Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Lamp1009 wrote:ORDLHR787 wrote:jcwr56 wrote:
Anywhere in T5 works for them as their goal was just to be collocated within the same Terminal.
SkyTeam starting to exploit the opportunity O’Hare has gifted them at ORD.
SkyTeam is not going to be the only benefactor here, centralizing every airline alliance to a particular post-security area is going to benefit every alliance. SkyTeam is just the first one to reap the benefits. Besides, WS is not a SkyTeam member and at this rate probably won't be for at least a decade.
That being said, this move is going to help delta and other members out, but the question remains whether delta will take advantage of the opportunity given to them and start building out a focus city in Chicago.
piedmontf284000 wrote:...I would watch for VS and AZ to make a return to ORD next summer and take advantage of T5 and Deltas presence there.
jplatts wrote:intotheair wrote:UA seems to really have quite a stronghold on the SF-Chicago market. Some of that's to be expected, of course, as it is a hub-hub route. But they not only have the most flights but also seem to have the highest fares, anecdotally whenever I look. I just looked today for a weekend in May when I want to fly (not Mother's Day or Memorial Day), and they're asking $800 r/t for a Friday outbound, Sunday return. AA and AS were only marginally less.
AS does offer connections from SFO-ORD onto AA flights out of ORD to some destinations not served by AS, and AS is likely carrying more than just O&D traffic on its SFO-ORD nonstop flights due to the codesharing that AS has with AA.
AS also has AA's FF base in Chicagoland in addition to the former VX FF base in the San Francisco Bay Area to support AS SFO-ORD nonstop service.
yeogeo wrote:O'Hare is mixing it up a bit tonight! (8:30pm Tuesday)
Arrivals 22 L & R
Departures 28C and 27C along with 22L
yeogeo wrote:O'Hare is mixing it up a bit tonight! (8:30pm Tuesday)
Arrivals 22 L & R
Departures 28C and 27C along with 22L
UALifer wrote:yeogeo wrote:O'Hare is mixing it up a bit tonight! (8:30pm Tuesday)
Arrivals 22 L & R
Departures 28C and 27C along with 22L
I wonder why 28C instead of 28R at N5 like normal.
UALifer wrote:yeogeo wrote:O'Hare is mixing it up a bit tonight! (8:30pm Tuesday)
Arrivals 22 L & R
Departures 28C and 27C along with 22L
I wonder why 28C instead of 28R at N5 like normal.
airstatdfw wrote:UALifer wrote:yeogeo wrote:O'Hare is mixing it up a bit tonight! (8:30pm Tuesday)
Arrivals 22 L & R
Departures 28C and 27C along with 22L
I wonder why 28C instead of 28R at N5 like normal.
Rwy 28R is within 1 mile of Rwy 22R which has to be treated as a crossing Rwy operation. Rwy 22R traffic has to be landing ensured prior to rolling Rwy 28R and Rwy 28R departure has to be through the extended centerline of Rwy 22R prior to the next arrival. Rwy 28C is outside of the 1 mile which makes it a free roll rwy in this configuration. We try to depart Rwy [email protected] and Rwy 28C and Land Rwy 22R and Rwy 22L. Tonight many departures couldn’t take 28C or 27C due to wet Rwys and the crosswinds.
Crosswind787 wrote:Between CDA giving Skyteam the gift of T5 and the gift of AA dropping routes, frequencies, and delaying the return of seasonal routes, plus the retirement of the E145, I'd say Delta would be extremely stupid to not take full advantage of the current ORD climate and build something of a presence, including their international partners.
I also think UA is watching what AA and DL are doing, prior to covid UA was intending 700+ flights a day out of ORD
BB78710 wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:Between CDA giving Skyteam the gift of T5 and the gift of AA dropping routes, frequencies, and delaying the return of seasonal routes, plus the retirement of the E145, I'd say Delta would be extremely stupid to not take full advantage of the current ORD climate and build something of a presence, including their international partners.
