ual763 wrote:

At what point do we think we would start to see some architectural renderings of the new concourses and "architectural upgrades" for the other terminals?

I don't think the City Council has voted on this yet or if they need to. It seems like it isn't a done deal yet but will be shortly. I am guessing it will be 6 months before we see any architecturals... if at all. We never saw anything for the L Stinger gates

kngkyle wrote:

muralir wrote:

3) That said, I don't get it: it seems obvious that both UA *and* AA want more gates. So why not a bigger expansion? If AA wants another 5 gates, and UA, to remain competitive, asks for another 10, then build the next western concourse and give them all the gates they want! If they're willing to fund it, then let each of them get another 20 gates if they request it. I understand battles for gates when there are no new gates being built, or when 1 or 2 gates are being shoehorned into some corner of an existing terminal. But with a massive plan like this, why deliberately plan for a shortage of gates? Am I missing something?

It's not about the number of gates, it's about the percentage of gates that they control. AA wants as many of the available gates as they can get at ORD to block competition. UA wants as many of the available gates as they can get at ORD for the same reason. You could add 200 gates and they would still dispute the gate allocation claiming they want more. It has little to do with actually wanting gates to expand service. Both UA and AA have room to add service right now if they wanted to by improving gate utilization and upgauging aircraft.

I actually agree that this is just anticompetitive behavior on both UA & AA's part, trying to block each other from expanding. But neither one will ever admit that they're asking for gates merely to block the other from getting them. That would risk them ending up in federal court for antitrust. So why not call their bluff? Tell both of them that we're happy to add as many extra gates as their hearts desire, as long as they're willing to pay for them. And put in the lease that if they leave those gates empty, they'll be reassigned to other carriers who can use them, maybe Spirit, say?

While I have some sympathy for AA's position (they paid for those stinger gates themselves, and now that's being used against them in the gate allocation), there's also merit to United's position (AA gave up gates at ORD for various business reasons, so they should live with the consequences). And the overall reality is that they're both acting like spoiled children. So call their bluff, give them as many gates as they say they want, and keep them honest by putting in penalties if they don't make full use of them.

I think the city should play hard ball with American. You don't want to sign a new lease, no problem. We will start looking for airlines to fill T3. Between United, Delta, Spirit, Frontier, Alaska and Jet Blue they could fill that terminal in less than 24 hours. I am sure UA would be happy to supply the moving boxes. This could all resolved in a couple days and AA will fall in line.

AA is NOT going to leave ORD. They will continue their childish act, ramp up the temper tantrum, and then accept what the city will give them it's that simple. Parker obviously needs to go back to school and get a crash course in Chicago politics, because he flunked this one.

727200 wrote:

AA is NOT going to leave ORD. They will continue their childish act, ramp up the temper tantrum, and then accept what the city will give them it's that simple. Parker obviously needs to go back to school and get a crash course in Chicago politics, because he flunked this one.

He's being schooled in Chicago politics right now

Is this really Chicago politics or is just typical tough business negotiations 101?

muralir wrote:

kngkyle wrote:

muralir wrote:

3) That said, I don't get it: it seems obvious that both UA *and* AA want more gates. So why not a bigger expansion? If AA wants another 5 gates, and UA, to remain competitive, asks for another 10, then build the next western concourse and give them all the gates they want! If they're willing to fund it, then let each of them get another 20 gates if they request it. I understand battles for gates when there are no new gates being built, or when 1 or 2 gates are being shoehorned into some corner of an existing terminal. But with a massive plan like this, why deliberately plan for a shortage of gates? Am I missing something?

It's not about the number of gates, it's about the percentage of gates that they control. AA wants as many of the available gates as they can get at ORD to block competition. UA wants as many of the available gates as they can get at ORD for the same reason. You could add 200 gates and they would still dispute the gate allocation claiming they want more. It has little to do with actually wanting gates to expand service. Both UA and AA have room to add service right now if they wanted to by improving gate utilization and upgauging aircraft.

