dopplerd wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

According to this source, O'Hare is, as of now, less than 100 movements from the busiest title, with the possibility of surpassing Atlanta in movements this summer. We'll see how it shakes out.

https://aviationsourcenews.com/analysis ... the-cards/
Try to ignore the very dated photograph of the field; the data they present is up to date.

This article is doing a very poor job of describing the data from another website. The original data is the average number of daily flights over a 7 day period. It is being described as, "For March 5-12, Chicago O’Hare achieved 1,979 movements," the total number of flights in a week. This is not true. According to the original source O'Hare had 1,979 average daily flights Mar 5-12 so ORD saw ~13,853 movements in that week (1,979*7). This also means that ORD is not 100 flights per week behind ATL but 100 flights per day or roughly 5%.

With the upgauging UAL is doing in it's schedule along with the gate constraints during construction I do not see ORD catching ATL in movements this year.

Thanks for catching that error in their interpretation of the data, dopplerd. Clearly ORD has a way to go before catching ATL in movements, but I think it will only be a matter of time, especially if (big if) Asian flights return to levels seen before Covid; there's glimmers of hope in that department but nothing is certain.

You're saying there will be gate restraints due to construction is not necessarily correct however. It's clear that the CDA has planned for plenty of gates for UA to use (or at least no less than they already have now - perhaps even a few more). The gates they lose on the low end of T-2 C gates during construction will be amply covered by the gates the've just acquired in T-2 and the planned long tunnel gates they will construct from the C gates at the south end, running west along the north side of Sat 1 construction.

Also, I don't see the construction to come in general as being a limiting factor to movements at the airport... but of course we will see how it goes in real life these next many years, as opposed to the (hopefully) well-laid plans.

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

The bigger issue seems to be AA’s drawdown and not UA upgauging or lack of gates. Until AA starts adding frequencies again on some busy routes like SFO, SEA, and bringing back some old destinations ORD will be #2.

My two cents:

I'm not one for conspiracy theories (unless I have existing trends to back it up), but I think AA's drawdown is intentional. I suspect (though this is just my opinion) the long-term goal is to get AA down to just the following hubs: DFW/MIA/CLT + one East Coast hub (either PHL or JFK depending on NEA). AA doesn't need to be a big airline (they cannot be everything to everyone), but it does need to be a profitable one.

Question is what would happen to ORD? I don't think ORD is going to be substituted by building another AA hub. AA could concentrate on the Deep South cause that's where their bread and butter is.

Historically speaking, out of the US3, only DL has been building hubs organically [in the past two decades]. JFK was built organically, BOS too. SEA was semi-organic. DTW and MSP were acquired. AA and UA acquired some of their hubs, but for several years haven't built new hubs.

There are two scenarios that could happen in this scenario:

Best case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

DL withdraws from DTW and organically builds a new, bigger and better hub at ORD at T5. MSP would be retained as a reliever hub for ORD (domestic service + Europe and ICN).
For those worried about DTW, it would still see local services from low-cost carriers and overseas services from some international carriers (probably there'd actually be room for expansion of the latter if DL ditched DTW for ORD).

MSP and ORD are far enough apart that they could maintain both as they do with MSP and DTW. ORD and DTW are too close to each other.
DL would take AA's place as #2 in ORD and be a much more formidable competitor to UA's stronghold at ORD than AA has been.

Worst case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

UA monopolizes ORD and prices throughout the Midwest go up exponentially. This one is the more likely scenario. While a UA monopoly would ultimately mean more possibilities of cool flights around the country and the world, it wouldn't matter cause one would have to pay out of their nose for UA flights.

The future of AA:

PHX, AUS, and SEA could remain good focus cities for AA; but I think ORD and LAX have got to go for AA. They need to concentrate on the Deep South + JFK (or PHL in a worse case scenario). Deep South prints money for AA, and isn't that what shareholders want to see?

It's the same with DL at ATL, and UA at ORD/DEN.

Here we go with this genuine idiocy again. It is truly miraculous that people with perspectives like this do not actually work in the route planning and financial hubs of major airlines -- let alone organizations of any kind.

For the umpteenth, ten millionth, seven billionth time. --American Airlines is on the hook for an exorbitant financial contribution to ORD 21. The expansion is being partially built for THEM. They have assisted in the design, funding, and layout of the OGT. They are not -- will not -- and in certain circumstances contractually cannot -- close their ORD hub. Do people understand the corporate contracts that these airlines have in their hub cities? AA has legacy contracts with major Chicago employers valued in the tens of millions of dollars -- each. AA right-sizing their ORD operation does not mean they are closing the hub.

Now saying AA needs to bail on both LAX and ORD? Be serious. This would completely cede those markets to competitors and basically forfeit those general regions. American pulling out of ORD would basically doom any presence they have north of the Mason Dixon, and closing the LAX hub would be equally absurd, do you know how many people live in those regions, respectively? Way more than the Deep South. On a pure metropolitan level, the LA area and Chicago have populations that dwarf Dallas and Charlotte. AA is positioned as a major + global carrier. Pulling out of these strategic regions not only gives up the domestic market, but lucrative international inbound connections that many mid-size metros utilize. I don't envision travelers from Kansas City would enjoy a permanent DFW routing to get to LHR -- they would simply switch to another airline.

I continue to propose this discussion occur with rationality -- the only AA hub that is truly at risk of being shuttered -- is PHL. AA has gutted their domestic ops at PHL and repositioned at DCA, LGA, and even to an extent JFK. The airline has expressed basically no interest in rebuilding it. Shuttering PHL into a TATL focus city op wouldn't even be a doom scenario for the airline -- it would be a right-sizing move.

"AA should focus on the deep south -- where their bread and butter is." Hello? Delta? Southwest? Speaking of...

DL will not abandon their fortress hub in MSP for ORD, either. That is plainly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. DL's investment in ORD is purely aesthetic for their O&D passengers from hub markets. Where would DL stage a hub operation at ORD? AA certainly wouldn't let them use the new terminal they're funding construction of.

In the Twin Cities, Delta is quite literally the airport anchor. Everyone in the northern plains outside of Chicago's sphere utilizes the DL MSP hub. Not to mention, the FF bases that exist in these markets are incredibly lucrative. What they do in DTW is up for discussion, as that hub has seen genuine service reductions -- primarily due to it's proximity to profitable hubs in MSP, LGA, BOS.

