• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
jagraham
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:45 pm

tphuang wrote:
jagraham wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

That doesn't prove at all the route is a "huge money looser" - it just shows its getting less revenue per flight, which isn't really surprising given that it is new and up against established competitors. You are also assuming Delta doesn't want to take that revenue hit in order to get contracts for SEA-based customers.



An additional assumption is that $241 average fare is a money losing fare. Not necessarily.

And flying ORD to SEA is not just about SEA based customers. DL is building an Asian gateway at SEA. Internationally that means competing with the likes of EK. Which has proven that there is significant demand connecting Asia to Europe thru Dubai. EK is now building that model in the US as they are able to get route authorities.

So unless DL wants to be a domestic only airline, they must provide a lot of nonstop destinations from their gateways. To 15 or 20 metro areas. Including all of the top ten. And it does not have to be widebodies - they can do it using a couple of 717 if that is all the route can handle at this time.

That is in addition to UA/CO and AA/US now being national behemoths. AA/US has hubs in 7 of the top ten metro areas, and focus cities in 2, leaving only Houston as a top ten metro area without a significant AA/US presence. Eventually AA/US will rationalize their domestic network such that each hub and focus city has multiple nonstops to every other hub and focus city. And since over 80% of domestic travel is between top ten metro areas, AA customers will be able to fly nonstop for most of their travel needs. Even most of the small city flying will be only one stop. It is going to happen. UA is already starting to respond (see UA at LAX).

DL will have to make moves in this regard. Not a hub at ORD, but nonstop service from their hubs. And yes they have other holes such as Texas. Which they abandoned before all these megamergers. Things have changed since then.


The more relevant number to looking at is q3 since it’s for the full quarter. My point is that if they are yielding 25 to 30% less than ua on a flight to a non fortress hub like sea, how much worse would they do if they try adding a non hub route out of ord? Things to think about before banging on the door that delta will be a large player in Chicago.



DL will not be an AA or UA at ORD. But for their FFs, for the international passengers, and to have a shot at some more corporate contracts, they need these routes. Not 10 nonstops a day, more like 2 to 4. In other words, focus city level of service. Also, 25 to 30 percent less revenue per seat is not necessarily a money loser. Which they can control by putting the right size aircraft on the route anyway.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2643
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:15 pm

jagraham wrote:
One last thing - a lot of a.netters said that DL was an also ran in NYC about a decade ago. And DL couldn't do anything about it.

And that DL was an also ran in LAX. And couldn't do anything about it.

Recently people have been saying that what DL is doing in SEA would amount to nothing.

And some of you want to add ORD to this list . . .


I try to avoid the DL love/hate fest but the major difference with ORD is that DL already has two fortress hubs nearby at MSP and DTW. DL doesn't need nor do I suspect that they want to make ORD a hub. I think UA and AA do fine at ORD and is a major component of their networks... but I don't think they are rolling in the dough here, too much competition. DL knows that their yields are far better at MSP and DTW and will continue to funnel their pax there. ORD will remain a strong station for DL and probably grow a little bit to it's hubs and one off point to point routes that it is good at.

But BACK to the topic at hand... I don't understand how a thread about ORD's expansion, a hub for UA and AA, gets hijacked by the DL lovers/haters... you should watch this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g
 
airbazar
Posts: 8752
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:54 pm

ILS28ORD wrote:
You mean beside the fact that DL is a major network carrier with major international partners and b6 is LCC that is primarily east coast centric with few international partners?

First of all, you're missing the whole point. DL will never be interested in a hub in ORD so connections with partners are irrelevant. Which SkyTeam airline flies to ORD but doesn't fly to either JFK or LAX?
Second, B6 has few international partners? Seriously? I suggest you go inform yourself a little better.
https://www.jetblue.com/airline-partners/
As for strictly codeshare partners B6 has 18 vs. 20 for DL. As you can see, not a huge difference.
And third, DL is not actually gate restricted at ORD today while B6 is. So I'll repeat: If anyone is to benefit more from gate increases it's B6 more so than DL.
 
drdisque
Posts: 741
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:33 pm

ADrum23 wrote:
Couple of things.

1. Why don't they just demolish and rebuild the existing Concourse C to better fit into the new Concourse?

2. Why isn't anything being done with Terminal 3? Won't something have to be done there eventually? The space between the new Global Terminal and the existing Concourse G seems rather tight.

3. Are the underground tunnels going to include a people mover (a la ATL, CVG, etc). It seems that would make the most sense, especially when ORD inevitably needs to expand to the west.


1. They probably will eventually. But they don't have the capacity to tear it down and rebuild until the expansion is done.

2. There's no space to do anything over by T3. The New E/F-G alley is probably sufficient since G will still only be used for RJ's.
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:40 pm

airbazar wrote:
ILS28ORD wrote:
You mean beside the fact that DL is a major network carrier with major international partners and b6 is LCC that is primarily east coast centric with few international partners?