I actually agree that this is just anticompetitive behavior on both UA & AA's part, trying to block each other from expanding. But neither one will ever admit that they're asking for gates merely to block the other from getting them. That would risk them ending up in federal court for antitrust. So why not call their bluff? Tell both of them that we're happy to add as many extra gates as their hearts desire, as long as they're willing to pay for them. And put in the lease that if they leave those gates empty, they'll be reassigned to other carriers who can use them, maybe Spirit, say?

While I have some sympathy for AA's position (they paid for those stinger gates themselves, and now that's being used against them in the gate allocation), there's also merit to United's position (AA gave up gates at ORD for various business reasons, so they should live with the consequences). And the overall reality is that they're both acting like spoiled children. So call their bluff, give them as many gates as they say they want, and keep them honest by putting in penalties if they don't make full use of them.

When did AA give up gates?

AA should just walk away from ORD and move to IND...

United787 wrote:

Is this really Chicago politics or is just typical tough business negotiations 101?

This.

The people on here that just immediately throw everything up to Chicago politics don't know anything about Chicago politics. This situation is pretty much the opposite of stereotypical Chicago politics.

COSPN wrote:

AA should just walk away from ORD and move to IND...

Would IND have room for AA's ORD-size operation to move there? (AA domestic and international ops at ORD)

SmithAir747

Sure for about 800 Million IND can add 20 gates 16 domestic and 4 international.. smaller city so less O&D and for a billion more a bullet train from the airport to downtown Chicago.. travel time about 1:25 mins..

COSPN wrote:

Sure for about 800 Million IND can add 20 gates 16 domestic and 4 international.. smaller city so less O&D and for a billion more a bullet train from the airport to downtown Chicago.. travel time about 1:25 mins..

I know you're joking but a bullet train 160 miles for a billion??

william wrote:

muralir wrote:

I actually agree that this is just anticompetitive behavior on both UA & AA's part, trying to block each other from expanding. But neither one will ever admit that they're asking for gates merely to block the other from getting them. That would risk them ending up in federal court for antitrust. So why not call their bluff? Tell both of them that we're happy to add as many extra gates as their hearts desire, as long as they're willing to pay for them. And put in the lease that if they leave those gates empty, they'll be reassigned to other carriers who can use them, maybe Spirit, say?

While I have some sympathy for AA's position (they paid for those stinger gates themselves, and now that's being used against them in the gate allocation), there's also merit to United's position (AA gave up gates at ORD for various business reasons, so they should live with the consequences). And the overall reality is that they're both acting like spoiled children. So call their bluff, give them as many gates as they say they want, and keep them honest by putting in penalties if they don't make full use of them.

When did AA give up gates?

According to UA, AA traded 2 gates at ORD to them in exchange for 4 gates at LAX. Also, AA was forced by the Justice Dept. to give up a few US Airways gates at ORD during their merger. While that wasn't their "choice", UA argues (with some merit, IMHO) that that certainly went into their overall decision of whether to proceed with the merger.

United787 wrote:

I don't think the City Council has voted on this yet or if they need to. It seems like it isn't a done deal yet but will be shortly. I am guessing it will be 6 months before we see any architecturals... if at all. We never saw anything for the L Stinger gates

According to Crain's Chicago Business the city council will vote on this deal late this month however they don't expect the city council be concern themselves with the concerns of the carriers but with the number of jobs that the project will create.

"In Emanuel's eyes, the terms of the 15-year deal shifted the balance of power to the city, “where too often we were actually a stepchild in one of the most important economic engines of job growth. We had to ask American and United to allow us to move forward.” "We're still hopeful they'll reconsider,” says 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski, who chairs the council's Aviation Committee. “It really doesn't stop us.” He said the expansion and new lease agreement can go forward without American. “They could continue to use the airport as a non-signatory carrier.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... d-at-ohare

jayunited wrote:

According to Crain's Chicago Business the city council will vote on this deal late this month however they don't expect the city council be concern themselves with the concerns of the carriers but with the number of jobs that the project will create.

"In Emanuel's eyes, the terms of the 15-year deal shifted the balance of power to the city, “where too often we were actually a stepchild in one of the most important economic engines of job growth. We had to ask American and United to allow us to move forward.” "We're still hopeful they'll reconsider,” says 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski, who chairs the council's Aviation Committee. “It really doesn't stop us.” He said the expansion and new lease agreement can go forward without American. “They could continue to use the airport as a non-signatory carrier.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... d-at-ohare

I totally agree that this will move forward, even without AA's blessing. I'm actually quite disappointed with AA's behavior, from what I've read. IMO, it does not behoove AA to play spoilsport or drag their feet on ORD expansion. This is a huge O&D market for corporate and personal travel, and while it is true that UA might get hometown preference from some fliers, there are plenty of AA regulars in the corporate ranks who are watching this debacle and thinking twice about whether or not to give AA more business in the future.

I doubt they will balk and leave ORD completely, but if AA keeping making the front pages here for all the wrong reasons, this will lose O&D support in Chicago quicker than they realize.

COSPN wrote:

Sure for about 800 Million IND can add 20 gates 16 domestic and 4 international.. smaller city so less O&D and for a billion more a bullet train from the airport to downtown Chicago.. travel time about 1:25 mins..

Actually IND could probably add those gates for 1/4th the price. The whole terminal itself cost less than $400 million. Most of the project cost was highway work plus the new tower. The bullet train? A billion could be accurate

I suppose another option is AA could simply build the proposed Peotone airport for themselves.

It looks like the Chicago city council wants to use minority (Hispanic, I presume) hiring data to determine who gets gates

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hispa ... nd-united/

bob75013 wrote:

It looks like the Chicago city council wants to use minority (Hispanic, I presume) hiring data to determine who gets gates

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hispa ... nd-united/

Hiring at ORD or in general. MIA hub will give AA a leg up. As a minority, I will admit this may be a slippery slope to get involved with. AA and UA would do best to get up from the table and walk out of the room.

bob75013 wrote:

It looks like the Chicago city council wants to use minority (Hispanic, I presume) hiring data to determine who gets gates

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hispa ... nd-united/

No, a small subset of the City Council want to use it as a metric for determining who gets gates. Rahm Emanuel will probably kill that idea in about half a second.

bob75013 wrote:

It looks like the Chicago city council wants to use minority (Hispanic, I presume) hiring data to determine who gets gates

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hispa ... nd-united/

Man, this is some bullshit. Who even let this guy into the meeting? What business does a Hispanic caucus on a city council have in an aviation meeting?

neomax wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

It looks like the Chicago city council wants to use minority (Hispanic, I presume) hiring data to determine who gets gates

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hispa ... nd-united/

Man, this is some bullshit. Who even let this guy into the meeting? What business does a Hispanic caucus on a city council have in an aviation meeting?

They represent people in the city that owns the airport and who will use the airport. What kind of question is that!?

neomax wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

It looks like the Chicago city council wants to use minority (Hispanic, I presume) hiring data to determine who gets gates

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/hispa ... nd-united/

Man, this is some bullshit. Who even let this guy into the meeting? What business does a Hispanic caucus on a city council have in an aviation meeting?

Pretty sure you have no idea how big city politics in the U.S. works. This is pretty standard and these kinds of discussions are very commonplace for big urban projects.

I am going to bet that UA and AA already have sizable portions of hispanic staff. Hispanics make up 16.7% of the US population but the hubs were they operate have a significantly higher percentage: MIA 65%, IAH 44%, LAX 48%, ORD, 28%... just to name a few. I would love for UA and AA to come back with their national statistic and put the issue to rest.

According this article from the daily herald, a new screening and parking facility will be built to the west, connected to the rest of the airport by a new people mover, but this people mover is for employees only and isn't said to link the new satellite concourses that will be built west of concourse C to the rest of the terminals. Those will be linked by pedestrian tunnel. Seems strange they wouldn't run the supposed new people mover from the west, under the new concourses and T1.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/2018022 ... ban-flyers

American has now launched a new website protesting the new O'hare lease. Reminds me of Delta's petition to stop the ME3. Personally, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. The plan is already going to move forward with/without AA. They'd be wise to sign now while they still can.

Anyways, here's the website:
http://keepordcompetitive.com/

ual763 wrote:

American has now launched a new website protesting the new O'hare lease. Reminds me of Delta's petition to stop the ME3. Personally, I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. The plan is already going to move forward with/without AA. They'd be wise to sign now while they still can.

Anyways, here's the website:
http://keepordcompetitive.com/

Oh wow. This isn't even good astroturfing.

I can see why AA is mad but this is a smart move by Chicago, IMO.
ORD should and could be the country's biggest hub (maybe even the world's), but feeder flights are split between two carriers - thus preventing economies of scale for an ATL-style megahub.
Re competition, I believe Chicagoans would be better off with a UA megahub kept honest by (1) domestic competition from LCC's and (2) international competition from foreign carriers.

In fairness, this website is a company called phone2action.com that launched the petition. Per their website..."Connect your supporters with their elected officials through Phone2Action’s game-changing, effective, and easy-to-use grassroots advocacy platform'". Not saying AA didn't have anything to do with it but it could also be a consumer advocacy group looking to keep ORD from becoming a monopoly like ATL or MIA.

In the end, much to do about nothing. The city of Chicago could care less how many phone calls they receive. They are moving ahead with this expansion. AA will fall in line and sign the agreement and get some incentives from the city to do so...most likely an extension of 3 gates to the new stinger gates. The city will need to move some cables underground to do so but it will be a drop in the bucket in order to have peace and a fully integrated agreement by all airlines serving ORD

According to these articles, American is behind the website. Supposedly, if you leave your name and number, American will call you, tell you what to say, and then patch you over to the city of Chicago to tell them what AA told you to say.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ohare ... -airlines/

www.google.com/amp/wgntv.com/2018/03/08 ... -plan/amp/

Matt6461 wrote:

I can see why AA is mad but this is a smart move by Chicago, IMO.
ORD should and could be the country's biggest hub (maybe even the world's), but feeder flights are split between two carriers - thus preventing economies of scale for an ATL-style megahub.
Re competition, I believe Chicagoans would be better off with a UA megahub kept honest by (1) domestic competition from LCC's and (2) international competition from foreign carriers.

That would definitely not be best. UA needs AA to keep it in check. Chicago is large enough to have 2 large global hub carriers. It wouldn't do the flying public any good to lose AAs ORD hub. If AA pulled out UA would expand but you could watch the fares climb immediately. Especially on routes WN doesn't compete on via MDW. With the new gates, UA and AA should be able to increase service and upguage aircraft. UA could definitely make ORD a mega hub with this expansion and AA staying. AA complains UA is getting 5 gates and putting them at a disadvantage but I seriously doubt that AA has any aspirations to grow to even UAs current size at ORD. They will always be #2 in Chicago. IMO they're just playing g hardball to get more gates without having to foot the bill like they did for the original 5 stinger gates. Now if AA did have plans to grow ORD to the size of DFW or even CLT, they might have a point then.

I don't think AA is going anywhere, ORD will not be dominated by UA anymore than it already is. But I don't think this will help AA in the long run. I think they will be left out of the negotiations and that will hurt them.

Some additional details from Crains http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... s-in-store

ZBA2CGX wrote:

Some additional details from Crains http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... s-in-store

Interesting. It still seeps like they're not buttoned up on exactly what the people mover will entail. I hope that they mean the section going to the Western Access Facility wouldn't be built out until 101 million pax but that they will build people mover access to the satellites immediately. I can't imagine they wouldn't need a people mover. The satellites are twice the length of the current C concourse. Walking a full current C and then having to walk underground from far satellite to T2 or vice versa would be outrageous.

ZBA2CGX wrote:

Some additional details from Crains http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... s-in-store

Interesting that for all the talk about B6 and DL wanting to expand, they are barely doing so. Per the article:Spirit will more than double its space to 44,000 square feet; JetBlue will increase space 59 percent to 7,500 square feet; and Delta will add 19 percent more space to 70,164 square feet. Sounds like B6 will add one gate and DL possibly two. NK seems like the biggest winner here. No mention of Frontier either. I wonder where they will end up.

chicawgo wrote:

ZBA2CGX wrote:

Some additional details from Crains http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... s-in-store

Interesting. It still seeps like they're not buttoned up on exactly what the people mover will entail. I hope that they mean the section going to the Western Access Facility wouldn't be built out until 101 million pax but that they will build people mover access to the satellites immediately. I can't imagine they wouldn't need a people mover. The satellites are twice the length of the current C concourse. Walking a full current C and then having to walk underground from far satellite to T2 or vice versa would be outrageous.

It sounds like they are intending on building the infrastructure for an underground people mover inside the new terminal and on the west side of the airport. So most likely, two stations to no where. When the time (and money) comes, then they will actually build the underground tunnel and tracks...think 2030 or later. By then, there should be a lot better technology to do it cheaper and quicker...hopefully.

Having done a lot of negotiating, the question becomes who to, figuratively, give a black eye, when two people have conflicting interests. In theory, AA is more likely to dehub ORD than UA. If UA were to dehub ORD, it would have an HQ and training facilities at a spoke airport.

AA doesn't have that problem. Further, UA has more contracts than AA in Chicago and the upper Midwest, because of the ORD hub. If UA dehubs ORD, that business flees to AA or WN.

Rahm has an election next year. The last thing he needs is a nasty fight between UA and AA, when people have been complaining about ORD for probably 20 years.

The interesting thing is that Rahm's predecessor, Rich Daley, was all about competition at ORD. He lobbied the FAA to allow B6 to have "slots", when ORD was under operational limitations. He didn't want AA to get all of the gates on L, when DL decided to consolidate operations in Terminal 2. And he kept pushing for the western terminal, all in the name of lower ticket prices.

So, I would imagine that Daley would be siding with AA, in the name of competition, if he were mayor.

ckfred wrote:

Having done a lot of negotiating, the question becomes who to, figuratively, give a black eye, when two people have conflicting interests. In theory, AA is more likely to dehub ORD than UA. If UA were to dehub ORD, it would have an HQ and training facilities at a spoke airport.

UA has kept all of CO's training facilities and office space in Houston in fact UA just opened a brand new location in downtown Houston so in theory if UA wanted to relocate its HQ, and limited training facilities we have here in the Chicagoland area we most certainly could. But the facts remain neither AA or UA will dehub ORD.

ckfred wrote:

AA doesn't have that problem. Further, UA has more contracts than AA in Chicago and the upper Midwest, because of the ORD hub. If UA dehubs ORD, that business flees to AA or WN.

The same thing would happen if AA were to dehub most of their contracts would shift to WN, UA, it cuts both ways

ckfred wrote:

Rahm has an election next year. The last thing he needs is a nasty fight between UA and AA, when people have been complaining about ORD for probably 20 years.

Although most people who use ORD would like to see something done, ORD expansion will not cost the mayor his job, the high murder rate will. People are more concerned with city pension crisis, Chicago Public Schools lack of funding, police reform, high crime, high taxes, all the fees on top of the taxes Rahm has added. I could name you a list of issues facing Rahm in his reelection bid and ORD expansion probably would not be in the top 20. We have major problems in Chicago but ORD expansion isn't one them.

ckfred wrote:

The interesting thing is that Rahm's predecessor, Rich Daley, was all about competition at ORD. He lobbied the FAA to allow B6 to have "slots", when ORD was under operational limitations. He didn't want AA to get all of the gates on L, when DL decided to consolidate operations in Terminal 2. And he kept pushing for the western terminal, all in the name of lower ticket prices.
So, I would imagine that Daley would be siding with AA, in the name of competition, if he were mayor.