Hubs seeing drawdowns in service is purely reflective of the market conditions facing the industry. Like you said -- airlines need to be profitable. Part of profitability is offering service that adequately can serve markets that bring in revenue. Adjusting schedules + frequency is part of that. Until AA/DL start slashing local routes out of these markets, like they've done in PHL and DTW, there is zero reason to group ORD, LAX, or MSP in these discussions. It is absurd and frankly a waste of time for users of this forum.

CHI787ORD wrote:

I flew through T5 last week on QR to DOH. The DL side of the terminal is looking great IMO. Concourse feels a little narrow with all the additional concessions but in general it feels like a much better experience than was in T2.

The TSA line wasn’t an issue for me as I have pre check but that entire passage is still too narrow and dimly lit. Are any airlines directing passengers to use the new smaller TSA checkpoint? Southwest maybe? Any plans to reconfigure the main TSA checkpoint and duty free at all?

The new terminal addition also felt much bigger and spacious as compared to what I saw in photos. I personally like the “Jetsons” jet age architecture design. Also loved the great views of the hard stand from here. There was a LH 748 out there on the day I was there. I’m excited to see how it all turns out when concessions are added. Rest of the terminal is still being renovated so we will see how that all unfolds. Hopefully it ends up looking more like how the DL side does.

I've been a little hesitant to ask this question because DL's new gates at T5 are a huge improvement over what they had at T2.

However my question is this since you've also seen the new addition on T5 do you think Delta would have been better off going with gates in the new addition and letting WN keep the gates they already had. Construction is still taking place in the new addition and I think once complete there will be restaurants and concessions in that area and WN's new gates down there are great with all those windows. Some times when I'm flying Delta out of Chicago and I walk down to the new addition I ask myself why DL choose the low M's instead of the the new addition?

sz1998 wrote:

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

The bigger issue seems to be AA’s drawdown and not UA upgauging or lack of gates. Until AA starts adding frequencies again on some busy routes like SFO, SEA, and bringing back some old destinations ORD will be #2.

My two cents:

I'm not one for conspiracy theories (unless I have existing trends to back it up), but I think AA's drawdown is intentional. I suspect (though this is just my opinion) the long-term goal is to get AA down to just the following hubs: DFW/MIA/CLT + one East Coast hub (either PHL or JFK depending on NEA). AA doesn't need to be a big airline (they cannot be everything to everyone), but it does need to be a profitable one.

Question is what would happen to ORD? I don't think ORD is going to be substituted by building another AA hub. AA could concentrate on the Deep South cause that's where their bread and butter is.

Historically speaking, out of the US3, only DL has been building hubs organically [in the past two decades]. JFK was built organically, BOS too. SEA was semi-organic. DTW and MSP were acquired. AA and UA acquired some of their hubs, but for several years haven't built new hubs.

There are two scenarios that could happen in this scenario:

Best case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

DL withdraws from DTW and organically builds a new, bigger and better hub at ORD at T5. MSP would be retained as a reliever hub for ORD (domestic service + Europe and ICN).
For those worried about DTW, it would still see local services from low-cost carriers and overseas services from some international carriers (probably there'd actually be room for expansion of the latter if DL ditched DTW for ORD).

MSP and ORD are far enough apart that they could maintain both as they do with MSP and DTW. ORD and DTW are too close to each other.
DL would take AA's place as #2 in ORD and be a much more formidable competitor to UA's stronghold at ORD than AA has been.

Worst case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

UA monopolizes ORD and prices throughout the Midwest go up exponentially. This one is the more likely scenario. While a UA monopoly would ultimately mean more possibilities of cool flights around the country and the world, it wouldn't matter cause one would have to pay out of their nose for UA flights.

The future of AA:

PHX, AUS, and SEA could remain good focus cities for AA; but I think ORD and LAX have got to go for AA. They need to concentrate on the Deep South + JFK (or PHL in a worse case scenario). Deep South prints money for AA, and isn't that what shareholders want to see?

It's the same with DL at ATL, and UA at ORD/DEN.

Here we go with this genuine idiocy again. It is truly miraculous that people with perspectives like this do not actually work in the route planning and financial hubs of major airlines -- let alone organizations of any kind.

For the umpteenth, ten millionth, seven billionth time. --American Airlines is on the hook for an exorbitant financial contribution to ORD 21. The expansion is being partially built for THEM. They have assisted in the design, funding, and layout of the OGT. They are not -- will not -- and in certain circumstances contractually cannot -- close their ORD hub. Do people understand the corporate contracts that these airlines have in their hub cities? AA has legacy contracts with major Chicago employers valued in the tens of millions of dollars -- each. AA right-sizing their ORD operation does not mean they are closing the hub.

Now saying AA needs to bail on both LAX and ORD? Be serious. This would completely cede those markets to competitors and basically forfeit those general regions. American pulling out of ORD would basically doom any presence they have north of the Mason Dixon, and closing the LAX hub would be equally absurd, do you know how many people live in those regions, respectively? Way more than the Deep South. On a pure metropolitan level, the LA area and Chicago have populations that dwarf Dallas and Charlotte. AA is positioned as a major + global carrier. Pulling out of these strategic regions not only gives up the domestic market, but lucrative international inbound connections that many mid-size metros utilize. I don't envision travelers from Kansas City would enjoy a permanent DFW routing to get to LHR -- they would simply switch to another airline.

I continue to propose this discussion occur with rationality -- the only AA hub that is truly at risk of being shuttered -- is PHL. AA has gutted their domestic ops at PHL and repositioned at DCA, LGA, and even to an extent JFK. The airline has expressed basically no interest in rebuilding it. Shuttering PHL into a TATL focus city op wouldn't even be a doom scenario for the airline -- it would be a right-sizing move.

"AA should focus on the deep south -- where their bread and butter is." Hello? Delta? Southwest? Speaking of...

DL will not abandon their fortress hub in MSP for ORD, either. That is plainly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. DL's investment in ORD is purely aesthetic for their O&D passengers from hub markets. Where would DL stage a hub operation at ORD? AA certainly wouldn't let them use the new terminal they're funding construction of.

In the Twin Cities, Delta is quite literally the airport anchor. Everyone in the northern plains outside of Chicago's sphere utilizes the DL MSP hub. Not to mention, the FF bases that exist in these markets are incredibly lucrative. What they do in DTW is up for discussion, as that hub has seen genuine service reductions -- primarily due to it's proximity to profitable hubs in MSP, LGA, BOS.

Hubs seeing drawdowns in service is purely reflective of the market conditions facing the industry. Like you said -- airlines need to be profitable. Part of profitability is offering service that adequately can serve markets that bring in revenue. Adjusting schedules + frequency is part of that. Until AA/DL start slashing local routes out of these markets, like they've done in PHL and DTW, there is zero reason to group ORD, LAX, or MSP in these discussions. It is absurd and frankly a waste of time for users of this forum.