First of all, you're missing the whole point. DL will never be interested in a hub in ORD so connections with partners are irrelevant. Which SkyTeam airline flies to ORD but doesn't fly to either JFK or LAX?
Second, B6 has few international partners? Seriously? I suggest you go inform yourself a little better.
https://www.jetblue.com/airline-partners/
As for strictly codeshare partners B6 has 18 vs. 20 for DL. As you can see, not a huge difference.
And third, DL is not actually gate restricted at ORD today while B6 is. So I'll repeat: If anyone is to benefit more from gate increases it's B6 more so than DL.


First, you're missing my point. They will now have the possibility to share passengers if they choose, for the first time in the second largest market in North America, a very busy business destination domestic and internationally. I'm not advocating for a DL hub or focus city, I also don't think it will ever happen.

Second, JetBlue is not in a global alliance like OW, ST or SA. DL is. What are the number of passengers JetBlue funnels to its partners compared to DL and it's partners? I'd guess DL provides a lot more.

Third, I don't disagree JetBlue would benefit from another gate, but how much more do you think they'll do with ORD? DL may not want a hub or focus city at ORD but it has an alliance to pair with now which gives them future options, plus the rumors are LAX, BOS and RDU get added eventually. So we would likely see more significant expansion (although small for both) from DL than B6.

UA and AA are the clear winners in this deal, and they badly need the space and upgrades facilities. I hope the new plan includes some sort of ATS from T1/2 to the new western-most concourse D. It would be a long walk. I'm not sure why they don't consider some sort of walkway or bridge from T3 to T5 post security. Or a 2 way shuttle bus.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2803
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:43 pm

United787 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
One last thing - a lot of a.netters said that DL was an also ran in NYC about a decade ago. And DL couldn't do anything about it.

And that DL was an also ran in LAX. And couldn't do anything about it.

Recently people have been saying that what DL is doing in SEA would amount to nothing.

And some of you want to add ORD to this list . . .


I try to avoid the DL love/hate fest but the major difference with ORD is that DL already has two fortress hubs nearby at MSP and DTW. DL doesn't need nor do I suspect that they want to make ORD a hub. I think UA and AA do fine at ORD and is a major component of their networks... but I don't think they are rolling in the dough here, too much competition. DL knows that their yields are far better at MSP and DTW and will continue to funnel their pax there. ORD will remain a strong station for DL and probably grow a little bit to it's hubs and one off point to point routes that it is good at.

But BACK to the topic at hand... I don't understand how a thread about ORD's expansion, a hub for UA and AA, gets hijacked by the DL lovers/haters... you should watch this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:49 pm

Before deregulation, here is how gates were allocated at ORD:

Concourse A: commuter airlines
Concourses B / C: International airlines + Pan Am + the international arrivals of TWA, Northwest, and American.
Concourse D: west half used by NW, east half used by EA, end gates used by CO
Concourses E / F: UA, with the tip of E used by Ozark
Concourse G: TWA, with the gate closest to the terminal used by AC
Concourse H: American and Lake Central / Allegheny closest to terminal, North Central in the middle, and Delta at the end
Concourse K: American

Concourses A, B, C, and D were torn down to make way for United's new terminal in the 1980s.
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:15 pm

jagraham wrote:
One last thing - a lot of a.netters said that DL was an also ran in NYC about a decade ago. And DL couldn't do anything about it.

And that DL was an also ran in LAX. And couldn't do anything about it.

Recently people have been saying that what DL is doing in SEA would amount to nothing.

And some of you want to add ORD to this list . . .


There are big differences here. First, and most importantly, DL would be going up against two established hub with 500+ flights each. The hubs DL went up against in LAX, JFK, LGA, SEA, etc, when they were expanding at those places were nowhere near that big, so there was more opportunity for capturing market share. At ORD, they'd be going up against UA's largest hub and AA's third largest hub respectively, which is no small task.

Second, as has already been mentioned, they have two large hubs nearby in MSP and DTW plus a focus city in CVG. The midwest is covered well for DL. If there is anywhere in US that needs a bigger DL presence, that would be Texas, and DL should consider building up a focus city in AUS, not wasting their time with ORD.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 2736
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:16 pm

william wrote:
United787 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
One last thing - a lot of a.netters said that DL was an also ran in NYC about a decade ago. And DL couldn't do anything about it.

And that DL was an also ran in LAX. And couldn't do anything about it.

Recently people have been saying that what DL is doing in SEA would amount to nothing.

And some of you want to add ORD to this list . . .


I try to avoid the DL love/hate fest but the major difference with ORD is that DL already has two fortress hubs nearby at MSP and DTW. DL doesn't need nor do I suspect that they want to make ORD a hub. I think UA and AA do fine at ORD and is a major component of their networks... but I don't think they are rolling in the dough here, too much competition. DL knows that their yields are far better at MSP and DTW and will continue to funnel their pax there. ORD will remain a strong station for DL and probably grow a little bit to it's hubs and one off point to point routes that it is good at.

But BACK to the topic at hand... I don't understand how a thread about ORD's expansion, a hub for UA and AA, gets hijacked by the DL lovers/haters... you should watch this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Maybe DL wouldn't as so much expand the amount of service offered from ORD, but reduce RJ flying. Other large cities see all mainline service to other domestic hubs. LGA/BOS/DCA-ATL/DTW/MSP are all mainline. ORD-MSP/DTW sees frequent CR7/9 service. Maybe DL is trying to get at moving to mainline flying to strengthen their amount of seats going to other hubs. It's already changing, as DTW and MSP have seen a lot more mainline flying to ORD than what it was before.
Resort, and other ground transportation options are on level 1.