+
Daley was about increased competition but it was AA along with UA that killed the western terminal and AA's issue is that UA will get and additional 5 gates. I haven't read anywhere where AA would like those additional 5 gates to go to B6, DL, F9, or NK, AA wants more gates for their operation which does nothing to increase competition.

Like others have pointed out AA is not going anywhere and the clock is ticking they can either sign the lease or loose all their power and influence and operate at ORD as a non-signatory airline and the Chicago Sun-Times said it best so I will just quote them. “To use the airport as a non-signatory would be irrational in their position. They would have no control. They would have no input. They would have no assurance of gate space or club space. They couldn’t build out what they want to build out.”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ohare ... -airlines/

piedmontf284000 wrote:

ZBA2CGX wrote:

Some additional details from Crains http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... s-in-store

Interesting that for all the talk about B6 and DL wanting to expand, they are barely doing so. Per the article:Spirit will more than double its space to 44,000 square feet; JetBlue will increase space 59 percent to 7,500 square feet; and Delta will add 19 percent more space to 70,164 square feet. Sounds like B6 will add one gate and DL possibly two. NK seems like the biggest winner here. No mention of Frontier either. I wonder where they will end up.

I never got the sense that delta or JetBlue are going to be able to expand that much. At this point, 1 additional gate is all JetBlue needs. They don’t have cost as low as spirit that can just open up new routes out of ord to non focus cities. Which would limit them to under 20 flights. And delta with their high cost certainly can’t expand much in a market where they get 30% lower fares than United.

Totally agreed that Spirit seems like a big winner here.

Does anyone think that the City has sided with UA because they think UA will do more with the gates than AA would? The growth for AA and UA has undoubtedly been hampered by the old runway configuration and now the lack of gates...but it seems UA has done more with what they have and AA has just stagnated, at best. I could be wrong but I would love to see a comparison of how many gates each has and the average amount of pax that use each gate to see which airline is utilizing their gates most... not in flights, but pax. If UA has more pax per gate and more destinations per gate, that would be something that would directly benefit the airport so there might be financial reason and marketing reasons to side with UA. Just wondering...

ILS28ORD wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

I can see why AA is mad but this is a smart move by Chicago, IMO.
ORD should and could be the country's biggest hub (maybe even the world's), but feeder flights are split between two carriers - thus preventing economies of scale for an ATL-style megahub.
Re competition, I believe Chicagoans would be better off with a UA megahub kept honest by (1) domestic competition from LCC's and (2) international competition from foreign carriers.

That would definitely not be best. UA needs AA to keep it in check. Chicago is large enough to have 2 large global hub carriers. It wouldn't do the flying public any good to lose AAs ORD hub. If AA pulled out UA would expand but you could watch the fares climb immediately. Especially on routes WN doesn't compete on via MDW. With the new gates, UA and AA should be able to increase service and upguage aircraft. UA could definitely make ORD a mega hub with this expansion and AA staying. AA complains UA is getting 5 gates and putting them at a disadvantage but I seriously doubt that AA has any aspirations to grow to even UAs current size at ORD. They will always be #2 in Chicago. IMO they're just playing g hardball to get more gates without having to foot the bill like they did for the original 5 stinger gates. Now if AA did have plans to grow ORD to the size of DFW or even CLT, they might have a point then.

I still lean toward my original position. Regulators could ensure adequate competition from WN, Spirit, Frontier, Alaska, JetBlue by capping UA at say 60% of gates. On small regional feeder routes where no LCC flies, the ability to run small mainline service instead of 2 carriers flying RJ's would probably mean a lower price point than in the current competitive dynamic. UA would expand its international and domestic service from ORD, which would be good for the flying public even if prices were 10% higher than in a 2-carrier market. ATL sees service to points that their regional economy wouldn't justify, absent DL's megahub. Chicago would become a dominant 1-stop point for western U.S.-Europe/ME, and for Eastern U.S.-Asia.