I never suggested DL draw down MSP in favor of ORD. I suggested they draw down DTW in favor of ORD.

Otherwise, all fair points.

sz1998 wrote:

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

The bigger issue seems to be AA’s drawdown and not UA upgauging or lack of gates. Until AA starts adding frequencies again on some busy routes like SFO, SEA, and bringing back some old destinations ORD will be #2.

My two cents:

I'm not one for conspiracy theories (unless I have existing trends to back it up), but I think AA's drawdown is intentional. I suspect (though this is just my opinion) the long-term goal is to get AA down to just the following hubs: DFW/MIA/CLT + one East Coast hub (either PHL or JFK depending on NEA). AA doesn't need to be a big airline (they cannot be everything to everyone), but it does need to be a profitable one.

Question is what would happen to ORD? I don't think ORD is going to be substituted by building another AA hub. AA could concentrate on the Deep South cause that's where their bread and butter is.

Historically speaking, out of the US3, only DL has been building hubs organically [in the past two decades]. JFK was built organically, BOS too. SEA was semi-organic. DTW and MSP were acquired. AA and UA acquired some of their hubs, but for several years haven't built new hubs.

There are two scenarios that could happen in this scenario:

Best case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

DL withdraws from DTW and organically builds a new, bigger and better hub at ORD at T5. MSP would be retained as a reliever hub for ORD (domestic service + Europe and ICN).
For those worried about DTW, it would still see local services from low-cost carriers and overseas services from some international carriers (probably there'd actually be room for expansion of the latter if DL ditched DTW for ORD).

MSP and ORD are far enough apart that they could maintain both as they do with MSP and DTW. ORD and DTW are too close to each other.
DL would take AA's place as #2 in ORD and be a much more formidable competitor to UA's stronghold at ORD than AA has been.

Worst case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

UA monopolizes ORD and prices throughout the Midwest go up exponentially. This one is the more likely scenario. While a UA monopoly would ultimately mean more possibilities of cool flights around the country and the world, it wouldn't matter cause one would have to pay out of their nose for UA flights.

The future of AA:

PHX, AUS, and SEA could remain good focus cities for AA; but I think ORD and LAX have got to go for AA. They need to concentrate on the Deep South + JFK (or PHL in a worse case scenario). Deep South prints money for AA, and isn't that what shareholders want to see?

It's the same with DL at ATL, and UA at ORD/DEN.

Here we go with this genuine idiocy again. It is truly miraculous that people with perspectives like this do not actually work in the route planning and financial hubs of major airlines -- let alone organizations of any kind.

For the umpteenth, ten millionth, seven billionth time. --American Airlines is on the hook for an exorbitant financial contribution to ORD 21. The expansion is being partially built for THEM. They have assisted in the design, funding, and layout of the OGT. They are not -- will not -- and in certain circumstances contractually cannot -- close their ORD hub. Do people understand the corporate contracts that these airlines have in their hub cities? AA has legacy contracts with major Chicago employers valued in the tens of millions of dollars -- each. AA right-sizing their ORD operation does not mean they are closing the hub.

Now saying AA needs to bail on both LAX and ORD? Be serious. This would completely cede those markets to competitors and basically forfeit those general regions. American pulling out of ORD would basically doom any presence they have north of the Mason Dixon, and closing the LAX hub would be equally absurd, do you know how many people live in those regions, respectively? Way more than the Deep South. On a pure metropolitan level, the LA area and Chicago have populations that dwarf Dallas and Charlotte. AA is positioned as a major + global carrier. Pulling out of these strategic regions not only gives up the domestic market, but lucrative international inbound connections that many mid-size metros utilize. I don't envision travelers from Kansas City would enjoy a permanent DFW routing to get to LHR -- they would simply switch to another airline.

I continue to propose this discussion occur with rationality -- the only AA hub that is truly at risk of being shuttered -- is PHL. AA has gutted their domestic ops at PHL and repositioned at DCA, LGA, and even to an extent JFK. The airline has expressed basically no interest in rebuilding it. Shuttering PHL into a TATL focus city op wouldn't even be a doom scenario for the airline -- it would be a right-sizing move.

"AA should focus on the deep south -- where their bread and butter is." Hello? Delta? Southwest? Speaking of...

DL will not abandon their fortress hub in MSP for ORD, either. That is plainly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. DL's investment in ORD is purely aesthetic for their O&D passengers from hub markets. Where would DL stage a hub operation at ORD? AA certainly wouldn't let them use the new terminal they're funding construction of.

In the Twin Cities, Delta is quite literally the airport anchor. Everyone in the northern plains outside of Chicago's sphere utilizes the DL MSP hub. Not to mention, the FF bases that exist in these markets are incredibly lucrative. What they do in DTW is up for discussion, as that hub has seen genuine service reductions -- primarily due to it's proximity to profitable hubs in MSP, LGA, BOS.

Hubs seeing drawdowns in service is purely reflective of the market conditions facing the industry. Like you said -- airlines need to be profitable. Part of profitability is offering service that adequately can serve markets that bring in revenue. Adjusting schedules + frequency is part of that. Until AA/DL start slashing local routes out of these markets, like they've done in PHL and DTW, there is zero reason to group ORD, LAX, or MSP in these discussions. It is absurd and frankly a waste of time for users of this forum.

Overall, I think that's a good take but there are two blaring caveats that I see in your rebuttal.

1) Chicago dwarfs Charlotte in population. It does not draw DFW in population. In fact, DFW and Chicagoland will probably have similar populations in the next 20 years. Where it could have gone better is in reference to O&D. Chicago is proportionately larger than DFW in domestic O&D but about 2x as big in international O&D.

2) AA's ORD hub is the envy of literally no other airline. It's a dog, but it's critical to AA's network so they certainly won't leave. I can promise you AA would trade what they have in ORD for what DL has in MSP or DTW any day. The later are obviously much smaller markets but the fares are so much higher and the premiums they command are also high. That cannot be said for AA's ORD hub. I can also promise DL would not trade being top dog at MSP or DTW for competing with massive UA and WN operations in the Chicago market. But again, you correctly point out that AA is on the hook at ORD. It's not like an actual trade would be on the table.

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

sz1998 wrote:

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

My two cents:

I'm not one for conspiracy theories (unless I have existing trends to back it up), but I think AA's drawdown is intentional. I suspect (though this is just my opinion) the long-term goal is to get AA down to just the following hubs: DFW/MIA/CLT + one East Coast hub (either PHL or JFK depending on NEA). AA doesn't need to be a big airline (they cannot be everything to everyone), but it does need to be a profitable one.