*Future Route Network Planner*
 
ORDfan
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:27 pm

ScottB wrote:
jagraham wrote:
With the mergers, there are four domestic megacarriers. In the 3rd largest metro area - Chicago - Delta is NOWHERE. That is a major issue.
The days of being strong in one or two regions - against UA and AA in their current forms - is not tenable in the long term. Delta must raise Chicago to at least the level of a focus city.


No. Just no. Delta cannot be everything to everyone, and neither can their competitors. The 4th largest combined statistical area is Washington-Baltimore and that's (1) a bit over 2% smaller than the Chicago area and (2) likely to surpass Chicago by the end of the decade. Does that mean DL must have a hub or focus city in Washington or Baltimore? UA, AA, and WN all do. How about the S.F. Bay Area? #5 and it will probably rival Chicago by the time the new ORD terminals are completed. Does DL need a focus city there, too?

DL has far larger network issues: the complete lack of a hub in the South Central U.S. is a big one. Two of the top ten metro areas are in Texas and DL is an also-ran in those markets. But they have very strong positions in their core markets and have even turned a very shaky position in NYC into a lead in the market. Chicago is only essential to DL as a well-served spoke.


If you're trying to use socioeconomic metrics to prove a point regarding demand for air travel and subsequent demand for hubs/focus cities, perhaps metro GDP is a better indicator. Metro CSA Chicago GDP is 26% greater than Metro DC CSA, and 39% greater than San Fran CSA. Perhaps this doesn't fit your narrative about why DL should not increase service to Chicago. Subjectively, I don't really care since I think DL is so overrated that it's laughable. If they left ORD tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash for them.

Furthermore, metro Chicagoland (collar counties and NWI) is growing at .5 to 1.0% year depending on the source. I highly doubt San Fran or DC surpasses it in terms of population in the next decade and even if they do, they are so far behind on GDP that they are unlikely to surpass on monetary measures of a market's value for air travel. PWC's projections for top global cities by GDP in 2030 includes only 3 American cities: guess which ones. Bottom line is that UA and AA were/are here first and they will defend vigorously against any DL creep because it is worthwhile defending their market share in the 8th highest GDP city in the world.
 
CHI2DFW
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 1:44 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:40 pm

There was a time when the “el” would extend to a western terminal and eventualy to Woodfield or somewhere in Schaumburg.

I’m sure rerouting to T-5 then T-2 and out west would cost a fortune.
 
ual763
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:42 pm

flymco753 wrote:
william wrote:
United787 wrote:

I try to avoid the DL love/hate fest but the major difference with ORD is that DL already has two fortress hubs nearby at MSP and DTW. DL doesn't need nor do I suspect that they want to make ORD a hub. I think UA and AA do fine at ORD and is a major component of their networks... but I don't think they are rolling in the dough here, too much competition. DL knows that their yields are far better at MSP and DTW and will continue to funnel their pax there. ORD will remain a strong station for DL and probably grow a little bit to it's hubs and one off point to point routes that it is good at.

But BACK to the topic at hand... I don't understand how a thread about ORD's expansion, a hub for UA and AA, gets hijacked by the DL lovers/haters... you should watch this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Maybe DL wouldn't as so much expand the amount of service offered from ORD, but reduce RJ flying. Other large cities see all mainline service to other domestic hubs. LGA/BOS/DCA-ATL/DTW/MSP are all mainline. ORD-MSP/DTW sees frequent CR7/9 service. Maybe DL is trying to get at moving to mainline flying to strengthen their amount of seats going to other hubs. It's already changing, as DTW and MSP have seen a lot more mainline flying to ORD than what it was before.


I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Hell, Delta was flying twice daily B753s between MSP and MKE, of all places, a few years ago when I lived there. One would expect them to eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, RJ flights to ORD.
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
Mikey711MN
Posts: 1245
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:19 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:46 pm

william wrote:
I asked the same question twice. AA's facility is 55 years old now. I imagine they may go to the new west side terminal but that will put them at a disadvantage for travelers coming from downtown.

FWIW, I interpreted T3's absence from the plan that AA will be the major tenant for the new West Terminal, if only temporarily, until a renovated T3 is in-place.

-Mike
I plan on living forever. So far, so good...
 
ual763
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 11:46 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:52 pm

Mikey711MN wrote:
william wrote:
I asked the same question twice. AA's facility is 55 years old now. I imagine they may go to the new west side terminal but that will put them at a disadvantage for travelers coming from downtown.

FWIW, I interpreted T3's absence from the plan that AA will be the major tenant for the new West Terminal, if only temporarily, until a renovated T3 is in-place.

-Mike



That would make the most sense to me. The article states major "architectural upgrades " to T3. It would be a logistical nightmare to renovate T3 with AAL still operating out of it. I imagine, they would upgrade T3 one concourse at a time, displacing those gates over at a western temporary concourse until construction is completed on the respective concourse.
From flying to the NOTAM office
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:15 am

Delta spokesperson: "We are okay with the expansion — moving Delta to Terminal 5 gets us right next to SkyTeam partners, and that's a nice situation for us competitively in Chicago."

