LAXdude1023 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

ckfred wrote:

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

How is AA falling behind? Theyre just retrenching to where they are most profitable.

And how long will they retrench until they start expanding? DL is aggressively building up new hubs/focus cities and launching long-haul flights from mid-sized markets. You'd think AA (and UA) would follow suit at some point......

ADrum23 wrote:

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

The problem with AA is that it will never "dehub" ORD per say, but if AA doesn't commit it's attention and DP decides to just let it continue as it always has, UA will gradually gain a stronger foothold in the market, and slowly but surely make AA irrelevant, especially with Kirby at the helm at UA.

The situation at ORD today is very similar to DFW in 2005. I remember at the time, people thought DFW would always have two mega carriers, AA and DL going head to head forever. The thing is, having a duopoly with two mega carriers going head to head so fiercely is completely unsustainable in the long term. ORD is the last remaining example of such a duopoly at a single airport in this country for a reason- all the other ones have slowly been lost to the stronger airline when the other decides to take it easy. Within a couple year's time, I would be willing to bet that UA edges out AA to the point where AA will find it harder to keep up if they don't change their strategy and make ORD a priority. The only reason that ORD is a hub for AA is because it is profitable. If UA cranks up the heat and turns the cash flow in the other direction, AA may seriously take a long and hard look at their commitment to ORD, how AA slowly pushed DL out of the market by making DFW unprofitable.

ORD is UA's #1 hub
ORD is AA's #3 hub

You tell me who's more determined to take control. As someone mentioned above, UA doesn't have a dominant airport with 700+ flights, and they have more incentive to kick out AA. ORD may have two carriers today, but so did DFW not that long ago. I really don't know if ORD will be able to keep both forever. I hate to portray such a negative outlook, but it's a reality that most won't understand until it's here. 10 years down the road, we may find it hard to believe that there was actually a time that AA had a hub at ORD the same way many find it hard to believe today that DL actually ran a big operation in DFW as recently as 2005.

Good points, but how would AA compete in the Midwest if they were to dehub AA? By dehubbing ORD, AA would have another large hole in its network (in addition to the existing hole of nothing in Northern California and the Mountain States/Pacific Northwest).

I don't think AA dehubs ORD, in fact, I think they come to their senses and expand it again at some point. Unlike DL at DFW (that was a much different situation, not to mention a much different era), it would be very foolish for AA to dehub ORD (mainly for the reason I stated above, they'd essentially be shut out of the Midwest and all of their hubs would be then be concentrated to the East Coast and Southwest). Plus, with all the ongoing negative publicity with UA, they could lose ground themselves via cuts if they lose passengers (already, WN has surpassed them as the third largest US airline by passenger traffic). Not saying UA is going belly up anytime soon or they will be facing dire circumstances, but most people I talk to consider them the worst of the US-based airlines. I know when I go to Chicago, I'd much rather fly AA than UA.

All in all, I think the predictions on the demise of AA's ORD hub are premature. Not saying it couldn't or won't happen, but I'd honestly be very surprised if it did. That being said, what would be the chances WN moves some (or perhaps all?) of their operations to ORD if AA dehubbed?

Fair enough, but you have to look at this way. After DL pulled out of DFW, how do they compete in Texas? They don't. They left Texas to AA and UA because you don't mess with someone in their own turf. DL is more than happily printing money at both DTW and MSP and will be the strongest in the Midwest no matter what happens at ORD. If AA pulls out of ORD, they're not going to replace it with another hub, much the same way that DL never replaced DFW. Instead, DL bulked up it's existing operation in ATL. My most likely bet is that PHL will gain a huge amount of Int'l flying with the 787's based at ORD to really be a true competitor to UA at EWR. Part of the reason that AA is pulling back on JFK is the same reason that ORD is far from ideal. AA is second at JFK and third in NYC.

Why be equal to a competitor or play catchup in second place when you could be #1 at home? AA constantly has to fight UA at ORD and both DL and UA are wiping the floor with AA in NYC. PHL is indeed the crown jewel and AA's resources yield much more fruit there than hemorrhaging losses at ORD and NYC. Anyone that thinks AA is somehow benefitting by being in ORD is only kidding themselves.

Strategically, PHL is the best option to replace ORD in my opinion, as it is the closest hub that AA dominates that will allow it to be a tough, strong, and effective competitor to both DL and UA. No one will beat AA at PHL and AA can finally offer a serious alternative to UA's megahub at EWR or DL's DTW operation. AA doesn't have to constantly fight for its survival or be in second place because at PHL they can firmly be in control of their fate. Add a strong Int'l network with the 787 fleet and AA can consolidate and strengthen the connecting prowess of PHL which in my opinion is underutilized today, while simultaneously reaping the benefit of having a strong NE hub that UA has been enjoying at EWR for ages.

GSP psgr wrote:

Maybe with more 789/350 deliveries, we'll see the return of ORD-CDG/DUB/MAN/HEL on a year round basis. This might simply be the year that they're caught between not having enough 757/763/787 capacity to go around, and ORD was the sacrificial lamb.

I don’t think it’s a problem of available aircraft. The 787 doesn’t even touch the east coast and if they have enough planes in the summer they definitely have them to fly year round through the winter. AA just doesn’t want to be a player in the winter at ORD.

I am amused by how many people are so concerned with pulling AA's hubs. In the last three years they have talked about giving Delta either Miami or DFW as a price for the merger. I have heard that they should lose the Shuttle, and they did indeed lose slots in DCA as a condition of the merger. They want to give United free reign in Chicago with the pulldown of AA's hub there. They want to pull down AA's strength there to benefit United. Very Noble gesture they are offering and self serving to a fault. Please tell me what Delta, United, Alaska gave up to secure the merger from the goverment. Why does Southwest have such an audience who believe it is there right as a business to control all the gates at Love Field? These same people sang a different tune loudly when the slots in DCA were there questioned. Would you start the same arguement for Delta being forced to drop DTW? United DEN? Alaska LAX? or Southwest 20% of the gates at Love Field. Just asking the questions, I can dream silly too.

ADrum23 wrote:

ckfred wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Just don't see it. While I agree that AA has divested at ORD in recent years, they still have over 500 flights a day. That's a significant amount. They have streamlined operations to meet the ever-changing demand. Doug Parker has paid very little attention to Chicago and it shows. He believes that there is very little case for expansion and thus they have maintained the status quo with most adjustments being made to Int'l ops. Domestically, they are still very strong out of ORD. Leaving ORD would leave a gaping hole in their network.

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

Not sure about DP's long term impact on AA but, agreed, his comment about never losing money again was...cough cough...not the kind of thing for a CEO of a large multinational corporation to make, to be polite.

In terms of AA reducing or eliminating its ORD hub... That's about 500 daily flights. Where would all that traffic go? Can its other hubs handle all those planes and passengers? Does any U.S. airport have that kind of capacity? Even if spread around?

And thoughts about someone like AS or B6 jumping in? For AS, that's more than half their current number of flights. They're going to expand that much overnight? How would any airline be able to plan, fund, equip and staff such an endeavor? And the ORD hub is a mix of regional, mainline and international flights. Only a global player can handle that complexity. Wishful a.net thinking but barriers to entry are enormous.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

The problem with AA is that it will never "dehub" ORD per say, but if AA doesn't commit it's attention and DP decides to just let it continue as it always has, UA will gradually gain a stronger foothold in the market, and slowly but surely make AA irrelevant, especially with Kirby at the helm at UA.