Question is what would happen to ORD? I don't think ORD is going to be substituted by building another AA hub. AA could concentrate on the Deep South cause that's where their bread and butter is.

Historically speaking, out of the US3, only DL has been building hubs organically [in the past two decades]. JFK was built organically, BOS too. SEA was semi-organic. DTW and MSP were acquired. AA and UA acquired some of their hubs, but for several years haven't built new hubs.

There are two scenarios that could happen in this scenario:

Best case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

DL withdraws from DTW and organically builds a new, bigger and better hub at ORD at T5. MSP would be retained as a reliever hub for ORD (domestic service + Europe and ICN).
For those worried about DTW, it would still see local services from low-cost carriers and overseas services from some international carriers (probably there'd actually be room for expansion of the latter if DL ditched DTW for ORD).

MSP and ORD are far enough apart that they could maintain both as they do with MSP and DTW. ORD and DTW are too close to each other.
DL would take AA's place as #2 in ORD and be a much more formidable competitor to UA's stronghold at ORD than AA has been.

Worst case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

UA monopolizes ORD and prices throughout the Midwest go up exponentially. This one is the more likely scenario. While a UA monopoly would ultimately mean more possibilities of cool flights around the country and the world, it wouldn't matter cause one would have to pay out of their nose for UA flights.

The future of AA:

PHX, AUS, and SEA could remain good focus cities for AA; but I think ORD and LAX have got to go for AA. They need to concentrate on the Deep South + JFK (or PHL in a worse case scenario). Deep South prints money for AA, and isn't that what shareholders want to see?

It's the same with DL at ATL, and UA at ORD/DEN.

Here we go with this genuine idiocy again. It is truly miraculous that people with perspectives like this do not actually work in the route planning and financial hubs of major airlines -- let alone organizations of any kind.

For the umpteenth, ten millionth, seven billionth time. --American Airlines is on the hook for an exorbitant financial contribution to ORD 21. The expansion is being partially built for THEM. They have assisted in the design, funding, and layout of the OGT. They are not -- will not -- and in certain circumstances contractually cannot -- close their ORD hub. Do people understand the corporate contracts that these airlines have in their hub cities? AA has legacy contracts with major Chicago employers valued in the tens of millions of dollars -- each. AA right-sizing their ORD operation does not mean they are closing the hub.

Now saying AA needs to bail on both LAX and ORD? Be serious. This would completely cede those markets to competitors and basically forfeit those general regions. American pulling out of ORD would basically doom any presence they have north of the Mason Dixon, and closing the LAX hub would be equally absurd, do you know how many people live in those regions, respectively? Way more than the Deep South. On a pure metropolitan level, the LA area and Chicago have populations that dwarf Dallas and Charlotte. AA is positioned as a major + global carrier. Pulling out of these strategic regions not only gives up the domestic market, but lucrative international inbound connections that many mid-size metros utilize. I don't envision travelers from Kansas City would enjoy a permanent DFW routing to get to LHR -- they would simply switch to another airline.

I continue to propose this discussion occur with rationality -- the only AA hub that is truly at risk of being shuttered -- is PHL. AA has gutted their domestic ops at PHL and repositioned at DCA, LGA, and even to an extent JFK. The airline has expressed basically no interest in rebuilding it. Shuttering PHL into a TATL focus city op wouldn't even be a doom scenario for the airline -- it would be a right-sizing move.

"AA should focus on the deep south -- where their bread and butter is." Hello? Delta? Southwest? Speaking of...

DL will not abandon their fortress hub in MSP for ORD, either. That is plainly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. DL's investment in ORD is purely aesthetic for their O&D passengers from hub markets. Where would DL stage a hub operation at ORD? AA certainly wouldn't let them use the new terminal they're funding construction of.

In the Twin Cities, Delta is quite literally the airport anchor. Everyone in the northern plains outside of Chicago's sphere utilizes the DL MSP hub. Not to mention, the FF bases that exist in these markets are incredibly lucrative. What they do in DTW is up for discussion, as that hub has seen genuine service reductions -- primarily due to it's proximity to profitable hubs in MSP, LGA, BOS.

Hubs seeing drawdowns in service is purely reflective of the market conditions facing the industry. Like you said -- airlines need to be profitable. Part of profitability is offering service that adequately can serve markets that bring in revenue. Adjusting schedules + frequency is part of that. Until AA/DL start slashing local routes out of these markets, like they've done in PHL and DTW, there is zero reason to group ORD, LAX, or MSP in these discussions. It is absurd and frankly a waste of time for users of this forum.

I never suggested DL draw down MSP in favor of ORD. I suggested they draw down DTW in favor of ORD.

Otherwise, all fair points.

That is nuts! DL has the DTW market to themselves and commands crazy high fare premiums. They wouldn't give that up to compete in Chicago against three other carriers.

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

sz1998 wrote:

TryToFlySomeday wrote:

My two cents:

I'm not one for conspiracy theories (unless I have existing trends to back it up), but I think AA's drawdown is intentional. I suspect (though this is just my opinion) the long-term goal is to get AA down to just the following hubs: DFW/MIA/CLT + one East Coast hub (either PHL or JFK depending on NEA). AA doesn't need to be a big airline (they cannot be everything to everyone), but it does need to be a profitable one.

Question is what would happen to ORD? I don't think ORD is going to be substituted by building another AA hub. AA could concentrate on the Deep South cause that's where their bread and butter is.

Historically speaking, out of the US3, only DL has been building hubs organically [in the past two decades]. JFK was built organically, BOS too. SEA was semi-organic. DTW and MSP were acquired. AA and UA acquired some of their hubs, but for several years haven't built new hubs.

There are two scenarios that could happen in this scenario:

Best case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

DL withdraws from DTW and organically builds a new, bigger and better hub at ORD at T5. MSP would be retained as a reliever hub for ORD (domestic service + Europe and ICN).
For those worried about DTW, it would still see local services from low-cost carriers and overseas services from some international carriers (probably there'd actually be room for expansion of the latter if DL ditched DTW for ORD).

MSP and ORD are far enough apart that they could maintain both as they do with MSP and DTW. ORD and DTW are too close to each other.
DL would take AA's place as #2 in ORD and be a much more formidable competitor to UA's stronghold at ORD than AA has been.

Worst case scenario in an AA withdrawal:

UA monopolizes ORD and prices throughout the Midwest go up exponentially. This one is the more likely scenario. While a UA monopoly would ultimately mean more possibilities of cool flights around the country and the world, it wouldn't matter cause one would have to pay out of their nose for UA flights.