I also think UA is watching what AA and DL are doing, prior to covid UA was intending 700+ flights a day out of ORD
As much as I would love for Delta to do more at ORD, I don't see it happening. AA's stagnation at ORD is presenting opportunities for UA, WN and ULCCs, and even though ORD no longer holds the a top 3 position in AA's network AA isn't going anywhere at ORD.
Delta already has hubs at MSP and DTW both of which are still in rebuilding mode, both of which flight wise are less than an hour from ORD. Growing ORD into some type of focus station and getting into a fight with UA when DL has no intention of turning ORD into a hub seems like a mistake and would be a huge waste of money. Delta has found success in the ORD-SEA, ORD-BOS, and ORD-LGA markets and they probably could find success in the ORD-LAX market out side of those hubs I'm not sure where else Delta goes out of ORD. They could perhaps try ORD-RDU again assuming Delta wish to rebuild their presence at RDU but out side of LAX and perhaps RDU I just don't see any other opportunities where Delta can take advantage at ORD.
At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
amtravels wrote:BB78710 wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:Between CDA giving Skyteam the gift of T5 and the gift of AA dropping routes, frequencies, and delaying the return of seasonal routes, plus the retirement of the E145, I'd say Delta would be extremely stupid to not take full advantage of the current ORD climate and build something of a presence, including their international partners.
I also think UA is watching what AA and DL are doing, prior to covid UA was intending 700+ flights a day out of ORD
As much as I would love for Delta to do more at ORD, I don't see it happening. AA's stagnation at ORD is presenting opportunities for UA, WN and ULCCs, and even though ORD no longer holds the a top 3 position in AA's network AA isn't going anywhere at ORD.
Delta already has hubs at MSP and DTW both of which are still in rebuilding mode, both of which flight wise are less than an hour from ORD. Growing ORD into some type of focus station and getting into a fight with UA when DL has no intention of turning ORD into a hub seems like a mistake and would be a huge waste of money. Delta has found success in the ORD-SEA, ORD-BOS, and ORD-LGA markets and they probably could find success in the ORD-LAX market out side of those hubs I'm not sure where else Delta goes out of ORD. They could perhaps try ORD-RDU again assuming Delta wish to rebuild their presence at RDU but out side of LAX and perhaps RDU I just don't see any other opportunities where Delta can take advantage at ORD.
At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
It’s pretty crazy to me to see AA let ORD die on the vine. So much potential there but AA seems content to do nothing but let UA position themselves to grow and try out new routes while they stagnate. I grew up in Chicago, and flew AA 95% of the time anywhere I went. There was a sense of pride amongst AA employees to be part of a great operation in Chicago. That pride seems to be gone today, from the frontline all the way up to corporate.
amtravels wrote:BB78710 wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:Between CDA giving Skyteam the gift of T5 and the gift of AA dropping routes, frequencies, and delaying the return of seasonal routes, plus the retirement of the E145, I'd say Delta would be extremely stupid to not take full advantage of the current ORD climate and build something of a presence, including their international partners.
I also think UA is watching what AA and DL are doing, prior to covid UA was intending 700+ flights a day out of ORD
As much as I would love for Delta to do more at ORD, I don't see it happening. AA's stagnation at ORD is presenting opportunities for UA, WN and ULCCs, and even though ORD no longer holds the a top 3 position in AA's network AA isn't going anywhere at ORD.
Delta already has hubs at MSP and DTW both of which are still in rebuilding mode, both of which flight wise are less than an hour from ORD. Growing ORD into some type of focus station and getting into a fight with UA when DL has no intention of turning ORD into a hub seems like a mistake and would be a huge waste of money. Delta has found success in the ORD-SEA, ORD-BOS, and ORD-LGA markets and they probably could find success in the ORD-LAX market out side of those hubs I'm not sure where else Delta goes out of ORD. They could perhaps try ORD-RDU again assuming Delta wish to rebuild their presence at RDU but out side of LAX and perhaps RDU I just don't see any other opportunities where Delta can take advantage at ORD.
At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
It’s pretty crazy to me to see AA let ORD die on the vine. So much potential there but AA seems content to do nothing but let UA position themselves to grow and try out new routes while they stagnate. I grew up in Chicago, and flew AA 95% of the time anywhere I went. There was a sense of pride amongst AA employees to be part of a great operation in Chicago. That pride seems to be gone today, from the frontline all the way up to corporate.