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=80228051
 
ScottB
Posts: 6150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:10 am

ORDfan wrote:
If you're trying to use socioeconomic metrics to prove a point regarding demand for air travel and subsequent demand for hubs/focus cities, perhaps metro GDP is a better indicator. Metro CSA Chicago GDP is 26% greater than Metro DC CSA, and 39% greater than San Fran CSA. Perhaps this doesn't fit your narrative about why DL should not increase service to Chicago. Subjectively, I don't really care since I think DL is so overrated that it's laughable. If they left ORD tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash for them.


In 2016, the S.F. Bay Area CSA (officially San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland) had estimated GDP of $821 billion, third in the nation. Washington-Baltimore was just behind at $724 billion. Chicago was fifth at $659 billion. So no, Chicago doesn't produce greater GDP than either of those regions and in fact it significantly lags both in GDP per capita as well. Both the Bay Area and Washington-Baltimore are growing significantly faster than Chicago as well; if current growth rates hold, Washington-Baltimore will eclipse Chicago in population by 2020.

Chicago is an important market and DL needs to serve it well from its hubs and focus cities if it wants to be the preferred carrier for business travel in those markets, but it is no more critical to the airline than WAS/BWI and SFO/SJC/OAK. Arguably Delta recognizes the value of serving Chicago well from its core hub markets in that they are the only legacy carrier still serving MDW, and from three hubs no less.
 
YouGeeElWhy
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:34 am

ORDfan wrote:
[Furthermore, metro Chicagoland (collar counties and NWI) is growing at .5 to 1.0% year depending on the source. I highly doubt San Fran or DC surpasses it in terms of population in the next decade and even if they do, they are so far behind on GDP that they are unlikely to surpass on monetary measures of a market's value for air travel. PWC's projections for top global cities by GDP in 2030 includes only 3 American cities: guess which ones. Bottom line is that UA and AA were/are here first and they will defend vigorously against any DL creep because it is worthwhile defending their market share in the 8th highest GDP city in the world.
If MSAs were a stocks Chicagoland would not be worthy of investment. It has been stagnant for a decade or more. HIgh growth MSAs like Houston, DFW and DC will pass Chicagoland in both GDP and population in the coming 10-15 years. DL knows that, which is why they do not feel the need to enter the fight between AA/UA/WN. It is not a four player market like LA or NYC.

With that said like others have noted DL has a giant hole in the Texas/Southwest area. The two markets in Texas (Houston,DFW) that will pass Chicagoland are only two player airline markets with a healthy dose of ULCCs. Feels like those ULCCs might keep DL from coming back to Texas in any meaningful manner, which is unfortunate, so Chicagoland should consider itself fortunate that it will have a three player market when future bigger / richer areas will only have two.
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:50 am

yeogeo wrote:
Delta spokesperson: "We are okay with the expansion — moving Delta to Terminal 5 gets us right next to SkyTeam partners, and that's a nice situation for us competitively in Chicago."

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=80228051


I posted this link earlier today and it was completely ignored. Not that it supports the "building an ORD hub or focus city" theory others have floated but it may indicate delta seems to like the convenient placement in T5 with skyteam many here keep arguing doesn't matter.
 
ORDfan
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:59 am

ScottB wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
If you're trying to use socioeconomic metrics to prove a point regarding demand for air travel and subsequent demand for hubs/focus cities, perhaps metro GDP is a better indicator. Metro CSA Chicago GDP is 26% greater than Metro DC CSA, and 39% greater than San Fran CSA. Perhaps this doesn't fit your narrative about why DL should not increase service to Chicago. Subjectively, I don't really care since I think DL is so overrated that it's laughable. If they left ORD tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash for them.


In 2016, the S.F. Bay Area CSA (officially San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland) had estimated GDP of $821 billion, third in the nation. Washington-Baltimore was just behind at $724 billion. Chicago was fifth at $659 billion. So no, Chicago doesn't produce greater GDP than either of those regions and in fact it significantly lags both in GDP per capita as well. Both the Bay Area and Washington-Baltimore are growing significantly faster than Chicago as well; if current growth rates hold, Washington-Baltimore will eclipse Chicago in population by 2020.

Chicago is an important market and DL needs to serve it well from its hubs and focus cities if it wants to be the preferred carrier for business travel in those markets, but it is no more critical to the airline than WAS/BWI and SFO/SJC/OAK. Arguably Delta recognizes the value of serving Chicago well from its core hub markets in that they are the only legacy carrier still serving MDW, and from three hubs no less.


Factually incorrect. Your source please?? Not sure which wiki search you are using.