The future of AA:

PHX, AUS, and SEA could remain good focus cities for AA; but I think ORD and LAX have got to go for AA. They need to concentrate on the Deep South + JFK (or PHL in a worse case scenario). Deep South prints money for AA, and isn't that what shareholders want to see?

It's the same with DL at ATL, and UA at ORD/DEN.

Here we go with this genuine idiocy again. It is truly miraculous that people with perspectives like this do not actually work in the route planning and financial hubs of major airlines -- let alone organizations of any kind.

For the umpteenth, ten millionth, seven billionth time. --American Airlines is on the hook for an exorbitant financial contribution to ORD 21. The expansion is being partially built for THEM. They have assisted in the design, funding, and layout of the OGT. They are not -- will not -- and in certain circumstances contractually cannot -- close their ORD hub. Do people understand the corporate contracts that these airlines have in their hub cities? AA has legacy contracts with major Chicago employers valued in the tens of millions of dollars -- each. AA right-sizing their ORD operation does not mean they are closing the hub.

Now saying AA needs to bail on both LAX and ORD? Be serious. This would completely cede those markets to competitors and basically forfeit those general regions. American pulling out of ORD would basically doom any presence they have north of the Mason Dixon, and closing the LAX hub would be equally absurd, do you know how many people live in those regions, respectively? Way more than the Deep South. On a pure metropolitan level, the LA area and Chicago have populations that dwarf Dallas and Charlotte. AA is positioned as a major + global carrier. Pulling out of these strategic regions not only gives up the domestic market, but lucrative international inbound connections that many mid-size metros utilize. I don't envision travelers from Kansas City would enjoy a permanent DFW routing to get to LHR -- they would simply switch to another airline.

I continue to propose this discussion occur with rationality -- the only AA hub that is truly at risk of being shuttered -- is PHL. AA has gutted their domestic ops at PHL and repositioned at DCA, LGA, and even to an extent JFK. The airline has expressed basically no interest in rebuilding it. Shuttering PHL into a TATL focus city op wouldn't even be a doom scenario for the airline -- it would be a right-sizing move.

"AA should focus on the deep south -- where their bread and butter is." Hello? Delta? Southwest? Speaking of...

DL will not abandon their fortress hub in MSP for ORD, either. That is plainly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. DL's investment in ORD is purely aesthetic for their O&D passengers from hub markets. Where would DL stage a hub operation at ORD? AA certainly wouldn't let them use the new terminal they're funding construction of.

In the Twin Cities, Delta is quite literally the airport anchor. Everyone in the northern plains outside of Chicago's sphere utilizes the DL MSP hub. Not to mention, the FF bases that exist in these markets are incredibly lucrative. What they do in DTW is up for discussion, as that hub has seen genuine service reductions -- primarily due to it's proximity to profitable hubs in MSP, LGA, BOS.

Hubs seeing drawdowns in service is purely reflective of the market conditions facing the industry. Like you said -- airlines need to be profitable. Part of profitability is offering service that adequately can serve markets that bring in revenue. Adjusting schedules + frequency is part of that. Until AA/DL start slashing local routes out of these markets, like they've done in PHL and DTW, there is zero reason to group ORD, LAX, or MSP in these discussions. It is absurd and frankly a waste of time for users of this forum.

I never suggested DL draw down MSP in favor of ORD. I suggested they draw down DTW in favor of ORD.

Otherwise, all fair points.

That doesn't make your arguments any better lmao... I love how many airliners.net posters think they know more than the folks at network planning...

BB78710 wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

I flew through T5 last week on QR to DOH. The DL side of the terminal is looking great IMO. Concourse feels a little narrow with all the additional concessions but in general it feels like a much better experience than was in T2.

The TSA line wasn’t an issue for me as I have pre check but that entire passage is still too narrow and dimly lit. Are any airlines directing passengers to use the new smaller TSA checkpoint? Southwest maybe? Any plans to reconfigure the main TSA checkpoint and duty free at all?

The new terminal addition also felt much bigger and spacious as compared to what I saw in photos. I personally like the “Jetsons” jet age architecture design. Also loved the great views of the hard stand from here. There was a LH 748 out there on the day I was there. I’m excited to see how it all turns out when concessions are added. Rest of the terminal is still being renovated so we will see how that all unfolds. Hopefully it ends up looking more like how the DL side does.

I've been a little hesitant to ask this question because DL's new gates at T5 are a huge improvement over what they had at T2.

However my question is this since you've also seen the new addition on T5 do you think Delta would have been better off going with gates in the new addition and letting WN keep the gates they already had. Construction is still taking place in the new addition and I think once complete there will be restaurants and concessions in that area and WN's new gates down there are great with all those windows. Some times when I'm flying Delta out of Chicago and I walk down to the new addition I ask myself why DL choose the low M's instead of the the new addition?

No the DL gates are a much shorter walk from check in than the Southwest gates. And DL has quite a bit of business traffic headed to LGA, MSP, ATL, DTW, etc. It’s a more convenient and quicker experience for business travelers to walk to gates M2-M11 than to the new addition.

Can we all agree AA has shrunk at ORD and will need to re-expand in the future to avoid losing real estate in T3?

I have a hard time understanding why a primely placed mid-west hub at ORD is going underutilized by AA. It's not like ORD is out of the way for cross country connections. It has ample terminal space currently also. Is it even competing in the Chicago market if you're just pumping connecting pax through? Why CANT AA seem to make ORD work for that? Cutting mainline frequencies and destinations dont give all those CRJ/ERJ pax coming into ORD on AE a lot of connecting options. I don't think anyone needs to be in network planning to see this. Or that unravelling one part of your hub (mainline destinations with 1 flight a day) causes the rest to slowly unravel (dropping international routes and cutting regional)

DL is the only carrier in T5 @ORD with dedicated gates. All other carriers are common use. DL has absolutely prime real estate with direct access gates from the Sky Club. Beyond that, every other airline can be shuffled up until the time their inbound flight lands. It's chaotic.

CHI787ORD wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

I flew through T5 last week on QR to DOH. The DL side of the terminal is looking great IMO. Concourse feels a little narrow with all the additional concessions but in general it feels like a much better experience than was in T2.

The TSA line wasn’t an issue for me as I have pre check but that entire passage is still too narrow and dimly lit. Are any airlines directing passengers to use the new smaller TSA checkpoint? Southwest maybe? Any plans to reconfigure the main TSA checkpoint and duty free at all?