BB78710 wrote:At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
yeogeo wrote:BB78710 wrote:At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
With new T5 digs at O'Hare which includes one gate with access to the FIS, a 22,000 square foot, 400 pax capacity Sky Club, a position colocated with 6 (and likely more to come) of its SkyTeam partners, and the 7 DL non-stop domestic destinations, I think ORD has passed the point where it should be called "a simple small line station".
Could you bring yourself to call ORD a focus station at least? I think that'd be fair.... Anyway, its fun to watch the developments in T5, a Delta focus or not.
...This conversation makes me wonder if there's any room for growth!
Could DL gain the use of gates elsewhere in the terminal if it needed?
onwFan wrote:amtravels wrote:BB78710 wrote:
As much as I would love for Delta to do more at ORD, I don't see it happening. AA's stagnation at ORD is presenting opportunities for UA, WN and ULCCs, and even though ORD no longer holds the a top 3 position in AA's network AA isn't going anywhere at ORD.
Delta already has hubs at MSP and DTW both of which are still in rebuilding mode, both of which flight wise are less than an hour from ORD. Growing ORD into some type of focus station and getting into a fight with UA when DL has no intention of turning ORD into a hub seems like a mistake and would be a huge waste of money. Delta has found success in the ORD-SEA, ORD-BOS, and ORD-LGA markets and they probably could find success in the ORD-LAX market out side of those hubs I'm not sure where else Delta goes out of ORD. They could perhaps try ORD-RDU again assuming Delta wish to rebuild their presence at RDU but out side of LAX and perhaps RDU I just don't see any other opportunities where Delta can take advantage at ORD.
At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
It’s pretty crazy to me to see AA let ORD die on the vine. So much potential there but AA seems content to do nothing but let UA position themselves to grow and try out new routes while they stagnate. I grew up in Chicago, and flew AA 95% of the time anywhere I went. There was a sense of pride amongst AA employees to be part of a great operation in Chicago. That pride seems to be gone today, from the frontline all the way up to corporate.
Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
Crosswind787 wrote:onwFan wrote:amtravels wrote:It’s pretty crazy to me to see AA let ORD die on the vine. So much potential there but AA seems content to do nothing but let UA position themselves to grow and try out new routes while they stagnate. I grew up in Chicago, and flew AA 95% of the time anywhere I went. There was a sense of pride amongst AA employees to be part of a great operation in Chicago. That pride seems to be gone today, from the frontline all the way up to corporate.
Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
They may not dehub ORD, but they have downsized and de-emphasized ORD in comparison to their other hubs, which mostly have all grown. Once the E145s are gone how many more regional routes get dropped or go once daily on an E175? With the coming use it or lose it gate assignments, AA better figure out how to hold on to those while cutting service or suffer the competition coming in and being awarded those gates. It's AAs to lose and they don't seem to be fighting too hard to maintain ORD market share or defend their turf
Crosswind787 wrote:yeogeo wrote:BB78710 wrote:At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
With new T5 digs at O'Hare which includes one gate with access to the FIS, a 22,000 square foot, 400 pax capacity Sky Club, a position colocated with 6 (and likely more to come) of its SkyTeam partners, and the 7 DL non-stop domestic destinations, I think ORD has passed the point where it should be called "a simple small line station".
Could you bring yourself to call ORD a focus station at least? I think that'd be fair.... Anyway, its fun to watch the developments in T5, a Delta focus or not.
...This conversation makes me wonder if there's any room for growth!
Could DL gain the use of gates elsewhere in the terminal if it needed?
Think of the Skyteam International partners that fly to ORD connecting pax to the 7+ (a few more future?) Delta destinations, and vis-versa. That'd make good use, and better use, of the gift they've been given in T5. And gives DL pax anther routing into / out of the US.
onwFan wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:yeogeo wrote:With new T5 digs at O'Hare which includes one gate with access to the FIS, a 22,000 square foot, 400 pax capacity Sky Club, a position colocated with 6 (and likely more to come) of its SkyTeam partners, and the 7 DL non-stop domestic destinations, I think ORD has passed the point where it should be called "a simple small line station"...
Think of the Skyteam International partners that fly to ORD connecting pax to the 7+ (a few more future?) Delta destinations, and vis-versa. That'd make good use, and better use, of the gift they've been given in T5. And gives DL pax anther routing into / out of the US.
Do you realize that those 7 destinations (JFK/LGA, BOS, DTW, MSP, ATL, SLC, SEA) are just DL hubs, of which mostly all already have direct service to the destinations that these SkyTeam carriers serve (ICN, CDG, AMS, MEX)? Why would they want to connect through ORD and dilute yields? And unless I’m mistaken it is just 4 SkyTeam carriers, not 6.
onwFan wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:onwFan wrote:Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
They may not dehub ORD, but they have downsized and de-emphasized ORD in comparison to their other hubs, which mostly have all grown. Once the E145s are gone how many more regional routes get dropped or go once daily on an E175? With the coming use it or lose it gate assignments, AA better figure out how to hold on to those while cutting service or suffer the competition coming in and being awarded those gates. It's AAs to lose and they don't seem to be fighting too hard to maintain ORD market share or defend their turf
They will maintain market share to the extent that benefits their network. As I mentioned above, AA does not need to depend on ORD the way UA does because it has several better ways for passengers to route. As for the smaller cities you mention, even UA has ceded many of those to AA last year. So it is not just one-side as you interpret. Long before AA needs to decide whether to exit each market, we will already have seen how that works for UA because if anything, by that time UA would also have reduced their frequency or exited those markets. We will get a better picture of it as soon as UA removes their Air Wisconsin schedules.
Crosswind787 wrote:onwFan wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:
They may not dehub ORD, but they have downsized and de-emphasized ORD in comparison to their other hubs, which mostly have all grown. Once the E145s are gone how many more regional routes get dropped or go once daily on an E175? With the coming use it or lose it gate assignments, AA better figure out how to hold on to those while cutting service or suffer the competition coming in and being awarded those gates. It's AAs to lose and they don't seem to be fighting too hard to maintain ORD market share or defend their turf
They will maintain market share to the extent that benefits their network. As I mentioned above, AA does not need to depend on ORD the way UA does because it has several better ways for passengers to route. As for the smaller cities you mention, even UA has ceded many of those to AA last year. So it is not just one-side as you interpret. Long before AA needs to decide whether to exit each market, we will already have seen how that works for UA because if anything, by that time UA would also have reduced their frequency or exited those markets. We will get a better picture of it as soon as UA removes their Air Wisconsin schedules.
I also think they'll maintain marketshare to what benefits their network. Just don't be surprised to see them lose gates going forward, you can't reduce your hub service and hold onto your gates when the city wants competition and is willing to let others expand. Funny because AA added the stinger gates and we're going to add 3 more on to them, but with reduced services what's the point? Someone else might just benefit from those.
onwFan wrote:amtravels wrote:BB78710 wrote:
As much as I would love for Delta to do more at ORD, I don't see it happening. AA's stagnation at ORD is presenting opportunities for UA, WN and ULCCs, and even though ORD no longer holds the a top 3 position in AA's network AA isn't going anywhere at ORD.
Delta already has hubs at MSP and DTW both of which are still in rebuilding mode, both of which flight wise are less than an hour from ORD. Growing ORD into some type of focus station and getting into a fight with UA when DL has no intention of turning ORD into a hub seems like a mistake and would be a huge waste of money. Delta has found success in the ORD-SEA, ORD-BOS, and ORD-LGA markets and they probably could find success in the ORD-LAX market out side of those hubs I'm not sure where else Delta goes out of ORD. They could perhaps try ORD-RDU again assuming Delta wish to rebuild their presence at RDU but out side of LAX and perhaps RDU I just don't see any other opportunities where Delta can take advantage at ORD.
At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
It’s pretty crazy to me to see AA let ORD die on the vine. So much potential there but AA seems content to do nothing but let UA position themselves to grow and try out new routes while they stagnate. I grew up in Chicago, and flew AA 95% of the time anywhere I went. There was a sense of pride amongst AA employees to be part of a great operation in Chicago. That pride seems to be gone today, from the frontline all the way up to corporate.
Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
onwFan wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:onwFan wrote:They will maintain market share to the extent that benefits their network. As I mentioned above, AA does not need to depend on ORD the way UA does because it has several better ways for passengers to route. As for the smaller cities you mention, even UA has ceded many of those to AA last year. So it is not just one-side as you interpret. Long before AA needs to decide whether to exit each market, we will already have seen how that works for UA because if anything, by that time UA would also have reduced their frequency or exited those markets. We will get a better picture of it as soon as UA removes their Air Wisconsin schedules.
I also think they'll maintain marketshare to what benefits their network. Just don't be surprised to see them lose gates going forward, you can't reduce your hub service and hold onto your gates when the city wants competition and is willing to let others expand. Funny because AA added the stinger gates and we're going to add 3 more on to them, but with reduced services what's the point? Someone else might just benefit from those.
Well you answered it yourself. If they fought for those gates, they know whether they need it or not and will use it accordingly. You are just assuming that all those frequencies are permanently dropped, but after all, the placeholder schedules show that is not the plan, and once the Envoy and Air Wisconsin schedules get moved around and finalized, you will get your answer.
yeogeo wrote:With new T5 digs at O'Hare which includes one gate with access to the FIS, a 22,000 square foot, 400 pax capacity Sky Club, a position colocated with 6 (and likely more to come) of its SkyTeam partners, and the 7 DL non-stop domestic destinations, I think ORD has passed the point where it should be called "a simple small line station".
Could you bring yourself to call ORD a focus station at least? I think that'd be fair.... Anyway, its fun to watch the developments in T5, a Delta focus or not.
yeogeo wrote:BB78710 wrote:At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
With new T5 digs at O'Hare which includes one gate with access to the FIS, a 22,000 square foot, 400 pax capacity Sky Club, a position colocated with 6 (and likely more to come) of its SkyTeam partners, and the 7 DL non-stop domestic destinations, I think ORD has passed the point where it should be called "a simple small line station".
Could you bring yourself to call ORD a focus station at least? I think that'd be fair.... Anyway, its fun to watch the developments in T5, a Delta focus or not.
...This conversation makes me wonder if there's any room for growth!
Could DL gain the use of gates elsewhere in the terminal if it needed?
BB78710 wrote:yeogeo wrote:BB78710 wrote:At some point people have got to let this go, ORD will probably never be nothing more than a simple small line station for Delta. And that is 100% okay.
With new T5 digs at O'Hare which includes one gate with access to the FIS, a 22,000 square foot, 400 pax capacity Sky Club, a position colocated with 6 (and likely more to come) of its SkyTeam partners, and the 7 DL non-stop domestic destinations, I think ORD has passed the point where it should be called "a simple small line station".
Could you bring yourself to call ORD a focus station at least? I think that'd be fair.... Anyway, its fun to watch the developments in T5, a Delta focus or not.
...This conversation makes me wonder if there's any room for growth!
Could DL gain the use of gates elsewhere in the terminal if it needed?
No I can't bring myself to call ORD a focus station for Delta because it isn't a focus city it is a line station and that's all.
What is the definition of a focus city because it seems like people use that term focus city/station a lot more post pandemic than they did prepandemic.
Moving to T5, having a splashy swanky Sky Club at ORD doesn't all of a sudden make ORD a focus city for Delta.
And again I love Delta, I fly on both Delta and United so I'm not hating or throwing shade at Delta, but there is no way ORD is now a focus city for Delta.
onwFan wrote:Crosswind787 wrote:onwFan wrote:They will maintain market share to the extent that benefits their network. As I mentioned above, AA does not need to depend on ORD the way UA does because it has several better ways for passengers to route. As for the smaller cities you mention, even UA has ceded many of those to AA last year. So it is not just one-side as you interpret. Long before AA needs to decide whether to exit each market, we will already have seen how that works for UA because if anything, by that time UA would also have reduced their frequency or exited those markets. We will get a better picture of it as soon as UA removes their Air Wisconsin schedules.