Here's mine:

https://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/g ... ro0917.pdf
Last edited by ORDfan on Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ORDfan
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:01 am

YouGeeElWhy wrote:
ORDfan wrote:
[Furthermore, metro Chicagoland (collar counties and NWI) is growing at .5 to 1.0% year depending on the source. I highly doubt San Fran or DC surpasses it in terms of population in the next decade and even if they do, they are so far behind on GDP that they are unlikely to surpass on monetary measures of a market's value for air travel. PWC's projections for top global cities by GDP in 2030 includes only 3 American cities: guess which ones. Bottom line is that UA and AA were/are here first and they will defend vigorously against any DL creep because it is worthwhile defending their market share in the 8th highest GDP city in the world.
If MSAs were a stocks Chicagoland would not be worthy of investment. It has been stagnant for a decade or more. HIgh growth MSAs like Houston, DFW and DC will pass Chicagoland in both GDP and population in the coming 10-15 years. DL knows that, which is why they do not feel the need to enter the fight between AA/UA/WN. It is not a four player market like LA or NYC.

With that said like others have noted DL has a giant hole in the Texas/Southwest area. The two markets in Texas (Houston,DFW) that will pass Chicagoland are only two player airline markets with a healthy dose of ULCCs. Feels like those ULCCs might keep DL from coming back to Texas in any meaningful manner, which is unfortunate, so Chicagoland should consider itself fortunate that it will have a three player market when future bigger / richer areas will only have two.


Barking up the wrong tree here if you want to talk financials. MSA's are not "stocks" but O'hare does and will issue municipal bonds.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys- ... _904213978
 
ORDFlyer99
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:18 am

I've been waiting for this announcement for 10 years, and it's awesome to see that they are going all-in on this plan. Hopefully the colocation of alliance partners, specifically OW and Star will allow foster growth with the increased ease of domestic-international transit.

It would be beyond foolish for Delta to do anything beyond flights to their hubs/focuses. Detroit and Minneapolis are insanely profitable hubs, and they should do nothing to undermine their success in those markets. Even RDU/BOS/LAX are a stretch. LAX for example has e United, American, Southwest, Spirit, Alaska from O'Hare and Midway. The yields would be frightening if Delta entered this market as well.

I always love when "informed" people try to act like Chicago is some withering city. Population stagnation does not necessarily correlate with the success of a city. Lower middle class residents and the 65+ population are moving to the sunbelt, while college grads and professionals (the ones who drive a disproportionate amount of demand) are flooding into Chicagoland. Despite a stagnant population, GDP in the metro area grew over 3% in both 2015 and 2016 (https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/region ... ro0916.htm), faster than DC or San Jose. This terminal expansion is well-needed, and will accommodate the area's continuing economic growth. Obviously I have a bias as after moving to Chicago from Texas a few years ago, but the facts are completely objective. Chicago is the largest hub for both United and Southwest for a reason.
 
jagraham
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:46 am

yeogeo wrote:
Delta spokesperson: "We are okay with the expansion — moving Delta to Terminal 5 gets us right next to SkyTeam partners, and that's a nice situation for us competitively in Chicago."

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=80228051


This caught me by surprise. Delta gains nothing from being next to their Star Alliance partners unless they intend to supply connections. Which entails more than a focus city.
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:57 am

jagraham wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
Delta spokesperson: "We are okay with the expansion — moving Delta to Terminal 5 gets us right next to SkyTeam partners, and that's a nice situation for us competitively in Chicago."

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=80228051


This caught me by surprise. Delta gains nothing from being next to their Star Alliance partners unless they intend to supply connections. Which entails more than a focus city.


You mean SkyTeam partners, not star alliance.

But I agree. Right now you actually can connect into AF, KL, etc, on DL, but your origin flight has to be fron one of DL’s hubs/focus cities they serve. I will be interested to see what DL actually does here. I’d be surprised if they started any p2p flying.
 
ADrum23
Posts: 1789
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 11:54 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:04 am

Just thought of something.

I read in the articles they are planning to build the 9 new T5 gates first and shift all the non UA/AA carriers there as soon as possible.

However, the existing Star Alliance/Oneworld carriers that will move to the new global terminal will still have to operate out of T5 for a few years until construction is completed. If they want to move DL and the other non UA/AA carriers over to T5 asap, how will everyone fit in T5 for those few years between the completion of the T5 expansion and the new global terminal? It will be tight to say the least.......
 
Jenner43201
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:54 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:16 am

cosyr wrote:

It would obviously be unreasonably expensive, but there is more than enough room to move 22R to the Northwest a little bit. It would have been smart decades ago, but the net gain in space probably wouldn't be worth the cost.


I posted an idea about this at this thread https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1383591&p=20133123&hilit=ord#p20143593.

You may be able to gain operations from the runway movement, but you also gain the ability to free up the central area without worrying that you will have landing aircraft.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6150
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:15 am

ORDfan wrote:
Factually incorrect. Your source please?? Not sure which wiki search you are using.

Here's mine:

https://bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/g ... ro0917.pdf


You're looking at figures for MSAs which aren't unreasonable for Chicago, which only has one large urban center in the catchment area for its airports; however, Washington-Baltimore and the S.F. Bay area are better represented by their CSAs given that Washington and Baltimore are largely a single metropolitan agglomeration as are San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.