The situation at ORD today is very similar to DFW in 2005. I remember at the time, people thought DFW would always have two mega carriers, AA and DL going head to head forever. The thing is, having a duopoly with two mega carriers going head to head so fiercely is completely unsustainable in the long term. ORD is the last remaining example of such a duopoly at a single airport in this country for a reason- all the other ones have slowly been lost to the stronger airline when the other decides to take it easy. Within a couple year's time, I would be willing to bet that UA edges out AA to the point where AA will find it harder to keep up if they don't change their strategy and make ORD a priority. The only reason that ORD is a hub for AA is because it is profitable. If UA cranks up the heat and turns the cash flow in the other direction, AA may seriously take a long and hard look at their commitment to ORD, how AA slowly pushed DL out of the market by making DFW unprofitable.

ORD is UA's #1 hub
ORD is AA's #3 hub

You tell me who's more determined to take control. As someone mentioned above, UA doesn't have a dominant airport with 700+ flights, and they have more incentive to kick out AA. ORD may have two carriers today, but so did DFW not that long ago. I really don't know if ORD will be able to keep both forever. I hate to portray such a negative outlook, but it's a reality that most won't understand until it's here. 10 years down the road, we may find it hard to believe that there was actually a time that AA had a hub at ORD the same way many find it hard to believe today that DL actually ran a big operation in DFW as recently as 2005.

Good points, but how would AA compete in the Midwest if they were to dehub AA? By dehubbing ORD, AA would have another large hole in its network (in addition to the existing hole of nothing in Northern California and the Mountain States/Pacific Northwest).

I don't think AA dehubs ORD, in fact, I think they come to their senses and expand it again at some point. Unlike DL at DFW (that was a much different situation, not to mention a much different era), it would be very foolish for AA to dehub ORD (mainly for the reason I stated above, they'd essentially be shut out of the Midwest and all of their hubs would be then be concentrated to the East Coast and Southwest). Plus, with all the ongoing negative publicity with UA, they could lose ground themselves via cuts if they lose passengers (already, WN has surpassed them as the third largest US airline by passenger traffic). Not saying UA is going belly up anytime soon or they will be facing dire circumstances, but most people I talk to consider them the worst of the US-based airlines. I know when I go to Chicago, I'd much rather fly AA than UA.

All in all, I think the predictions on the demise of AA's ORD hub are premature. Not saying it couldn't or won't happen, but I'd honestly be very surprised if it did. That being said, what would be the chances WN moves some (or perhaps all?) of their operations to ORD if AA dehubbed?

Fair enough, but you have to look at this way. After DL pulled out of DFW, how do they compete in Texas? They don't. They left Texas to AA and UA because you don't mess with someone in their own turf. DL is more than happily printing money at both DTW and MSP and will be the strongest in the Midwest no matter what happens at ORD. If AA pulls out of ORD, they're not going to replace it with another hub, much the same way that DL never replaced DFW. Instead, DL bulked up it's existing operation in ATL. My most likely bet is that PHL will gain a huge amount of Int'l flying with the 787's based at ORD to really be a true competitor to UA at EWR. Part of the reason that AA is pulling back on JFK is the same reason that ORD is far from ideal. AA is second at JFK and third in NYC.

Why be equal to a competitor or play catchup in second place when you could be #1 at home? AA constantly has to fight UA at ORD and both DL and UA are wiping the floor with AA in NYC. PHL is indeed the crown jewel and AA's resources yield much more fruit there than hemorrhaging losses at ORD and NYC. Anyone that thinks AA is somehow benefitting by being in ORD is only kidding themselves.

Strategically, PHL is the best option to replace ORD in my opinion, as it is the closest hub that AA dominates that will allow it to be a tough, strong, and effective competitor to both DL and UA. No one will beat AA at PHL and AA can finally offer a serious alternative to UA's megahub at EWR or DL's DTW operation. AA doesn't have to constantly fight for its survival or be in second place because at PHL they can firmly be in control of their fate. Add a strong Int'l network with the 787 fleet and AA can consolidate and strengthen the connecting prowess of PHL which in my opinion is underutilized today, while simultaneously reaping the benefit of having a strong NE hub that UA has been enjoying at EWR for ages.

I agree 100,000% about PHL, they should build their presence there very aggressively to rival UA at EWR and DL at JFK/LGA. In NY, AA should dehub JFK by moving all Eagle operations to LGA and cutting all mainline flights except to hub airports and LHR (JFK-LHR is one of the most lucrative routes in the world, I doubt AA would want to give that up entirely or hand that all over to BA).

There is a key difference though in DL dehubbing at DFW vs AA hypothetically dehubbing ORD. To the east, DL already has significant operations at ATL obviously, but they also have significant operations at SLC and LAX to the west. If AA dehubbed ORD, they have PHL to the east, but to the west? Nothing. AA would have no significant presence in a very large portion of the country (The midwest, the mountain states, northern california and the pacific northwest). Do you not think they'd be losing out on customers to DL and UA (who have hubs in places like SEA, DEN, SFO, MSP, DTW, SLC)? When DL dehubbed DFW, they could refocus its operations on both sides of DFW pretty well. AA would not be able to do the same at ORD.

I think JFK is a better candidate for dehubbing than ORD (as it should be). Maybe even LGA eventually as well. The 4 hubs AA should focus on building up the most are DFW, ORD, PHL and MIA.

cschleic wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

ckfred wrote:

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

Not sure about DP's long term impact on AA but, agreed, his comment about never losing money again was...cough cough...not the kind of thing for a CEO of a large multinational corporation to make, to be polite.

In terms of AA reducing or eliminating its ORD hub... That's about 500 daily flights. Where would all that traffic go? Can its other hubs handle all those planes and passengers? Does any U.S. airport have that kind of capacity? Even if spread around?

And thoughts about someone like AS or B6 jumping in? For AS, that's more than half their current number of flights. They're going to expand that much overnight? How would any airline be able to plan, fund, equip and staff such an endeavor? And the ORD hub is a mix of regional, mainline and international flights. Only a global player can handle that complexity. Wishful a.net thinking but barriers to entry are enormous.

WN could move some or even all its operations to ORD if AA left. MDW is not very convenient for most of Chicagoland and WN would gain a lot by moving to ORD.

When I initially read the first post, I thought this was regarding historical developments: that is, how would ORD be if it hadn't developed as a split hub for AA and UA. The answer to that is simple: just look to ATL; UA would have developed a megahub that might have made ATL or DFW look normal by comparison.

It seems strange to talk about a future ORD without AA because (1) AA will never willingly part with its position in the Chicago market - the third largest metropolitan area in the US and its third largest hub, and (2) AA is not in financial distress where it would need to consider entertaining the thought of closing a hub operation the size of ORD. While there are plenty of beneficiaries to an ORD without AA, what on Earth would AA gain by closing the hub?