I also think they'll maintain marketshare to what benefits their network. Just don't be surprised to see them lose gates going forward, you can't reduce your hub service and hold onto your gates when the city wants competition and is willing to let others expand. Funny because AA added the stinger gates and we're going to add 3 more on to them, but with reduced services what's the point? Someone else might just benefit from those.
Well you answered it yourself. If they fought for those gates, they know whether they need it or not and will use it accordingly. You are just assuming that all those frequencies are permanently dropped, but after all, the placeholder schedules show that is not the plan, and once the Envoy and Air Wisconsin schedules get moved around and finalized, you will get your answer.
BB78710 wrote:yeogeo wrote:Could you bring yourself to call ORD a [DL] focus station at least? I think that'd be fair...
No I can't bring myself to call ORD a focus station for Delta because it isn't a focus city it is a line station and that's all.
What is the definition of a focus city because it seems like people use that term focus city/station a lot more post pandemic than they did prepandemic.
Moving to T5, having a splashy swanky Sky Club at ORD doesn't all of a sudden make ORD a focus city for Delta.
onwFan wrote:Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
United787 wrote:onwFan wrote:Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
I think you are downplaying what AA has become at ORD. When I first joined A-Net 18 years ago I would say the airline loyalty of friends and family was split 50/50 in Chicago with status reflecting their loyalty. A lot of frequent business travelers here were very loyal to AA especially for those that had frequent travel to Latin America and Europe. Today, I do not know a single person that is loyal to AA and carries status with them. Of course my experience is anecdotal but I think it is indicative of AA's pullback. Chicagoans expect to be able to get most of their destinations non-stop and the lack of international destinations has not gone unnoticed by the general public. I am sure this has impacted the fares they are able to demand.
Even with destinations that require connections, UA is winning. Of course, UA's merger with CO levelled the Latin America playing field with IAH offering a lot of what MIA can offer. But to Europe and Asia, UA can offer so many destinations with a much larger breath of airlines and hubs.
BTW, UA is not heavily skewed to ORD as it is a similar size now to it's other mid-continent hubs, IAH and DEN. EWR and SFO are powerhouses on their respective hubs and LAX and IAD both have their roles.
Lamp1009 wrote:United787 wrote:onwFan wrote:Just because AA doesn’t do everything at ORD that UA does doesn’t mean that it is letting ORD die on the wine. UA has to fly a lot of routes (especially longer ones) from ORD that AA hasn’t got to, because they do not have any hub south of DC and east of IAH. AA is not going to fly many of those just to offer what UA has to, when it can do it much more efficiently with CLT/MIA. It is not as if UA hasn’t retreated in ORD either - they have handed over close to 10 regional routes from ORD all to AA since pandemic. Another example of hub rationalization is how UA dropped several destinations on the West coast as it expanded the DEN hub.
To add to that, AA and UA use ORD and DFW/IAH in complementary ways, especially to Europe and Asia. In fact, if you take AA and UA’s (+JVs’) international route networks from a combination of ORD+DFW/IAH, they are strikingly close. If anything, AA has a more balanced network between the two whereas UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. And contrary to a.net belief, AA is not going to dehub ORD, because it serves a unique role in their network. It is just not the same role that it plays in UA’s network.
I think you are downplaying what AA has become at ORD. When I first joined A-Net 18 years ago I would say the airline loyalty of friends and family was split 50/50 in Chicago with status reflecting their loyalty. A lot of frequent business travelers here were very loyal to AA especially for those that had frequent travel to Latin America and Europe. Today, I do not know a single person that is loyal to AA and carries status with them. Of course my experience is anecdotal but I think it is indicative of AA's pullback. Chicagoans expect to be able to get most of their destinations non-stop and the lack of international destinations has not gone unnoticed by the general public. I am sure this has impacted the fares they are able to demand.
Even with destinations that require connections, UA is winning. Of course, UA's merger with CO levelled the Latin America playing field with IAH offering a lot of what MIA can offer. But to Europe and Asia, UA can offer so many destinations with a much larger breath of airlines and hubs.