The numbers I quoted look at the totals for entire CSAs but we can just combine San Francisco & San Jose to get $723 billion (you get nearly another $100 billion from Stockton, Santa Rosa, Napa, etc.) or Washington & Baltimore to get $697 billion (the remainder comes from places like Hagerstown, Chambersburg, Winchester, etc.) Both are still larger for GDP than Chicago.
 
elbandgeek
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:03 am

For anyone who hasn't been following the general Chicago thread, there's been discussion about potential expansion of the terminal at MDW along with some (mostly theoretical) ideas for extending the runways after the new security hall and parking garage projects are done. Closing 13L/31R and extending A and B could gain them 20 or so gates. Given the operational problems WN has had in recent years I wonder if the ORD project going forward could get them to kick the tires on such an expansion to stay competitive against UA and AA. If they decided they wanted it and were willing to foot the bill I doubt the city would cry about having to kick some GA operators out in order to close the runway. If I were DL I would try and pick up some additional gates there as well as what they're getting at ORD. They're currently the only carrier running split ops between the two airports and while they might not necessarily want to go head to head with WN, with the position they're in of Chicago being somewhere between a large spoke and a focus city, expanding on both ends of town could help their brand presence across the whole metro area, especially NWI which has been booming.
 
chicawgo
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:35 am

ORDfan wrote:
ScottB wrote:
jagraham wrote:
With the mergers, there are four domestic megacarriers. In the 3rd largest metro area - Chicago - Delta is NOWHERE. That is a major issue.
The days of being strong in one or two regions - against UA and AA in their current forms - is not tenable in the long term. Delta must raise Chicago to at least the level of a focus city.


No. Just no. Delta cannot be everything to everyone, and neither can their competitors. The 4th largest combined statistical area is Washington-Baltimore and that's (1) a bit over 2% smaller than the Chicago area and (2) likely to surpass Chicago by the end of the decade. Does that mean DL must have a hub or focus city in Washington or Baltimore? UA, AA, and WN all do. How about the S.F. Bay Area? #5 and it will probably rival Chicago by the time the new ORD terminals are completed. Does DL need a focus city there, too?

DL has far larger network issues: the complete lack of a hub in the South Central U.S. is a big one. Two of the top ten metro areas are in Texas and DL is an also-ran in those markets. But they have very strong positions in their core markets and have even turned a very shaky position in NYC into a lead in the market. Chicago is only essential to DL as a well-served spoke.


If you're trying to use socioeconomic metrics to prove a point regarding demand for air travel and subsequent demand for hubs/focus cities, perhaps metro GDP is a better indicator. Metro CSA Chicago GDP is 26% greater than Metro DC CSA, and 39% greater than San Fran CSA. Perhaps this doesn't fit your narrative about why DL should not increase service to Chicago. Subjectively, I don't really care since I think DL is so overrated that it's laughable. If they left ORD tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash for them.

Furthermore, metro Chicagoland (collar counties and NWI) is growing at .5 to 1.0% year depending on the source. I highly doubt San Fran or DC surpasses it in terms of population in the next decade and even if they do, they are so far behind on GDP that they are unlikely to surpass on monetary measures of a market's value for air travel. PWC's projections for top global cities by GDP in 2030 includes only 3 American cities: guess which ones. Bottom line is that UA and AA were/are here first and they will defend vigorously against any DL creep because it is worthwhile defending their market share in the 8th highest GDP city in the world.


Amen.

I would note that most actually consider it the 5th largest gdp city in the world and estimate it to remain that way for at least the next decade.
 
User avatar
kngkyle
Moderator
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:33 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:16 pm

American Airlines has come out as opposed to the deal, claiming that the city has awarded United with additional gates in a secret provision at the last minute.

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


...
“But American cannot sign the lease in its current form because of a secret provision, inserted at the last minute, awarding additional gates to United."
...
Scott, the American spokeswoman, argued awarding extra gates under the expansion would give United an unfair advantage in the market.

“Chicago is extraordinarily well positioned with three carriers operating hubs and competing aggressively against each other. The United gate deal would undermine competition, allowing the largest airline at O’Hare to expand its size advantage for years into the future,” she said. “The United gate deal creates a clear winner, United, and clear losers: namely, competition, Chicago travelers and American Airlines.”
 
ORD Boy 2
Topic Author
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 12:25 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:19 pm

I bet this gets resolved quickly, but MRE Is not going to let AA hold this hostage.
 
User avatar
IrishAyes
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:04 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:21 pm

upcoming flights: JFK-MXP, JFK-KEF, DFW-MEX, BRU-KEF, KEF-DFW, JFK-LIS-RAK, RAK-CMN-LIS, LIS-PRG, PRG-MAD, MAD-LAX: Alitalia, Interjet, WOW Air, Icelandair, TAP Air Portugal, Royal Air Maroc, CSA Czech Airlines, Iberia.
 
User avatar
kngkyle
Moderator
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:33 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:23 pm

I don't know how much leverage AA actually has in this now though. Their gate lease is up in May and the fees will dramatically increase then without a new deal signed. If AA decides not to sign on to the new lease agreement then what? Will the city move forward with the plan and AA will just lose out even more? Threatening to reduce operations would just result in UA/others filling the void. The city really holds all the cards.