United787 wrote:

Does anyone think that the City has sided with UA because they think UA will do more with the gates than AA would? The growth for AA and UA has undoubtedly been hampered by the old runway configuration and now the lack of gates...but it seems UA has done more with what they have and AA has just stagnated, at best. I could be wrong but I would love to see a comparison of how many gates each has and the average amount of pax that use each gate to see which airline is utilizing their gates most... not in flights, but pax. If UA has more pax per gate and more destinations per gate, that would be something that would directly benefit the airport so there might be financial reason and marketing reasons to side with UA. Just wondering...

The city's interests certainly align better with UA than AA. But there are lots of outside factors as well. The old lease isn’t just ending, but the FAA rules over such leases mean that the old dominance and veto power won’t continue on. This will force more competition (airlines will have to use their gates or risk losing that real estate, the city will have more freedom to add gates to foster competition without a veto threat from their largest tenants, etc.) which favors the more aggressive actor.

I have no idea if AA's representatives were actually surprised by the result of these negotiations, but they shouldn’t have been. And they have very little leverage here, and the clock is ticking.

jayunited wrote:

ckfred wrote:

Having done a lot of negotiating, the question becomes who to, figuratively, give a black eye, when two people have conflicting interests. In theory, AA is more likely to dehub ORD than UA. If UA were to dehub ORD, it would have an HQ and training facilities at a spoke airport.

UA has kept all of CO's training facilities and office space in Houston in fact UA just opened a brand new location in downtown Houston so in theory if UA wanted to relocate its HQ, and limited training facilities we have here in the Chicagoland area we most certainly could. But the facts remain neither AA or UA will dehub ORD.

ckfred wrote:

AA doesn't have that problem. Further, UA has more contracts than AA in Chicago and the upper Midwest, because of the ORD hub. If UA dehubs ORD, that business flees to AA or WN.

The same thing would happen if AA were to dehub most of their contracts would shift to WN, UA, it cuts both ways

ckfred wrote:

Rahm has an election next year. The last thing he needs is a nasty fight between UA and AA, when people have been complaining about ORD for probably 20 years.

Although most people who use ORD would like to see something done, ORD expansion will not cost the mayor his job, the high murder rate will. People are more concerned with city pension crisis, Chicago Public Schools lack of funding, police reform, high crime, high taxes, all the fees on top of the taxes Rahm has added. I could name you a list of issues facing Rahm in his reelection bid and ORD expansion probably would not be in the top 20. We have major problems in Chicago but ORD expansion isn't one them.

ckfred wrote:

The interesting thing is that Rahm's predecessor, Rich Daley, was all about competition at ORD. He lobbied the FAA to allow B6 to have "slots", when ORD was under operational limitations. He didn't want AA to get all of the gates on L, when DL decided to consolidate operations in Terminal 2. And he kept pushing for the western terminal, all in the name of lower ticket prices.
So, I would imagine that Daley would be siding with AA, in the name of competition, if he were mayor.

+
Daley was about increased competition but it was AA along with UA that killed the western terminal and AA's issue is that UA will get and additional 5 gates. I haven't read anywhere where AA would like those additional 5 gates to go to B6, DL, F9, or NK, AA wants more gates for their operation which does nothing to increase competition.

Like others have pointed out AA is not going anywhere and the clock is ticking they can either sign the lease or loose all their power and influence and operate at ORD as a non-signatory airline and the Chicago Sun-Times said it best so I will just quote them. “To use the airport as a non-signatory would be irrational in their position. They would have no control. They would have no input. They would have no assurance of gate space or club space. They couldn’t build out what they want to build out.”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/ohare ... -airlines/

But remember that UA got some hefty tax incentives, first to move HQ from Elk Grove to the Loop, and then to open a consolidated HQ in the Sears Tower. Most tax incentives are predicated on having a minimum amount of employees for a minimum amount to time. So, if UA were to move HQ and training facilities to Houston, it would cost the company a serious amount of repayments for the tax incentives.