BTW, UA is not heavily skewed to ORD as it is a similar size now to it's other mid-continent hubs, IAH and DEN. EWR and SFO are powerhouses on their respective hubs and LAX and IAD both have their roles.
Isn't AA in the middle of a massive wide-body shortage though? They seemed to let go of more than what was reasonable when they retired their a330s, 767s, and 757s (not a widebody but it fills some of the widebody roles), especially since they can't get 787s quickly enough, and want to retire some of their 777-200ERs. It seems like they don't really have much of a choice when it comes to focussing their long-haul operations at their costal hubs and DFW, at least until they can get more planes. They, like delta but to a much greater extent, made a huge miscalculation with their fleet management during the pandemic, and now it's UA's opportunity of a lifetime for international growth, and they clearly jumped right on it with their 100 + 100 option 787 order.
atrude777 wrote:Contour Airlines
Folks-Marion, Illinois (MWA), and Kirksville, Missouri (IRK) has chosen Contour Airlines to provide 12 weekly flights from Chicago. If DOT approves this, this will be a new airline for ORD.
Above comments have suggested Contour would be allocated to Terminal 5, which I completely expect too. However this will be a nightmare for connecting as Contour has an interline agreement with American Airlines. Did we ever confirm there is a bus that takes passengers between T5 and T3 without going through security?
...Alex
muralir wrote:Lamp1009 wrote:United787 wrote:
I think you are downplaying what AA has become at ORD. When I first joined A-Net 18 years ago I would say the airline loyalty of friends and family was split 50/50 in Chicago with status reflecting their loyalty. A lot of frequent business travelers here were very loyal to AA especially for those that had frequent travel to Latin America and Europe. Today, I do not know a single person that is loyal to AA and carries status with them. Of course my experience is anecdotal but I think it is indicative of AA's pullback. Chicagoans expect to be able to get most of their destinations non-stop and the lack of international destinations has not gone unnoticed by the general public. I am sure this has impacted the fares they are able to demand.
Even with destinations that require connections, UA is winning. Of course, UA's merger with CO levelled the Latin America playing field with IAH offering a lot of what MIA can offer. But to Europe and Asia, UA can offer so many destinations with a much larger breath of airlines and hubs.
BTW, UA is not heavily skewed to ORD as it is a similar size now to it's other mid-continent hubs, IAH and DEN. EWR and SFO are powerhouses on their respective hubs and LAX and IAD both have their roles.
Isn't AA in the middle of a massive wide-body shortage though? They seemed to let go of more than what was reasonable when they retired their a330s, 767s, and 757s (not a widebody but it fills some of the widebody roles), especially since they can't get 787s quickly enough, and want to retire some of their 777-200ERs. It seems like they don't really have much of a choice when it comes to focussing their long-haul operations at their costal hubs and DFW, at least until they can get more planes. They, like delta but to a much greater extent, made a huge miscalculation with their fleet management during the pandemic, and now it's UA's opportunity of a lifetime for international growth, and they clearly jumped right on it with their 100 + 100 option 787 order.
I'll give AA the benefit of the doubt for the next couple of years. Covid scrambled everyone's plans, so it's not fair to take the last few years and assume that's their long-term strategy. Furthermore, the reduction in flights really began when the FAA implemented voluntary flight caps years ago before the ORD runway reconfiguration happened. You can't blame them for focusing on places like DFW which had room to grow vs ORD where getting slots was always a battle.
But that said, even before covid, AA's strategy seemed to be to gradually de-emphasize ORD. And despite ORD's flight restrictions, UA managed to maintain more service, and also brought on more service more quickly once the caps were lifted. I agree with @United787. Looking back a few years doesn't really give you a full picture of AA's death-by-a-thousand-papercuts approach to ORD. In the 80s/90s, UA and AA both had loyal customers, and international service was comparable. But now, I know of only one person in my network who still has AA loyalty, and he doesn't fly much and it's mainly a historical thing for him. In the 90s and even early 00's, AA had more TPAC and TATL flying out of ORD than DFW. Heck, the first direct flight to India from Chicago was ORD-DEL on AA (not even AI; they stopped in London). The amount of reduction in travel over the past couple of decades has been breathtaking.