Delta openly talking about being in favor of the deal and claiming it would allow them to "better connect with their skyteam partners" lends one to imagine some interesting scenarios now knowing AA is not happy.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 2803
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:42 pm

Well the new concourses connect to the United terminal and not AA's. AA is probably not liking what they see in the future when the time comes to replace T3. AA has to know they are handicapped by their concourse layout.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:43 pm

[quote="kngkyle"]American Airlines has come out as opposed to the deal, claiming that the city has awarded United with additional gates in a secret provision at the last minute.

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


[quote]
...
My take on it: If Chicago gives AA three extra gates, in addition to the 5 gates the city is "secretly" giving UA, AA agrees to the project. That's not unreasonable, and I think neither UA nor the City should oppose AA's request.
 
User avatar
kngkyle
Moderator
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:33 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:53 pm

My take on it: If Chicago gives AA three extra gates, in addition to the 5 gates the city is "secretly" giving UA, AA agrees to the project. That's not unreasonable, and I think neither UA nor the City should oppose AA's request.


I can't imagine it would have gotten to this point if the solution was so simple. Perhaps doing that would make UA not support the deal. If so, the city essentially had to choose who to piss off - UA or AA, and AA drew the short straw (and of course they would with UA being larger and HQ'd in Chicago).
 
jagraham
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: ORD Expansion deal close

Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:56 pm

jagraham wrote:
yeogeo wrote:
Delta spokesperson: "We are okay with the expansion — moving Delta to Terminal 5 gets us right next to SkyTeam partners, and that's a nice situation for us competitively in Chicago."

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... j=80228051


This caught me by surprise. Delta gains nothing from being next to their Star Alliance partners unless they intend to supply connections. Which entails more than a focus city.


Yes, SkyTeam. Sorry about the brain fart
 
chicawgo
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:07 pm

It sounds like this is based on the previously reported issue whether to count the "stinger" gates as new or not. AA is spinning it as the city secretly giving UA 5 extra gates at the very end. But they're just referring to the previous disagreement.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:15 pm

Which 5 gates are these secret 5 gates added for UA? Are they somewhere in addition to the renderings in the original article, or are they just dedicating 5 previously CUTE gates for UA's use only?
 
jbs2886
Posts: 1731
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:24 pm

chicawgo wrote:
It sounds like this is based on the previously reported issue whether to count the "stinger" gates as new or not. AA is spinning it as the city secretly giving UA 5 extra gates at the very end. But they're just referring to the previous disagreement.


I suspect this is exactly what has happened.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2643
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:34 pm

Hopefully just posturing so AA can negotiate a better deal. Could be easily resolved with Rahmbo cracking some skulls and a lot of swearing... Wonder if this will still go before the City Council today or not...
 
ord787
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:19 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:52 pm

well folks it look like the plan is officially moving forward
source; https://twitter.com/fly2ohare/status/968903203512307713
source: https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/d ... nsion.html
as for AA either they on this boat or they might get sunk by themself LOL :weightlifter:
 
User avatar
piedmontf284000
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:07 pm

What a mess. An announcement of this magnitude should be one filled with balloons, smiles, and pat on the backs. Instead the whole thing has been turned into a soap opera with AA refusing to sign and the Mayor having egg all over his face. You would have thought that the Mayor would have ensured actual signatures on the dotted line before announcing this project, which IMO will be north of 10 billion when it is all said and done.

AA certainly has a right to complain considering that the five new gates, which are an extension of L, should have zero to do with the major expansion. They were previously announced two years ago, are due to be finished by May, and are only for small jets. In no way should that be part of a deal which will see UA get 80 percent of brand new modern facilitates while AA has to stay in T3, which is a dilapidated infrastructure, and only get a handful of new gates in the new global terminal. The city of Chicago had a chance to hit a home run today and they popped up. Amateur hour. On a side note, I do find it ironic that AA is complaining about backroom deals when they did this for decades under Bob Crandall, who had multiple secret deals with the city of Miami that created the fortress hub they have today. Hypocrisy at its best.
 
ZBA2CGX
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:09 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:28 pm

I can't seem to find the official documents with the details. Anyone have the links?
 
PUDFW
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:45 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:32 pm

So what happens if American doesnt agree to the new lease? Can any speculate here? Can the city just go forward and charge them whatever they want? Or can they make them vacate their existing gates and turn them over to someone else? Obviously I think we are a ways from that but perhaps someone either the city or American is overplaying their hand...
 
chicawgo
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:34 pm

piedmontf284000 wrote:
What a mess. An announcement of this magnitude should be one filled with balloons, smiles, and pat on the backs. Instead the whole thing has been turned into a soap opera with AA refusing to sign and the Mayor having egg all over his face. You would have thought that the Mayor would have ensured actual signatures on the dotted line before announcing this project, which IMO will be north of 10 billion when it is all said and done.

AA certainly has a right to complain considering that the five new gates, which are an extension of L, should have zero to do with the major expansion. They were previously announced two years ago, are due to be finished by May, and are only for small jets. In no way should that be part of a deal which will see UA get 80 percent of brand new modern facilitates while AA has to stay in T3, which is a dilapidated infrastructure, and only get a handful of new gates in the new global terminal. The city of Chicago had a chance to hit a home run today and they popped up. Amateur hour. On a side note, I do find it ironic that AA is complaining about backroom deals when they did this for decades under Bob Crandall, who had multiple secret deals with the city of Miami that created the fortress hub they have today. Hypocrisy at its best.