You're right that AA isn't going anywhere, but AA is far more likely to leave ORD than UA.

You're also right that Rahm has plenty of problems. But, if UA and AA get into a nasty fight over ORD, the business community may consider that issue one more reason to back an opponent, like former police superintendent Gary McCarthy.

My understanding of corporate contracts is that AA is attempting to claw back what it lost over the last 10+ years, as service at ORD declined. AA picked up a large number of contracts after the alleged pilot sick-out by UA pilots in 2000. But, as UA started to cut back destinations and frequencies, as well as switching more and more routes to Eagle, a lot of companies switched back to UA. People at my wife's employer thought she was nuts for flying American Eagles Embrears to PIT, when UA was flying A319s, A320s and 757s.

AA has been able to win over some UA clients, but it's not anywhere near the defections that AA got, after UA, horrendous summer of 2000.

Does AA want to give that business to UA? No, but I think UA dehubbing ORD would help AA more than AA dehubbing ORD.

AA and Rahmbo have worked out a deal:

“City Hall will speed up construction of three new gates American would use in the future”

“The agreement came as the Chicago City Council on Thursday is set to begin its consideration of Emanuel’s blockbuster, eight-year O’Hare overhaul that would include a state-of-the-art global terminal, dozens of new gates and several additional concourses”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

Good for AA. They held out for a better deal and got just that. Despite the fact the city says they would not be operated exclusively by American, we all know better. The whole L concourse will be exclusively AA once the others move to terminal 5. In addition, these 3 new gates will be constructed well before the new T2 and global world gates so AA will benefit from that as well

Good for AA and Chicago. What a bunch of bluster.

Now that we are moving forward, who will be more impacted by the construction, AA or UA?

Does anyone know where these 3 gates are going? Is there room at the end of the existing L concourse to have planes park on the end? Or would this be 3 more gates at the end of the L Stinger concourse? If the Stinger, would the stinger make an L and head north for 3 gates?

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

Now that we are moving forward, who will be more impacted by the construction, AA or UA?

I would imagine that at no point during construction would AA, UA or any airline lose any gates, so no net loss. But, for AA, does that mean before or after their 5 new gates?

The sequencing of this will be interesting. I would imagine it would go like this:

1) T5 expansion begins construction
2) Closure and demolition of 14R/32L
3) T1C concourse expansion and new T1D concourse begin construction
4) T5, T1C and T1D construction complete
5) UA express and AC moves from T2E/T2F to T1C/T1D
6) DL moves from T2E to T5
7) 3E, AS (VX), 9K, F9, B6, NK move from T2 to T5
8) T2, E & F begin demolition
9) UA and AA still use T5 for international arrivals
10) UA starts renovation of old T2 complex closing sections at a time
11) AA takes over all of T3, G, H, K & L but starts renovation of entire T3 complex closing sections at a time
12) T2 begins construction
13) T2 completes construction
14) All of Star Alliance & One World move to T2

United787 wrote:

Does anyone know where these 3 gates are going? Is there room at the end of the existing L concourse to have planes park on the end? Or would this be 3 more gates at the end of the L Stinger concourse? If the Stinger, would the stinger make an L and head north for 3 gates?

In one of the sketches, the 3 gates were on the North side of the new stinger pier. I believe the train repair station/steam plant, or whatever it is, will be moved. It is extremely hard to see from the picture, but if you zoom in, you can just barely make out the parking for Air Choice One, at the end of L. Is this where they park now? But, honestly, with how small the stinger pier is, I don't know how they'll fit the seats for 3 more gates on the north side of it. Will be one giant cluster. I imagine it will be like the North and South ends of Concourse C in T1.

MODS: Suggest revising the title to: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA and City make Agreement on Expansion

Will the new global terminal have US Immigration/Customs facility? Or will all int'l arrivals still go to T5? I'm sure this has already been discussed so sorry to ask. Hopefully 25 years from now when this is done, we can be done with the PITA T5-T123 transfer process.