ADrum23 wrote:

There is a key difference though in DL dehubbing at DFW vs AA hypothetically dehubbing ORD. To the east, DL already has significant operations at ATL obviously, but they also have significant operations at SLC and LAX to the west. If AA dehubbed ORD, they have PHL to the east, but to the west? Nothing. AA would have no significant presence in a very large portion of the country (The midwest, the mountain states, northern california and the pacific northwest). Do you not think they'd be losing out on customers to DL and UA (who have hubs in places like SEA, DEN, SFO, MSP, DTW, SLC)? When DL dehubbed DFW, they could refocus its operations on both sides of DFW pretty well. AA would not be able to do the same at ORD.

This is less of a problem with ORD and more a broader reflection of AA's (flawed) strategy. DL has strong hubs in the southeast (ATL), midwest (DTW/MSP), mountain (SLC), and Pacific (SEA). UA has strong hubs in the east (EWR/IAD), midwest (ORD), south (IAH), mountain (DEN), and Pacific (SFO). AA has strong hubs in the southeast (MIA/CLT), northeast (PHL), midwest (ORD), south (DFW), and PHX for everything west of DFW/ORD.

United already has two very strong hubs at DEN and SFO, even stronger than DL, and ORD is their strongest hub of all, so AA is already losing both Chicago and western traffic to UA either way. AA isn't gaining anything in it's current position second to UA at ORD and can't compete at all out west even with ORD against DEN and SFO, so getting rid of it will have little impact on that front. Most of AA's western traffic flows through DFW (also competing with UA at IAH) and PHX rather than ORD in the first place as AA doesn't utilize ORD as a western hub. AA's overall strategy doesn't really have a good western focus to begin with which is the real problem, so worrying about what is west of ORD is somewhat pointless when ORD itself is hardly used as western hub as stands today.

speedbird52 wrote:

How on Earth would turning Chicago into a monopoly be good?

agree the OP's Opinion is out to lunch imop.

grbauc wrote:

speedbird52 wrote:

How on Earth would turning Chicago into a monopoly be good?

agree the OP's Opinion is out to lunch imop.

You both know WN has their largest hub in Chicago right? This will never happen, but if it did it would not be a monopoly.

dc10lover wrote:

If AA was leaving ORD I bet Delta would move in.

With what planes? Where would Delta source 100+ planes? Where would AA move 100+ planes if they closed ORD?

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

The situation at ORD today is very similar to DFW in 2005. I remember at the time, people thought DFW would always have two mega carriers, AA and DL going head to head forever. The thing is, having a duopoly with two mega carriers going head to head so fiercely is completely unsustainable in the long term. ORD is the last remaining example of such a duopoly at a single airport in this country for a reason- all the other ones have slowly been lost to the stronger airline when the other decides to take it easy. Within a couple year's time, I would be willing to bet that UA edges out AA to the point where AA will find it harder to keep up if they don't change their strategy and make ORD a priority. The only reason that ORD is a hub for AA is because it is profitable. If UA cranks up the heat and turns the cash flow in the other direction, AA may seriously take a long and hard look at their commitment to ORD, how AA slowly pushed DL out of the market by making DFW unprofitable.

ORD is UA's #1 hub
ORD is AA's #3 hub

You tell me who's more determined to take control. As someone mentioned above, UA doesn't have a dominant airport with 700+ flights, and they have more incentive to kick out AA. ORD may have two carriers today, but so did DFW not that long ago. I really don't know if ORD will be able to keep both forever. I hate to portray such a negative outlook, but it's a reality that most won't understand until it's here. 10 years down the road, we may find it hard to believe that there was actually a time that AA had a hub at ORD the same way many find it hard to believe today that DL actually ran a big operation in DFW as recently as 2005.

Huge, huge differences between AA at ORD in 2017 and DL at DFW leading up to 2005.

DL built up a DFW hub in the 1980's after the demise of Braniff. American had, in the late 1970's, moved its HQ from NYC to DFW and it was always clear that American would be #1 at DFW. It gained the most number of gates and terminals and was the only true airline that added long-haul destinations to markets where there was significant O&D to North Texas (NRT, LGW, FRA, CDG) and tried a few others such as BRU and MAD.

DL, conversely, set-up DFW simply as a strategic South-Central hub that would provide relief over Atlanta, and also connect the DL network to secondary and tertiary markets in the Southeast, Southwest and Central Plains. DL never had more than one international long-haul route from Dallas (FRA) which wasn't even an organic DL route: it was an authority acquired from Pan Am. This was also pre-consolidation, so it was a bit more normal to see airlines have secondary hubs and focus cities in certain markets that were already crowded (read: CO at DEN, HP at LAS, US at BWI, AA at BOS, etc).

Over the years, DL was vocal about how challenging it was to make DFW work because it simply did not have the size, scale, and resources to compete against AA. Any efforts to make that would have required diverting attention away from ATL, which was (and still is) massively profitable for the carrier. The economic malaise of the late 1990's and early 2000s made it almost impossible for DL to make money at DFW. DL couldn't run more than 2-3 daily mainline flights to a market like LGA or DCA, for example, based on the number of gates and aircraft that it had, as opposed to American which could run hourly shuttles.

Over the years, DL converted DFW to a mostly regional hub sans for core markets like SAN, SFO, SEA, BOS, LAX, FLL, MCO and the main hubs, but the oil spike above $50/barrel made it even more challenging to make money on such high-CASM regional aircraft. Plus, who really wanted to fly 4 hours on an RJ from DFW to JFK or OAK when you could get mainline on AA?

In the final 12 years leading up to the eventual de-hubbing of DFW, Delta admitted that DFW had only been profitable for 3 of them. And DL was also headed for Chapter 11. It made zero sense to keep open the DFW hub, as sad as it was.

American is in the best financial shape that it has ever been in history.

ORD for AA is nowhere near the same situation. AA may have more regional flights on a daily basis than mainline, but largely these are to core/unique markets in the Upper Midwest, Central Plains and Southeast where AA can command a fare premium. Among the largest GDP/metro areas in the U.S., AA flies mainline to virtually all of them. Heck, even medium-sized cities like PIT, JAX, RNO, SMF, SLC and ORF are seeing mainline on AA from ORD these days.

Plus, international at ORD is not insignificant. You have multi-daily to LHR, plus NRT, PEK, PVG, CUN, YYZ, YUL. You have seasonal to MAN, MBJ, CDG, PVR, PUJ, FCO, SJD, CZM, DUB, GUA, VCE.

DL at DFW did not have any of that.

One final thing worth mentioning is how much AA is ramping up their Corporate Sales channels, tools and personnel to the extent that it will be fiercely focused in a market like Chicago.

ADrum23 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

Not sure about DP's long term impact on AA but, agreed, his comment about never losing money again was...cough cough...not the kind of thing for a CEO of a large multinational corporation to make, to be polite.

In terms of AA reducing or eliminating its ORD hub... That's about 500 daily flights. Where would all that traffic go? Can its other hubs handle all those planes and passengers? Does any U.S. airport have that kind of capacity? Even if spread around?

And thoughts about someone like AS or B6 jumping in? For AS, that's more than half their current number of flights. They're going to expand that much overnight? How would any airline be able to plan, fund, equip and staff such an endeavor? And the ORD hub is a mix of regional, mainline and international flights. Only a global player can handle that complexity. Wishful a.net thinking but barriers to entry are enormous.