Agree with your general point but I think you're being quite hyperbolic here. It's not easy to make every single party happy. The quotes they got in the press release shows they managed to make almost everyone happy including even Western suburb stakeholders. AA will get a compromise and will do fine. They use so many RJ's they can upgauge more if they really are that desperate.
 
User avatar
neomax
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:26 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:52 pm

kngkyle wrote:
I don't know how much leverage AA actually has in this now though. Their gate lease is up in May and the fees will dramatically increase then without a new deal signed. If AA decides not to sign on to the new lease agreement then what? Will the city move forward with the plan and AA will just lose out even more? Threatening to reduce operations would just result in UA/others filling the void. The city really holds all the cards.

Delta openly talking about being in favor of the deal and claiming it would allow them to "better connect with their skyteam partners" lends one to imagine some interesting scenarios now knowing AA is not happy.


You bring up a good point. AA is in a bad spot in terms of leverage, especially with UA on the other side. UA is still king at ORD and the city knows it. The city is not going to lose if UA gets stronger and UA definitely isn't going to lose anything. It's really AA that stands to lose, and then you have the wild card-DL. DL is staying silent to avoid attracting attention, but there is no question they have plans in the wings. I can definitely see a situation where UA gains a stronghold and leaves AA to split the rest with a stronger Int'l Skyteam and Delta presence as a growing equal to AA. AA needs to fight a lot harder if they want to stay relevant in ORD. They're already trailing behind UA and could be in the rearview of DL if they don't act fast. The biggest mistake somebody can make in this industry is underestimate their competitor. They've already done it once with UA, and they're about to do it again with DL. People may laugh at the idea of DL challenging AA in ORD, but it may be a reality sooner than we think, and if anyone is going to do it, it's DL.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5337
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:55 pm

It wouldnt surprise me. The city of Chicago is comically corrupt.
Next flight: IAH-UIO-IAH on UA in Y
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:32 pm

neomax wrote:
You bring up a good point. AA is in a bad spot in terms of leverage, especially with UA on the other side. UA is still king at ORD and the city knows it. The city is not going to lose if UA gets stronger and UA definitely isn't going to lose anything. It's really AA that stands to lose, and then you have the wild card-DL. DL is staying silent to avoid attracting attention, but there is no question they have plans in the wings. I can definitely see a situation where UA gains a stronghold and leaves AA to split the rest with a stronger Int'l Skyteam and Delta presence as a growing equal to AA. AA needs to fight a lot harder if they want to stay relevant in ORD. They're already trailing behind UA and could be in the rearview of DL if they don't act fast. The biggest mistake somebody can make in this industry is underestimate their competitor. They've already done it once with UA, and they're about to do it again with DL. People may laugh at the idea of DL challenging AA in ORD, but it may be a reality sooner than we think, and if anyone is going to do it, it's DL.


I just don't see DL doing much in ORD. They might add a few routes to key focus cities, but I don't see any value beyond that. So, DL is not threat to AA in ORD.

Unless AA shuts down the ORD hub (highly unlikely), DL isn't going to do much.

I guess AA can always move their hub to another midwestern city....I seem to recall they had another midwestern hub...but where o' where was it?? Hmmmmm.... [/sarcasm]
 
jayunited
Posts: 1690
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:42 pm

United787 wrote:
Hopefully just posturing so AA can negotiate a better deal. Could be easily resolved with Rahmbo cracking some skulls and a lot of swearing... Wonder if this will still go before the City Council today or not...


A better deal all Rahm has to do is just wait till May when the everyones lease is up and then AA would really be screwed. The reason we are even discussing O'Hare expansion is because the clock is ticking and Rahm is using the expiring clock to finally pressure airlines to get something done if these airlines had another 5 or 10 years on their leases this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. Rahm has made a lot of mistakes and missteps as mayor of Chicago but most people would agree that his handling of the O"Hare terminal expansion negotiations has been great. From what I've heard (rumor only) UA is okay with the deal, if AA want's to play hard ball and not sign that is fine with Rahm as well because in the end the expansion will happen he has made that clear and many other politicians agree its time to bring ORD into the 21st century. So whether AA is on board on not this project will move forward. It is in AA's interests to come to an agreement with Chicago because once their lease is up AA will loose a lot more power and leverage than they currently have.
 
User avatar
kngkyle
Moderator
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:33 am

Re: ORD Expansion Deal - Update: AA Accuses City of Collusion w/ UA

Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:44 pm

United has responded publicly:

United fired back: "It is disingenuous for American to make these claims.

"This was not a secret deal reached at the last minute," an airline spokesman said. "Our agreement with the city for five additional gates was made more than 18 months ago in response to American's deal with city for five additional gates. American has been aware of our agreement for over a year and has worked to block the implementation at every opportunity."


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/28/america ... gates.html


It increasingly seems like a feud between UA and AA that the city had to pick a side on in order to move forward. One party wasn't going to be happy no matter what.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos