: 10C/28C and 9C/27C
British Airways uses the A380 on flights to Chicago.
@@kylegrage8679disagree cause the two outboard runways in CDG are only around 8000 feet long and the A380 lands on them fine. Length is not an issue for landing as at sfo for reverse operations, 19L is the landing runway, and it is also around 8500 feet long. Also, Runway 24R at lax is around 8900 feet long, and the A380 lands mainly on that runway.
For takeoff, it can handle 8500 feet as in rare cases, a Runway 1R takeoff has occurred at sfo with the A380.
They also close all but one runway overnight. Which runway remains open varies to try and spread out the noise to different surrounding communities to at least try and be a good neighbor.
How does dedicated cargo ops impact plane movements?
Love it!
Thanks you!
I think I'm one of very few people who actually like airports like O'Hare and Liberty and even LAX. Dulles and Baltimore too. Baltimore does have an issue of TSA treating non black and older people kind of bad. Charlette is terrible, Phoenix is ok. IAH old terminal C needs to go away and never return besides that it's fine. I live in San Antonio so never needed to go through Austin but I haven't heard good or bad about it.
“THAT’S ENOUGH SLICES”
“Nuh uh”
“B-B-But”
“Crosswind”
“BUT YOU DONT EVEN NEED 8 WHY ARE YOU BUILDING MORE-“
“I said it, cross over runways”
“YOU DONT EVEN NEED THAT MUCH, A380S DON’T LAND THAT MUCH YOU DONT NEED THAT SPACE-“
“Shhh”
I am once again requesting better lounges at the O’Hare international Airport
I hope that with this new renovation thing that is going on some of them get renovated, but especially the international ones get better lounges! Long overdue!
makes perfect sense
the upcoming new airport in Delhi, India will have no less than 5 large runways, with a length of anywhere between 11,000 ft - 14,000 ft . . . one of the 5 runways will be reserved for the Indian Air Force . . .
It is not a Mitsubishi CRJ. The CRJ is made by Bombardier. Canadian regional jet - CRJ
Keep up the good way! The subscribers will come!
That's the plan!
CRJ is Bombardier, not Mitsubishi.
Bombardier is Mitsubishi now
@@JoaoPessoa86eh, not entirely accurate. Bombardier sold their CRJ program to Mitsubishi, not the whole company. Or, rather, Mitsubishi were forced, against their best interests, to buy the CRJ program for various reasons.
Atlanta has a 6th parallel runway planned in the future
I live in Chicago. I cant stand the new layout. It takes FOREVER to taxi or get to the gate after landing.
Just a guess - they had cement left over?
wow this could have been 4 mins. super redundant. was this made by AI?
Now i understand why delhi is buidling another airport just 70-80km away from its current airport, IGI airport which has 3 terminals and 4 runways, 1 is angled a bit and other 3 are parallel
Indian avaition industry is growing rapidly 5-7% yearly, also delhi being the capital will have a large amount of domestic flights for international connections, that is why we need a new airport, coz its planning for way in future, for all this future high domestic demand and ofc international aswell
Its also insane mumbai operates on literally just one runway being the second busiest in india and also has 2 terminals
Imagine how hard it must be to land a plane on a globe spinning at 1600 km/hr!!!(LOL)
Look! An "Imagine" (and totally pointless) comment!
Gatwick and stansted used to be raf bases, hence the small runway
It's just so a bunch of airplanes can land at once, then you stay at the tarmac waiting for a gate to be free... for two hours.
Its so wrong to keep on hearing O'Hare called Chicago all the time. Namely because Chicago Midway is Chicago's second airport. That would be like calling London Heathrow just 'London' all the time despite there being other Landon airports. So say it with me "Chicago O'Hare" or just "O'Hare" for short.
Difference is Heathrow is not the only London airport to take major traffic. Gatwick also has flights across the World.
O'Hare is the main Chicago airport, it's where all the major international traffic goes. Midway is there for low cost operations, aside from Delta every airline that flies into Midway is a budget airline, its comparable to Stansted or Luton
One runway is a landing strip for an ET tic tac
A bit of nitpicking. CRJ (which I believe stands for Canadian Regional Jet) are made by Bombardier. They are not made by Mitsubishi.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CRJ
*Canadair
Now owned by Mitsubishi
The planes were made by Bombardier when in production, but the program is now owned by Mitsubishi so they're officially branded as Mitsubishi (as you'll see on the Wikipedia page you just linked).
A bit of nitpicking. 1. Get lost, no one needs that 2. Mitsubishi is right. Look shit up before trying to correct people.