What remains of AA's ORD hub is largely domestic connections to regional cities and small towns, and of course connections to their OW partners. Sure, that still technically constitutes a hub. But in a city like Chicago, that doesn't really build loyalty. You can get away with a domestic-focused hub in smaller cities that don't have much competition. But in Chicago, people expect an extensive global network. You're not going to build a loyal base of flyers -- especially frequent business flyers -- by telling them that they can get to Duluth IA nonstop but if they need to fly to anywhere in Europe ex-LHR, they'll have to connect through DFW or PHL. Not when United is offering more. And if AA's just going to codeshare on their partners, it's not like OW's partnerships at ORD are more extensive than SA (or even SkyTeam, depending on where you want to go). So I really don't think AA's strategy for ORD will set it up for long-term success. I don't know their numbers, but I suspect they're bleeding FF members and corporate contracts in Chicago. And if you're not getting a good chunk of Chicago's massive O&D market, then you're right; there's no advantage to hubbing in Chicago vs DFW or PHL or CLT.
@onwFan: it's not just AA that decides which cities are hubs. In cities like Chicago that have options, your customers have to go along with it. If what AA wants out of an ORD hub is not the same thing as what Chicagoans want from a hub airline -- and if UA does give them what they want -- then AA's hub will whither whether they want it to or not. It takes 2 parties to make a hub work, and in big cities like Chicago, plus LA, NYC, and others, we see that AA is losing that competition.
Note, this may be the right strategy for AA: perhaps they really can be more profitable staying away from brutally competitive markets like ORD (and LAX, NYC) and focusing on where they can overcharge customers in captive hub cities. But if you decide you're going to cede every top-10 city outside of Dallas to your competitors, maybe you'll be profitable, but you won't be a very big airline.
atrude777 wrote:Contour Airlines
Folks-Marion, Illinois (MWA), and Kirksville, Missouri (IRK) has chosen Contour Airlines to provide 12 weekly flights from Chicago.
onwFan wrote:As for AA vs UA, let’s first consider TATL summer. AA and its JV partners offer ~15x daily flights to Europe, whereas UA and its JV partners offer ~21x daily flights. You can choose to boost the numbers by including other alliance partners, just remember that while AA offers codeshares on all those carriers, UA does not offer codeshare on even one of those international flights from ORD, and wants you to just connect on their JV partners.
As for TPAC, yes AA’s offer is currently 1x daily flight vs UA’s 3x daily (~ 5x daily if you include China’s suspended routes). Your statement that ORD is just a network of regional destinations for AA is nothing but a gross exaggeration. Even to your point of UA getting people to more nonstop destinations in Europe, what are they? They are also basically almost all to their JV hubs of FRA, MUC, ZRH, VIE, BRU; plus AMS year-round. EDI, SNN, MXP are seasonal and not necessarily captive markets. Both AA and UA serve CDG, FCO and BCN (UA added recently) while AA offers MAD, HEL and ATH that UA doesn’t.
Compare that to IAH/DFW where UA is 6x daily TATL flights vs AA’s ~ 13x daily flights. As for TPAC, UA is just 2x daily vs AA’s 4x/6x daily. So, clearly AA uses ORD as much as DFW for TATL while UA’s is heavily skewed to ORD. At the same time the total TATL offering from ORD + DFW/IAH is still very similar. On the other hand, AA and UA use these in complementary ways for TPAC, with UA using ORD primarily and AA using DFW.
yeogeo wrote:atrude777 wrote:Contour Airlines
Folks-Marion, Illinois (MWA), and Kirksville, Missouri (IRK) has chosen Contour Airlines to provide 12 weekly flights from Chicago.
Maps generated by the Great Circle Mapper - copyright © Karl L. Swartz.
SumChristianus wrote:For a typical weekday this summer at ORD (June 23rd) based on current schedules:
AA: 381 flights, 151 mainline, 230 regional, ~41,000 departing seats
UA: 446 flights, 281 mainline, 165 regional, ~57,000 departing seats