WN could move some or even all its operations to ORD if AA left. MDW is not very convenient for most of Chicagoland and WN would gain a lot by moving to ORD.

*NOT* being at O'Hare is why Southwest became such a major player in Chicago.

IrishAyes wrote:

One final thing worth mentioning is how much AA is ramping up their Corporate Sales channels, tools and personnel to the extent that it will be fiercely focused in a market like Chicago.

Bingo.

I imagine that most of the people posting here don't actually live in Chicago and, therefore, don't seem to understand the significant brand equity AA has here. Most non a.netters wouldn't even know that UA is bigger in Chicago than AA. Your average business/leisure traveling Chicagoan sees AA as a strong choice. And AA encourages this with huge marketing dollars spent here... TV, print, sports and cultural sponsorships, etc. I

Up until recently AA often had better options on many routes than UA. UA has finally stepped it up over the past year. More people that I know actually fly AA than UA. I'm not saying that anecdote means AA has more O&D that UA in Chicago, but they definitely have more than their fair share. Especially with the terrible press UA has had over the past few years, many people and companies have switched over to AA.

A few examples:

-AA always dominated LGA/ORD. Until recently they often had 4-5 more dailies than UA. And UA was often running the majority on regionals. Even now they still throw in regionals on a daily basis. AA doesn't ever.

-I work for a large company based in Chicago and AA is our preferred airline, UA no longer.

-Last year I missed a UA flight to Cancun at 9:30am. There were no more UA flights that day but AA had one at 1pm and 5pm.

-Last year I was going to SJD and AA had nonstop on day I wanted to go - UA didn't.

Again, I know UA has stepped it up, but my point is that AA has significant credibility in Chicago that should not be underestimated.

AA in ORD is focused on O/D Last I say they had like 60-70% O/D and UA had 40%. I see AA uses ORD differently than UA that's all. I know Parker said that ORD will make money and they will trim some money losers that's it.

IrishAyes wrote:

DL never had more than one international long-haul route from Dallas (FRA) which wasn't even an organic DL route: it was an authority acquired from Pan Am.

Just a clarification that Delta started DFW-FRA on its own in 1984, seven years before buying Pan Am's European routes.

chicawgo wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Those added gates are a total of 5 and strictly for more regional jets. AA says they're for E175 but they've cut back E175 service at ORD, although they're adding some back. That still isn't mainline however. These gates would be more impactful if they were mainline. This shows the type of investment AA is making at ORD, regional only.

Your insight is not correct.... It makes no difference what the new gates are. It allows them to move regional jets to the 5 new gates and use mainline at the current gates previously wasting mainline gates with regional. Who knows whether they will just add more regional, but the fact that the new gates are regional in no way indicates they wouldn't add mainline.

What mainline gates are being used for RJ flights instead of mainline? None.

Now I am not in agreement that mainline gates somehow have more impact than RJ however we would be talking about 3-4 gates instead of 5.

The lower H gates, H1 - H5 or so, were originally mainline and converted to RJ.

K1 I believe is currently split between mainline and RJ.

Many of the original L gates were mainline while leased from DL.

stlgph wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Not sure about DP's long term impact on AA but, agreed, his comment about never losing money again was...cough cough...not the kind of thing for a CEO of a large multinational corporation to make, to be polite.

In terms of AA reducing or eliminating its ORD hub... That's about 500 daily flights. Where would all that traffic go? Can its other hubs handle all those planes and passengers? Does any U.S. airport have that kind of capacity? Even if spread around?

And thoughts about someone like AS or B6 jumping in? For AS, that's more than half their current number of flights. They're going to expand that much overnight? How would any airline be able to plan, fund, equip and staff such an endeavor? And the ORD hub is a mix of regional, mainline and international flights. Only a global player can handle that complexity. Wishful a.net thinking but barriers to entry are enormous.

WN could move some or even all its operations to ORD if AA left. MDW is not very convenient for most of Chicagoland and WN would gain a lot by moving to ORD.

*NOT* being at O'Hare is why Southwest became such a major player in Chicago.

True, but if AA were gone, it would suddenly make sense for WN to change and move some operations (but not necessarily all) to ORD. MDW is not convenient for a lot of the suburban and being able to fly on WN out of ORD would make it more of an attractive option for a lot of people.

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

Bingo, we have a winner. And a bunch of armchair CEO’s and UA fan boys jumped on the bandwagon.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

Exactly. This thread is dumb. If AA were to cut back anywhere, CLT is where it needs to be.

Bold prediction, not only will AA NOT cut back at ORD, they will eventually grow again (i.e, more mainline service and more TATL service).

ADrum23 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

WN could move some or even all its operations to ORD if AA left. MDW is not very convenient for most of Chicagoland and WN would gain a lot by moving to ORD.

*NOT* being at O'Hare is why Southwest became such a major player in Chicago.

True, but if AA were gone, it would suddenly make sense for WN to change and move some operations (but not necessarily all) to ORD. MDW is not convenient for a lot of the suburban and being able to fly on WN out of ORD would make it more of an attractive option for a lot of people.

Southwest at Midway has proven people will trek to Midway to avoid O'Hare no matter how convenient or inconvenient the drive is, including a HUGE number of people coming in from the central and north central part of the state, and northwest Indiana.

Southwest would be entirely STUPID to reduce Midway flights and move them to O'Hare. They are sitting on some of the most valuable real estate in passenger aviation.

ADrum23 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

Exactly. This thread is dumb. If AA were to cut back anywhere, CLT is where it needs to be.

Bold prediction, not only will AA NOT cut back at ORD, they will eventually grow again (i.e, more mainline service and more TATL service).

WHAT. ON. EARTH.

CLT is gangbusters for AA. Why cut it?!?!? Where do you come up with this?!?!

atypical wrote:

What mainline gates are being used for RJ flights instead of mainline? None.

Ummm... Incorrect. AA is using many mainline gates in H for E7's and CR7's throughout the day.

chepos wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

Bingo, we have a winner. And a bunch of armchair CEO’s and UA fan boys jumped on the bandwagon.

Hahahaha, this is thread is getting funny now....

stlgph wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

Exactly. This thread is dumb. If AA were to cut back anywhere, CLT is where it needs to be.

Bold prediction, not only will AA NOT cut back at ORD, they will eventually grow again (i.e, more mainline service and more TATL service).

WHAT. ON. EARTH.

CLT is gangbusters for AA. Why cut it?!?!? Where do you come up with this?!?!

HOLD. YOUR. HORSES.

Notice I said, "IF AA were to cut back anywhere." I am not implying that cuts are imminent anywhere. I know it is extremely unlikely AA cuts back at CLT, given its profitability. However, the ONLY reason it will survive is because of DL's fortress ATL hub, which AA wants to compete with. CLT has the lowest O&D traffic of all of AA's hubs and does not serve any clear purpose (funneling N-S traffic between the northeast/midwest-florida? TATL flying? What exactly is the purpose of the CLT hub?). They are only "gangbusters" at CLT because AA controls 90% of the traffic and has virtually no competition (it is pretty comparable to CVG at the peak of the DL hub, and look what happened there).

I'd rather see AA build up PHL into a fortress hub and rebuild ORD than focus on CLT. Much more O&D traffic and opportunities there than CLT.

ORDfan wrote:

chepos wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think you people need to understand why this thread was started.

A butthurt Chicagoan doesnt feel AA is giving ORD the attention he feels it deserves. Therefore, he wants to fantasize that AA will go away and some other airline will come in and save the day.

NOT...GOING...TO...HAPPEN.

AA isnt leaving Chicago. They still have a 500 flight a day operation there that wont be taken over by DFW, CLT, and/or, PHL.

AA needs a Midwest hub. Chicago is it. End of story. If you feel slighted, fly UA. Then when UA upsets you, fly WN or go back to AA. Its a never ending circle.

Bingo, we have a winner. And a bunch of armchair CEO’s and UA fan boys jumped on the bandwagon.

Hahahaha, this is thread is getting funny now....

Lol, me too. This is funny.

Rdh3e wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Neither AA nor UA have an obligation to serve a route just because the other does. Businesses will often choose to forgo a market that a competitor entered first if will not sustain two participants. AA didn't launch LAX-SIN just because UA did.

Apparently you don't understand game theory. There's a reason airlines products are so similar and the reason they tend to opt for competitive markets rather than "blue ocean" ones.

A a general rule, I don't disagree. But how do you rationalize that AA and UA serve dozens of non-overlapping routes from both ORD and LAX?

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

This is basically what it comes down to. Contrary to popular belief, no one wins with competition on both price and quality.

Dead wrong! Everyone wins! Competition improves both price and quality!

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

The whole reason ULCC's exist today is because of hypercompetitiveness on price, but then consumers complain about the pitiful quality of the product. At a fortress hub like ATL or DFW, an airline essentially controls the price, but offers a much higher level of quality because they are in control than if any sort of meaningful competition is present. Money Delta isn't spending to compete at ATL or AA at DFW is invested into the airport and consumers have a better experience qualitatively, even if the price is higher than the norm.

ULCCs exist because of market segmentation. There is demand for bare-bones, zero-frills transportation. ULCCs fulfill that demand. Millions of customers don't assign any value to the "higher level of quality" offered by AA, DL, or UA.

In absolutely no scenario are airlines using monopoly power to provide customers a "better experience." Monopolies are value destroying not value creating. You need to brush-up on supply and demand.

IrishAyes wrote:

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

The situation at ORD today is very similar to DFW in 2005. I remember at the time, people thought DFW would always have two mega carriers, AA and DL going head to head forever. The thing is, having a duopoly with two mega carriers going head to head so fiercely is completely unsustainable in the long term. ORD is the last remaining example of such a duopoly at a single airport in this country for a reason- all the other ones have slowly been lost to the stronger airline when the other decides to take it easy. Within a couple year's time, I would be willing to bet that UA edges out AA to the point where AA will find it harder to keep up if they don't change their strategy and make ORD a priority. The only reason that ORD is a hub for AA is because it is profitable. If UA cranks up the heat and turns the cash flow in the other direction, AA may seriously take a long and hard look at their commitment to ORD, how AA slowly pushed DL out of the market by making DFW unprofitable.

ORD is UA's #1 hub
ORD is AA's #3 hub

You tell me who's more determined to take control. As someone mentioned above, UA doesn't have a dominant airport with 700+ flights, and they have more incentive to kick out AA. ORD may have two carriers today, but so did DFW not that long ago. I really don't know if ORD will be able to keep both forever. I hate to portray such a negative outlook, but it's a reality that most won't understand until it's here. 10 years down the road, we may find it hard to believe that there was actually a time that AA had a hub at ORD the same way many find it hard to believe today that DL actually ran a big operation in DFW as recently as 2005.

Huge, huge differences between AA at ORD in 2017 and DL at DFW leading up to 2005.

DL built up a DFW hub in the 1980's after the demise of Braniff. American had, in the late 1970's, moved its HQ from NYC to DFW and it was always clear that American would be #1 at DFW. It gained the most number of gates and terminals and was the only true airline that added long-haul destinations to markets where there was significant O&D to North Texas (NRT, LGW, FRA, CDG) and tried a few others such as BRU and MAD.

DL, conversely, set-up DFW simply as a strategic South-Central hub that would provide relief over Atlanta, and also connect the DL network to secondary and tertiary markets in the Southeast, Southwest and Central Plains. DL never had more than one international long-haul route from Dallas (FRA) which wasn't even an organic DL route: it was an authority acquired from Pan Am. This was also pre-consolidation, so it was a bit more normal to see airlines have secondary hubs and focus cities in certain markets that were already crowded (read: CO at DEN, HP at LAS, US at BWI, AA at BOS, etc).

Over the years, DL was vocal about how challenging it was to make DFW work because it simply did not have the size, scale, and resources to compete against AA. Any efforts to make that would have required diverting attention away from ATL, which was (and still is) massively profitable for the carrier. The economic malaise of the late 1990's and early 2000s made it almost impossible for DL to make money at DFW. DL couldn't run more than 2-3 daily mainline flights to a market like LGA or DCA, for example, based on the number of gates and aircraft that it had, as opposed to American which could run hourly shuttles.

Over the years, DL converted DFW to a mostly regional hub sans for core markets like SAN, SFO, SEA, BOS, LAX, FLL, MCO and the main hubs, but the oil spike above $50/barrel made it even more challenging to make money on such high-CASM regional aircraft. Plus, who really wanted to fly 4 hours on an RJ from DFW to JFK or OAK when you could get mainline on AA?

In the final 12 years leading up to the eventual de-hubbing of DFW, Delta admitted that DFW had only been profitable for 3 of them. And DL was also headed for Chapter 11. It made zero sense to keep open the DFW hub, as sad as it was.

American is in the best financial shape that it has ever been in history.

ORD for AA is nowhere near the same situation. AA may have more regional flights on a daily basis than mainline, but largely these are to core/unique markets in the Upper Midwest, Central Plains and Southeast where AA can command a fare premium. Among the largest GDP/metro areas in the U.S., AA flies mainline to virtually all of them. Heck, even medium-sized cities like PIT, JAX, RNO, SMF, SLC and ORF are seeing mainline on AA from ORD these days.

Plus, international at ORD is not insignificant. You have multi-daily to LHR, plus NRT, PEK, PVG, CUN, YYZ, YUL. You have seasonal to MAN, MBJ, CDG, PVR, PUJ, FCO, SJD, CZM, DUB, GUA, VCE.

DL at DFW did not have any of that.

One final thing worth mentioning is how much AA is ramping up their Corporate Sales channels, tools and personnel to the extent that it will be fiercely focused in a market like Chicago.

thank you, I was hoping someone would point this out! AA and UA are pretty even at ORD in terms of number of flights, I think UA is a little bit larger at over 600 but compared to 500 with AA its not that much. DL at DFW was running a UA/CLE or NW(DL)/MEM style hub with about 200 daily flights on mainly RJ's up against the 800lb gorilla of a 700 flight AA hub. Its no wonder they blinked and retreated. Apples to oranges comparison between the two.

ADrum23 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

Not sure about DP's long term impact on AA but, agreed, his comment about never losing money again was...cough cough...not the kind of thing for a CEO of a large multinational corporation to make, to be polite.

In terms of AA reducing or eliminating its ORD hub... That's about 500 daily flights. Where would all that traffic go? Can its other hubs handle all those planes and passengers? Does any U.S. airport have that kind of capacity? Even if spread around?

And thoughts about someone like AS or B6 jumping in? For AS, that's more than half their current number of flights. They're going to expand that much overnight? How would any airline be able to plan, fund, equip and staff such an endeavor? And the ORD hub is a mix of regional, mainline and international flights. Only a global player can handle that complexity. Wishful a.net thinking but barriers to entry are enormous.

WN could move some or even all its operations to ORD if AA left. MDW is not very convenient for most of Chicagoland and WN would gain a lot by moving to ORD.

I don't think WN would ever move to ORD if AA dehubbed it. Southwest has had the option in Dallas to move to DFW but fought not to. They like having MDW and DAL all to themselves and with the location of Chicago on the continent and the fact they only fly 737, they wouldn't gain much if anything by moving to ORD that they don't already have at MDW (other than more gates but with the ULCC's probably fighting for more gates in this event who knows). And MDW is very convenient for much of Chicagoland. It is just as inconvenient to as much of Chicagoland as ORD is to the same amount of people. ORD is northwest centered and MDW is southwest centered in the metro area. MDW is closer to downtown and has a ton of people near it just like ORD. MDW is even closer for people driving in from downstate, Michigan and Indiana to catch a flight. MDW is great to use and I'm speaking from much personal experience.

IrishAyes wrote:

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

Huge, huge differences between AA at ORD in 2017 and DL at DFW leading up to 2005.

DL built up a DFW hub in the 1980's after the demise of Braniff. American had, in the late 1970's, moved its HQ from NYC to DFW and it was always clear that American would be #1 at DFW.

I agree with most of your post. However, Delta was never destined to be #2 at DFW. Delta's original route was Atlanta-Dallas, and Dallas became a small hub for them in 1961 when they were awarded routes from Dallas to LAS, SAN, LAX, and SFO, with Dallas-Phoenix awarded in 1969.

In the late 1970s, Delta announced plans to turn Dallas from a small hub into a large one. In 1979/80, they added flights from DFW to DEN, LIT, SAT, IAH, SLC, LGA, ORD, FLL, TPA, MEM, JAX, CAE, TUL, AUS, RNO, and SEA. Articles at this time said DL "wanted to be #1 in Dallas", and articles about AA said they were scared that DL would "build another ATL at Dallas".

The threat of DL building another ATL in their home city shocked AA into action, and in the summer of 1981, AA almost doubled the size of their Dallas hub. DL could have responded by continuing to expand DFW to keep up with AA, but DL's management chose not to do so, and built small hubs in CVG and MEM instead of growing DFW. DL was in much better financial shape than AA at this time, and they could have outlasted AA (and Braniff) had they chosen to do what it took to become #1 in Dallas.

I think DL's decision not to fight more aggressively in Dallas was one of the worst mistakes they've ever made. Had they grown as fast as AA did in 1981, AA would not automatically have been the #1 airline in Dallas after Braniff shut down, and DL's hub in Dallas would not have been destined to become an afterthought.

It baffles my mind why this topic exists. Aa isn't going anywhere, this isn't a JFK situation.

Why anyone in a large city would rather be in a one carrier dominated market vs multiple carriers dominated baffles me. Consumers don't care how much money airlines make in those markets, they just want competition and good pricing.

As someone who frequently flies both UA and AA out of ORD, I don't see how this can seriously be considered. AA has nearly the same number of daily departures as UA. It's obviously a huge operation and AA has been looking to expand it as well. Without ORD, AA's network would have a huge hole in the Midwest region. Additionally they would lose out on a bunch of corporate contracts. Just because they don't offer year round service to certain international markets doesn't mean that companies don't want to use them for the rest of their travels which could mostly domestic.

This question is almost at the level of asking why UA just doesn't dehub ORD.

As for consumers, it's a great thing. Plenty of flight options and good fares.

tphuang wrote:

It baffles my mind why this topic exists. Aa isn't going anywhere, this isn't a JFK situation.

Why anyone in a large city would rather be in a one carrier dominated market vs multiple carriers dominated baffles me. Consumers don't care how much money airlines make in those markets, they just want competition and good pricing.

As said in multiple posts in this thread there a number of "large" cities that are currently 1 hub airports and in many cases fortress hubs. The DFW Metroplex, Atlanta, Charlotte do just fine. No one is screaming blood murder over airfares there.

Additionally, several posters including myself have pointed out that multiple hub airports actually stifle growth rather than promote it. LAX is a great case study for this assertion. LAX is considered a hub for all 3 major US network carriers. If you look at the route portfolio of the US3 exit LAX you'll find that all three carriers offer less service relative to other hubs which are all much smaller markets.

77H

77H wrote:

tphuang wrote:

It baffles my mind why this topic exists. Aa isn't going anywhere, this isn't a JFK situation.

Why anyone in a large city would rather be in a one carrier dominated market vs multiple carriers dominated baffles me. Consumers don't care how much money airlines make in those markets, they just want competition and good pricing.

As said in multiple posts in this thread there a number of "large" cities that are currently 1 hub airports and in many cases fortress hubs. The DFW Metroplex, Atlanta, Charlotte do just fine. No one is screaming blood murder over airfares there.

Additionally, several posters including myself have pointed out that multiple hub airports actually stifle growth rather than promote it. LAX is a great case study for this assertion. LAX is considered a hub for all 3 major US network carriers. If you look at the route portfolio of the US3 exit LAX you'll find that all three carriers offer less service relative to other hubs which are all much smaller markets.

77H

DFW also has WN at DAL.

There are many markets out of CLT with really high fares. And same with ATL. The individual carriers offer less service relative to other hubs but as a whole, LAX is still larger than those other major airports and growing. Some of the biggest bloodbath in the country are happening out of LAX. AS complained about many of that in their recent earnings call. That's great for consumers.

Which bloodbath can you list out of CLT and ATL?

CLT O/W to LAX
https://www.google.com/flights/#search; ... 8;tt=o;s=0
$559 for Y tickets

CLT O/W to DFW
https://www.google.com/flights/#search; ... 8;tt=o;s=0
most tickets are $300 O/W

That's what you get with these monopolies.

Thesis a truly odd thread.

Having grown up in STL during the TWA era, AA at the time of merger needed all the gate space at ORD it could get. STL was to be a low cost deliver hub. Since that time AA has dehubbed STL to focus on ORD. In essence, the de-hubbing so many are discussing already occurred, when STL was dehubbed in favor of ORD and DFW. Comparing things to DL at DFW is not accurate.

I am an AA elite and fly the majority of my flights through ORD.

1: The flights are always full, all MSP-ORD flights are mainline, MSP-ORD is the 7th busiest air corridor in the US.

2: AA needs to add flights at ORD, not drop them. Particularly international. While AA has a strong domestic presence, their intl. presence at ORD is quite weak. LHR is the only year-round Europe route. I understand the desire to funnel everything through LHR/PHL, but ORD deserves better. CDG-AMS-FRA year round. EZE and LIM as well.

3: ORD is the furthest Northwest of all of AA's hubs, without it, there is no great way to serve the 30 million people that live within 400 miles of it.

4: For my own flying, AA helps keep DL in check here at MSP. Delta's prices border on the ridiculous, thus many of us connect in ORD on UA/AA. If I am traveling to Europe, many time i will book a flight from ORD, then book a second "tag" from MSP to ORD to connect. It is nearly always vastly cheaper.

5: AA will be at ORD for a long time to come

Adam

That AA/UA duopoly keeps MANY large enterprise customers in the Chicagoland area as most corp travel sales teams are aggressive on customer wins and holding them. One of my first employers had their US HQ their solely for the reason of MANY flights, close proximity to the airport, reasonable housing costs and NOT a fortress hub with high travel costs.

To add - many of the connecting markets dependent on ORD are a huge part of this. The secondary cities that connect through ORD on AA aren't always mapped over with UA presence. Those corp agreements are with AA for the sole purpose of quick connections via ORD and not backtracking further east or west.

WA707atMSP wrote:

I agree with most of your post. However, Delta was never destined to be #2 at DFW. Delta's original route was Atlanta-Dallas, and Dallas became a small hub for them in 1961 when they were awarded routes from Dallas to LAS, SAN, LAX, and SFO, with Dallas-Phoenix awarded in 1969.

In the late 1970s, Delta announced plans to turn Dallas from a small hub into a large one. In 1979/80, they added flights from DFW to DEN, LIT, SAT, IAH, SLC, LGA, ORD, FLL, TPA, MEM, JAX, CAE, TUL, AUS, RNO, and SEA. Articles at this time said DL "wanted to be #1 in Dallas", and articles about AA said they were scared that DL would "build another ATL at Dallas".

The threat of DL building another ATL in their home city shocked AA into action, and in the summer of 1981, AA almost doubled the size of their Dallas hub. DL could have responded by continuing to expand DFW to keep up with AA, but DL's management chose not to do so, and built small hubs in CVG and MEM instead of growing DFW. DL was in much better financial shape than AA at this time, and they could have outlasted AA (and Braniff) had they chosen to do what it took to become #1 in Dallas.

I think DL's decision not to fight more aggressively in Dallas was one of the worst mistakes they've ever made. Had they grown as fast as AA did in 1981, AA would not automatically have been the #1 airline in Dallas after Braniff shut down, and DL's hub in Dallas would not have been destined to become an afterthought.

stlgph wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

*NOT* being at O'Hare is why Southwest became such a major player in Chicago.

True, but if AA were gone, it would suddenly make sense for WN to change and move some operations (but not necessarily all) to ORD. MDW is not convenient for a lot of the suburban and being able to fly on WN out of ORD would make it more of an attractive option for a lot of people.

Southwest at Midway has proven people will trek to Midway to avoid O'Hare no matter how convenient or inconvenient the drive is, including a HUGE number of people coming in from the central and north central part of the state, and northwest Indiana.

Southwest would be entirely STUPID to reduce Midway flights and move them to O'Hare. They are sitting on some of the most valuable real estate in passenger aviation.

I bet to disagree. I have a lot of friends in the north and northwest suburbs. For them, getting to MDW is a pain. If you live north of ORD, your choice is either 294 to 55, or 294 to 94 to 55 (meaning driving to downtown Chicago). If you live northwest of Chicago, then it's 90 to 294 to 55, and 90 intersects 294 at ORD.

Several of my friends who live north of Chicago claim that their option for avoiding ORD is MKE.

ckfred wrote:

stlgph wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

True, but if AA were gone, it would suddenly make sense for WN to change and move some operations (but not necessarily all) to ORD. MDW is not convenient for a lot of the suburban and being able to fly on WN out of ORD would make it more of an attractive option for a lot of people.

Southwest at Midway has proven people will trek to Midway to avoid O'Hare no matter how convenient or inconvenient the drive is, including a HUGE number of people coming in from the central and north central part of the state, and northwest Indiana.

Southwest would be entirely STUPID to reduce Midway flights and move them to O'Hare. They are sitting on some of the most valuable real estate in passenger aviation.

I bet to disagree. I have a lot of friends in the north and northwest suburbs. For them, getting to MDW is a pain. If you live north of ORD, your choice is either 294 to 55, or 294 to 94 to 55 (meaning driving to downtown Chicago). If you live northwest of Chicago, then it's 90 to 294 to 55, and 90 intersects 294 at ORD.

Several of my friends who live north of Chicago claim that their option for avoiding ORD is MKE.

And that was precisely my thinking. Even in some of the west suburbs, MDW is not the most convenient. I wish WN would stop this secondary airport nonsense and start using the main airports in markets (particularly in their hometown of Dallas/Fort Worth). It made sense to use secondary airports in the past (when they were a niche, low cost carrier), but it no longer does considering they are now a "mainstream" airline that has become a major player in US air travel and carries more traffic than a major legacy carrier (UA).

ADrum23 wrote:

ckfred wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Southwest at Midway has proven people will trek to Midway to avoid O'Hare no matter how convenient or inconvenient the drive is, including a HUGE number of people coming in from the central and north central part of the state, and northwest Indiana.

Southwest would be entirely STUPID to reduce Midway flights and move them to O'Hare. They are sitting on some of the most valuable real estate in passenger aviation.

I bet to disagree. I have a lot of friends in the north and northwest suburbs. For them, getting to MDW is a pain. If you live north of ORD, your choice is either 294 to 55, or 294 to 94 to 55 (meaning driving to downtown Chicago). If you live northwest of Chicago, then it's 90 to 294 to 55, and 90 intersects 294 at ORD.

Several of my friends who live north of Chicago claim that their option for avoiding ORD is MKE.

And that was precisely my thinking. Even in some of the west suburbs, MDW is not the most convenient. I wish WN would stop this secondary airport nonsense and start using the main airports in markets (particularly in their hometown of Dallas/Fort Worth). It made sense to use secondary airports in the past (when they were a niche, low cost carrier), but it no longer does considering they are now a "mainstream" airline that has become a major player in US air travel and carries more traffic than a major legacy carrier (UA).

The question is, would the higher costs of operating out of ORD be worth it to WN? Would running a large, split operation from airports 15 miles apart be worth it, just because MDW is not as convenient as ORD to people on the north side? I have friends in Crystal Lake that would much rather use MDW than ORD. Southwest has a large following in Chicago. Why mess with what made them a major player in the city?

Half of the Chicago metro area population lies closer to MDW. It's only inconvenient for some, not most or all. And you're on the runway within minutes of pushback. Why would WN give any of that up?

AAvgeek744 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

ckfred wrote:

I bet to disagree. I have a lot of friends in the north and northwest suburbs. For them, getting to MDW is a pain. If you live north of ORD, your choice is either 294 to 55, or 294 to 94 to 55 (meaning driving to downtown Chicago). If you live northwest of Chicago, then it's 90 to 294 to 55, and 90 intersects 294 at ORD.

Several of my friends who live north of Chicago claim that their option for avoiding ORD is MKE.

And that was precisely my thinking. Even in some of the west suburbs, MDW is not the most convenient. I wish WN would stop this secondary airport nonsense and start using the main airports in markets (particularly in their hometown of Dallas/Fort Worth). It made sense to use secondary airports in the past (when they were a niche, low cost carrier), but it no longer does considering they are now a "mainstream" airline that has become a major player in US air travel and carries more traffic than a major legacy carrier (UA).

The question is, would the higher costs of operating out of ORD be worth it to WN? Would running a large, split operation from airports 15 miles apart be worth it, just because MDW is not as convenient as ORD to people on the north side? I have friends in Crystal Lake that would much rather use MDW than ORD. Southwest has a large following in Chicago. Why mess with what made them a major player in the city?

You make a valid point. Even though most people I talk to prefer ORD, it would be expensive for WN to move, even if AA left (which is obviously not going to happen in a million years). Split operations would cost a lot too, though I think it could work with some creativity. Though UA and AA would have something to say about it, so it probably wouldn't happen. It probably isn't feasible for WN to move to ORD in Chicago.

In the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area on the other hand, WN can and should move to DFW (they should have done that instead of repealing the Wright Amendment). There is no reason for them to insist on staying at DAL, with all the artificial limits on growth (i.e, the gate cap). Even if the gate cap wasn't in place, there isn't much room for new gates at DAL. DL and WN co-exist at ATL just fine (and DL in ATL is a bigger hub than AA at DFW), so why couldn't WN and AA do the same at DFW? DFW could build the proposed Terminal F and WN could move all their operations in there, with plenty of room to expand. There would be no more restrictions and WN could build a fortress "hub" (operating base) with international service as well. DAL could them become a private jet airport or something (maybe a corporate jet airport).

ILS28ORD wrote:

Half of the Chicago metro area population lies closer to MDW. It's only inconvenient for some, not most or all. And you're on the runway within minutes of pushback. Why would WN give any of that up?

But 75% of the $ and travelers are closer to ORD. Do you want a business class seat and perks, ORD has it. Want a cattle car with no first/business and less flights, go southwest/greyhound!

ADrum23 wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

And that was precisely my thinking. Even in some of the west suburbs, MDW is not the most convenient. I wish WN would stop this secondary airport nonsense and start using the main airports in markets (particularly in their hometown of Dallas/Fort Worth). It made sense to use secondary airports in the past (when they were a niche, low cost carrier), but it no longer does considering they are now a "mainstream" airline that has become a major player in US air travel and carries more traffic than a major legacy carrier (UA).

The question is, would the higher costs of operating out of ORD be worth it to WN? Would running a large, split operation from airports 15 miles apart be worth it, just because MDW is not as convenient as ORD to people on the north side? I have friends in Crystal Lake that would much rather use MDW than ORD. Southwest has a large following in Chicago. Why mess with what made them a major player in the city?

You make a valid point. Even though most people I talk to prefer ORD, it would be expensive for WN to move, even if AA left (which is obviously not going to happen in a million years). Split operations would cost a lot too, though I think it could work with some creativity. Though UA and AA would have something to say about it, so it probably wouldn't happen. It probably isn't feasible for WN to move to ORD in Chicago.

In the Dallas/Fort Worth metro area on the other hand, WN can and should move to DFW (they should have done that instead of repealing the Wright Amendment). There is no reason for them to insist on staying at DAL, with all the artificial limits on growth (i.e, the gate cap). Even if the gate cap wasn't in place, there isn't much room for new gates at DAL. DL and WN co-exist at ATL just fine (and DL in ATL is a bigger hub than AA at DFW), so why couldn't WN and AA do the same at DFW? DFW could build the proposed Terminal F and WN could move all their operations in there, with plenty of room to expand. There would be no more restrictions and WN could build a fortress "hub" (operating base) with international service as well. DAL could them become a private jet airport or something (maybe a corporate jet airport).

wn does split ops in DC, LA, Bay Area no reason why they couldn't do the in CHI. put a terminal on the west side off york rd. as virtually no one connects to mainline carriers and you're good to go.

CHI2DFW wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Half of the Chicago metro area population lies closer to MDW. It's only inconvenient for some, not most or all. And you're on the runway within minutes of pushback. Why would WN give any of that up?

But 75% of the $ and travelers are closer to ORD. Do you want a business class seat and perks, ORD has it. Want a cattle car with no first/business and less flights, go southwest/greyhound!

This is true, but only for premium or international travelers. I know many people in different parts of the burbs that will use either ORD or MDW if the price is right. And in coach, WN has more seat pitch compared to AA/UA. So for the majority of locals who fly, a small percentage flies premium. Most just want the cheapest flight and WN offers cheap flights with 2 free bags and more leg room in coach than the hub carriers at ORD. Point is, WN wouldn't gain anything from moving to ORD. Their business model isn't changing and they aren't inferior to UA/AA unless you want first/business class or to fly nonstop overseas. MDW works just fine and if AA didn't have a hub at ORD, it wouldn't affect WN other than more business at MDW.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

ORD would probably have a much greater level of Int'l service from UA than it currently does with AA to compete with. While great for the customer, the reality is that having two mega carriers dilutes yields and basically splits any route into two and results in an almost inevitable tit for tat situation where neither can afford to get behind. I know it's a very unpopular opinion, but I too think that ORD is worse off with UA and AA than if it was just UA. Some routes that would work if it was just UA (or just AA) cannot be realistically sustained because at least some (up to half) of the potential customer base is almost always lost to the competition (AA) which simply doesn't happen at ATL, DFW, or IAH where the US3 have more liberty to try new routes without having to always factor in a loss to another equally dominant airline from the start. ORD is a great example of a double edged sword-the customer typically benefits from competition, but loses when both carriers are either deadlocked or have an informal gentleman's agreement to not outdo the other (neither renovates the terminal, neither lowers prices, neither expands the network).

TLDR: Having two mega carriers at ORD can either make the experience twice as good or twice as bad than it would be with just one mega carrier. Ultimately, it's up to UA and AA to decide whether they will compete against each other or collude against the customer. If it's the former, the consumer wins big time. If it's the latter, it's even worse for the consumer than a monopoly because the duopoly at ORD acts like two mega monopolies that limit choice even further than at ATL or DFW.

Having lived and worked at ORD? I can say American would hae NO intention to leave ORD to United and leave that gaping hole in their 4 corner stategy SFO, LAX, DFW, JFK, ORD, MIA, they can cover the nation from those hubs.

ADrum23 wrote:

Even if the gate cap wasn't in place, there isn't much room for new gates at DAL.

There is plenty of room for DAL to increase gate space. The closure of the diagonal runway opens up such a large area for potential gate space that if used baggage and ticketing would be the more difficult problems.

You say there is no reason for WN to insist on staying at DAL but that isn't reasonable. WN does have a reason and that's simple economics. DAL is, like MDW, less convenient for some but more convenient for others. It would be foolish for WN to move to DFW or ORD where there is more competition AND it would sacrifice being the carrier of convenience to a large population base. The strategy WN has taken at DAL, MDW, and elsewhere has been very successful and to abandon those strategies would be extremely foolish, possibly disastrous.