The new terminal addition also felt much bigger and spacious as compared to what I saw in photos. I personally like the “Jetsons” jet age architecture design. Also loved the great views of the hard stand from here. There was a LH 748 out there on the day I was there. I’m excited to see how it all turns out when concessions are added. Rest of the terminal is still being renovated so we will see how that all unfolds. Hopefully it ends up looking more like how the DL side does.

I've been a little hesitant to ask this question because DL's new gates at T5 are a huge improvement over what they had at T2.

However my question is this since you've also seen the new addition on T5 do you think Delta would have been better off going with gates in the new addition and letting WN keep the gates they already had. Construction is still taking place in the new addition and I think once complete there will be restaurants and concessions in that area and WN's new gates down there are great with all those windows. Some times when I'm flying Delta out of Chicago and I walk down to the new addition I ask myself why DL choose the low M's instead of the the new addition?

No the DL gates are a much shorter walk from check in than the Southwest gates. And DL has quite a bit of business traffic headed to LGA, MSP, ATL, DTW, etc. It’s a more convenient and quicker experience for business travelers to walk to gates M2-M11 than to the new addition.

And 2022 annual pax #s are out. MDW looks like its back to 91% of its precovid peak, while ORD still has some ground to recoup, coming in at 68.3M last year, or 81% of peak level. Interestingly to me, this would be around 2013/14 levels.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

ORDfan wrote:

And 2022 annual pax #s are out. MDW looks like its back to 91% of its precovid peak, while ORD still has some ground to recoup, coming in at 68.3M last year, or 81% of peak level. Interestingly to me, this would be around 2013/14 levels.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

If Southwest had not had their year end meltdown MDW would have been over 20 million.

Per the UA Network thread, UA is dropping 1 of its 3 daily ORD-LHR flights for the month of July and August due to pax cap limitations imposed at Heathrow. Being discussed here: viewtopic.php?p=23722627#p23722627 starts at #868.

ORDfan wrote:

And 2022 annual pax #s are out. MDW looks like its back to 91% of its precovid peak, while ORD still has some ground to recoup, coming in at 68.3M last year, or 81% of peak level. Interestingly to me, this would be around 2013/14 levels.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Not to continue to beat this topic, but I think it going to be hard for ORD to fully recover when AA's network strategy has shifted away from ORD in favor of DFW and CLT. United can't do it all without sacrificing other hubs in their network and looking at United's S23 scheduled ORD, DEN, EWR, and IAH are almost all evenly matched.

BB78710 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

And 2022 annual pax #s are out. MDW looks like its back to 91% of its precovid peak, while ORD still has some ground to recoup, coming in at 68.3M last year, or 81% of peak level. Interestingly to me, this would be around 2013/14 levels.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Not to continue to beat this topic, but I think it going to be hard for ORD to fully recover when AA's network strategy has shifted away from ORD in favor of DFW and CLT. United can't do it all without sacrificing other hubs in their network and looking at United's S23 scheduled ORD, DEN, EWR, and IAH are almost all evenly matched.

Correct, ORD probably can't recover to what it's capable of with AA not pulling it's weight. UA wants to go to 700+ flights a day at ORD but doesn't have the planes to do it yet.

If AA won't pull it's weight, then in 2 years the city will force them off some real estate as mentioned above, and someone else will get the benefit of ORD at AA's expense. Hard to see AA not expanding at ORD again, what a waste of money they are investing in ORD21 and the new stinger gates if they don't utilize everything under their ownership at ORD now. What's even the point if they don't have bigger plans for ORD?

ILS28ORD wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

ORDfan wrote:

And 2022 annual pax #s are out. MDW looks like its back to 91% of its precovid peak, while ORD still has some ground to recoup, coming in at 68.3M last year, or 81% of peak level. Interestingly to me, this would be around 2013/14 levels.

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

https://www.flychicago.com/SiteCollecti ... UMMARY.pdf

Not to continue to beat this topic, but I think it going to be hard for ORD to fully recover when AA's network strategy has shifted away from ORD in favor of DFW and CLT. United can't do it all without sacrificing other hubs in their network and looking at United's S23 scheduled ORD, DEN, EWR, and IAH are almost all evenly matched.

Correct, ORD probably can't recover to what it's capable of with AA not pulling it's weight. UA wants to go to 700+ flights a day at ORD but doesn't have the planes to do it yet.

If AA won't pull it's weight, then in 2 years the city will force them off some real estate as mentioned above, and someone else will get the benefit of ORD at AA's expense. Hard to see AA not expanding at ORD again, what a waste of money they are investing in ORD21 and the new stinger gates if they don't utilize everything under their ownership at ORD now. What's even the point if they don't have bigger plans for ORD?

AA is fully aware of its position at ORD and what they need to do, as well as a few other carriers.

jcwr56 wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

Not to continue to beat this topic, but I think it going to be hard for ORD to fully recover when AA's network strategy has shifted away from ORD in favor of DFW and CLT. United can't do it all without sacrificing other hubs in their network and looking at United's S23 scheduled ORD, DEN, EWR, and IAH are almost all evenly matched.

Correct, ORD probably can't recover to what it's capable of with AA not pulling it's weight. UA wants to go to 700+ flights a day at ORD but doesn't have the planes to do it yet.

If AA won't pull it's weight, then in 2 years the city will force them off some real estate as mentioned above, and someone else will get the benefit of ORD at AA's expense. Hard to see AA not expanding at ORD again, what a waste of money they are investing in ORD21 and the new stinger gates if they don't utilize everything under their ownership at ORD now. What's even the point if they don't have bigger plans for ORD?

AA is fully aware of its position at ORD and what they need to do, as well as a few other carriers.

This would imply that other carriers besides AA aren’t meeting their gate usage requirements. If true, then can the city really force AA to do anything other than continue status quo? I guess the city could take all the gates not utilized and offer them up to other interested carriers. Who else besides United is interested in expanding their ORD footprint?

kordcj wrote:

jcwr56 wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Correct, ORD probably can't recover to what it's capable of with AA not pulling it's weight. UA wants to go to 700+ flights a day at ORD but doesn't have the planes to do it yet.

If AA won't pull it's weight, then in 2 years the city will force them off some real estate as mentioned above, and someone else will get the benefit of ORD at AA's expense. Hard to see AA not expanding at ORD again, what a waste of money they are investing in ORD21 and the new stinger gates if they don't utilize everything under their ownership at ORD now. What's even the point if they don't have bigger plans for ORD?

AA is fully aware of its position at ORD and what they need to do, as well as a few other carriers.

This would imply that other carriers besides AA aren’t meeting their gate usage requirements. If true, then can the city really force AA to do anything other than continue status quo? I guess the city could take all the gates not utilized and offer them up to other interested carriers. Who else besides United is interested in expanding their ORD footprint?

I also wonder if they are purposely keeping things more manageable with all of the taxiway construction and shortage of pilots. As others have mentioned they won't start counting operations until later in 2024. I'm sure when usage does start counting American, United and other carries alike will increase flights to keep the gates they have. Why bleed money now, when you still safely have the gates. Less flights means less supply and in return higher ticket prices.

I think it’s wild that AAs last wave of the day for ORD arrivals ends around 6:30 pm and departures are out by 8pm and then it’s maybe a dozen flights after that! UA is a bit better with departures ending by 10pm, but after that ORD is dead for the night! Even MDW has a WN push till 11pm! I guess it’s nice for folks around ORD to be able to sleep at night, but as an AA passenger having last best option being around 5pm for a flight shortening the family visits, it sucks.

Today (3/23/2023) is the 60th anniversary of the Dedication of O'Hare International Airport. From the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum:

• Trip to Chicago, Illinois: Dedication of O’Hare International Airport, 11:10AM (Pictures-Scroll down to see all pictures in the slider control)
• Remarks at the dedication of O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, 23 March 1963 (JFK Speech-Audio-Click on Play button)
• Remarks at the dedication of O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, 23 March 1963 (JFK Speech-Transcripts-Scroll down and click on Page 12 and Page 13 in the slider control)

New ORd amenity.

download/file.php?mode=view&id=7055

atrude777 wrote:

United Announces new Archer Route for Chicago Downtown to ORD

Source: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... in-Chicago

Notes: United Airlines and Archer have selected O’Hare International Airport (ORD) to Vertiport Chicago as the next point to point route in which the two companies will utilize Archer’s electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft as part of their urban air mobility (UAM) network buildout

Wild stuff to see, if it ever happens! Best of Luck to Chicago, United and Archer!

Alex

I love this in theory and hope it works, especially if they can scale it to the point of being accessible to us unwashed masses, but I do have some questions about the logistics. Vertiport isn't exactly right in the middle of downtown. An uber there from the loop could still be 20+ minutes in rush hour and it's on the opposite side of the circle interchange. Then the heliport at ORD is over between 190 and T5, which would mean a 5-10 minute shuttle to T1 so how much time is really being saved unless you *really* want to avoid the kennedy or blue line?

elbandgeek wrote:

I love this in theory and hope it works, especially if they can scale it to the point of being accessible to us unwashed masses, but I do have some questions about the logistics. Vertiport isn't exactly right in the middle of downtown. An uber there from the loop could still be 20+ minutes in rush hour and it's on the opposite side of the circle interchange. Then the heliport at ORD is over between 190 and T5, which would mean a 5-10 minute shuttle to T1 so how much time is really being saved unless you *really* want to avoid the kennedy or blue line?

Major reconstruction work began this week on I90 (Kennedy Expy) that is expected to last a couple of years. Driving will be extremely painful and the Blue Line will not seem so bad. BUT, if someone needs to be downtown in a hurry, and the service is dependable and safe and cost is not an issue, then why not?

I would recommend the NCS metra line, but they only offer 6 times during the day.
https://ridertools.metrarail.com/?route ... dules-maps

Stay off the Kennedy.

If on the north side, get up to Devon Ave. all the way to Mannheim. If need be, take Milwaukee Ave to Devon in order to shorten the drive.

Devon is VERY predictable 30 minute drive from Western Ave to Mannheim.

Heck If I were coming from downtown. I'd be tempted to take LSD to Peterson to Western to Devon before getting on the Kennedy.

If UA can offer bag check in at Vertiport that could save some time

SRQLOT wrote:

I think it’s wild that AAs last wave of the day for ORD arrivals ends around 6:30 pm and departures are out by 8pm and then it’s maybe a dozen flights after that! UA is a bit better with departures ending by 10pm, but after that ORD is dead for the night! Even MDW has a WN push till 11pm! I guess it’s nice for folks around ORD to be able to sleep at night, but as an AA passenger having last best option being around 5pm for a flight shortening the family visits, it sucks.

Yeah, it’s disappointing that neither airline seems able to have a 10pm bank again. AA initially had some flights departing around 10 or so scheduled but they seem to have been pulled. Maybe it’s lack of pilots at the regionals since a lot of these flights are to smaller Midwest cities and / or ORD is actively pushing for the earlier departures for noise. I’ve landed at 10-11 pm a couple of times and T1 and T3 were dead. It was a bit strange.

Finnair resumes HEL-ORD flights next Monday 27 March - last flown 28 October last year.
AY9 is showing A359 to start, operating 4 times weekly (X Sun/Wed/Fri).

Small update to UA ORD flying as reported in UAL Fleet '23 thread:

CALTECH wrote:

..."To meet United's increased demand for international travel, United is also upgauging some international routes. Last year, United operated ORD to FCO flight on Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which has 243 seats. United is upgauging that flight this year to the larger Boeing 787-10 aircraft, adding an additional 75 seats to better meet the demand strength."

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480027&start=950
post #953

yeogeo wrote:

Small update to UA ORD flying as reported in UAL Fleet '23 thread:

CALTECH wrote:

..."To meet United's increased demand for international travel, United is also upgauging some international routes. Last year, United operated ORD to FCO flight on Boeing 787-8 aircraft, which has 243 seats. United is upgauging that flight this year to the larger Boeing 787-10 aircraft, adding an additional 75 seats to better meet the demand strength."

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1480027&start=950
post #953

I checked several int'l routes for UA this summer out of ORD, and most of them were with the 78X (GRU, BRU, MUC, FRA, FCO, HND). The 767s remained for LHR and ZUR, but most are on the larger variant including Haneda (this has to be close to its range). AMS, CDG, MIL, TLV, BCN to show as "787." I do miss UA with their largest airplane variant at ORD on many int'l routes. When the 744s went away I thought we'd see the 77W on the Tokyo and Frankfurt routes and maybe summer to LHR.

As being discussed in the UA Network thread, UA is ending service from ORD-SPI/ERI. Being discussed here" viewtopic.php?p=23729739#p23729739 starts at #923

Quick question. I just noticed that Frontier still flies to Atlanta from ORD. The other destinations are the obvious vacation destinations, but Atlanta seems like the odd man out. Why would they still keep it?

EWRandMDW wrote:

elbandgeek wrote:

I love this in theory and hope it works, especially if they can scale it to the point of being accessible to us unwashed masses, but I do have some questions about the logistics. Vertiport isn't exactly right in the middle of downtown. An uber there from the loop could still be 20+ minutes in rush hour and it's on the opposite side of the circle interchange. Then the heliport at ORD is over between 190 and T5, which would mean a 5-10 minute shuttle to T1 so how much time is really being saved unless you *really* want to avoid the kennedy or blue line?

Major reconstruction work began this week on I90 (Kennedy Expy) that is expected to last a couple of years. Driving will be extremely painful and the Blue Line will not seem so bad. BUT, if someone needs to be downtown in a hurry, and the service is dependable and safe and cost is not an issue, then why not?

The proposed service is quick to the Illinois Medical District or whatever that area calls itself now. It’s quick to UIC. It’s quick to the United Center. It’s quick to Manny’s (and to be clear, that’s important to some of us). It’s really not quick to any place with appreciable air travel demand.

JetAwayDrew wrote:

Quick question. I just noticed that Frontier still flies to Atlanta from ORD. The other destinations are the obvious vacation destinations, but Atlanta seems like the odd man out. Why would they still keep it?

I would speculate that F9's one flight in either direction serves to maximize fleet utilization at departure times when the leisure flights aren't likely to operate: the last nonstop of the day to Atlanta from O'Hare (arrives ATL at midnight), and among the first nonstops out in the morning from Atlanta.

It's a bounteous market so perhaps these earliest/latest timings and their cheap fares are enough to pack 'em in.. .. with added utilization as a bonus .

Just a guess.

yeogeo wrote:

JetAwayDrew wrote:

Quick question. I just noticed that Frontier still flies to Atlanta from ORD. The other destinations are the obvious vacation destinations, but Atlanta seems like the odd man out. Why would they still keep it?

I would speculate that F9's one flight in either direction serves to maximize fleet utilization at departure times when the leisure flights aren't likely to operate: the last nonstop of the day to Atlanta from O'Hare (arrives ATL at midnight), and among the first nonstops out in the morning from Atlanta.

It's a bounteous market so perhaps these earliest/latest timings and their cheap fares are enough to pack 'em in.. .. with added utilization as a bonus .

Just a guess.

It also opens up a RON spot at ORD while still allowing a fairly early departure from ORD on its next flight.

In addition it connects ORD to another base.

drdisque wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

JetAwayDrew wrote:

Quick question. I just noticed that Frontier still flies to Atlanta from ORD. The other destinations are the obvious vacation destinations, but Atlanta seems like the odd man out. Why would they still keep it?

I would speculate that F9's one flight in either direction serves to maximize fleet utilization at departure times when the leisure flights aren't likely to operate: the last nonstop of the day to Atlanta from O'Hare (arrives ATL at midnight), and among the first nonstops out in the morning from Atlanta.
It's a bounteous market so perhaps these earliest/latest timings and their cheap fares are enough to pack 'em in.. .. with added utilization as a bonus .
Just a guess.

It also opens up a RON spot at ORD while still allowing a fairly early departure from ORD on its next flight.
In addition it connects ORD to another base.

Looking at the F9 schedules from www.flightera.net this past month (March 2023), it looks like the aircraft used on the early morning ATL-ORD flight (F91574) is nearly always used for the ORD-PUJ (F980) and PUJ-ORD (F981) flights and then the aircraft returns to ATL on the ORD-ATL (F91575) evening flight by the end of day:

• F91574...... ATL-ORD (6:00-07:14)
• F980.......... ORD-PUJ (08:26-14:03)
• F981.......... PUJ-ORD (15:08-19:29)
• F91575 **.. ORD-ATL (20:54-23:59) (**Note: 13 of the 25 flights from 03/01/23 to 03/25/23 show a late departure of an hour or more)

In some instances, F9 uses the same aircraft for a couple of days in a row for this flight pattern and then rotates the aircraft out. Here is the ADS-B Exchange flight data for March 2023 showing this flight pattern (a couple of disruptions to this flight pattern most likely due to late/cancelled flights):

• 03/25/2023 N301FR A320-251N
• 03/24/2023 N301FR A320-251N
• 03/23/2023 N301FR A320-251N
• 03/22/2023 N395FR A320-251N
• 03/21/2023 N395FR A320-251N
• 03/20/2023 N358FR A320-251N
• 03/19/2023 N352FR A320-251N
• 03/18/2023 N352FR A320-251N
• 03/17/2023 N352FR A320-251N
• 03/16/2023 N308FR A320-251N
• 03/15/2023 N308FR A320-251N
• 03/14/2023 N351FR A320-251N
• 03/13/2023 N308FR A320-251N
• 03/12/2023 N308FR A320-251N
• 03/11/2023 N308FR A320-251N
• 03/10/2023 N380FR A320-251N
• 03/09/2023 N381FR A320-251N
• 03/08/2023 N381FR A320-251N
• 03/07/2023 N381FR A320-251N
• 03/06/2023 N332FR A320-251N
• 03/05/2023 N332FR A320-251N
• 03/04/2023 N383FR A320-251N
• 03/03/2023 N383FR A320-251N
• 03/02/2023 N383FR A320-251N (ATL-ORD-PUJ**)
  **Flightera shows the aircraft for F91574 and F980 as N383FR but ADS-B-Exchange does not show this route operating on this day for N383FR.
• 03/02/2023 N342FR A320-251N (PUJ-ORD-ATL)
• 03/01/2023 N383FR A320-251N

bob75013 wrote:

Stay off the Kennedy. If on the north side, get up to Devon Ave. all the way to Mannheim. If need be, take Milwaukee Ave to Devon in order to shorten the drive. Devon is VERY predictable 30 minute drive from Western Ave to Mannheim.
Heck If I were coming from downtown. I'd be tempted to take LSD to Peterson to Western to Devon before getting on the Kennedy.

...and its only just begun: 2 years of construction!
I'm wondering how much this will lead to increased loads at MDW.
Maybe UA/AA will add a flight or two to the south side for the duration.
(said only partly in jest)

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/dr ... -gridlock/

yeogeo wrote:

...and its only just begun: 2 years of construction!
I'm wondering how much this will lead to increased loads at MDW.
Maybe UA/AA will add a flight or two to the south side for the duration.
(said only partly in jest)

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/dr ... -gridlock/

I think people will figure it out fairly quickly. The good thing about Chicago is there are enough arterial streets running North/South and then East/West where the traveling public will have options to avoid 90/94 if they so choose.

I think one of the best things Chicago has going for it during this construction is the fact the city is built on a grid system. For those who know the city they know how to get to O'Hare without having to use that stretch of 90/94 that will be under construction for at least 2 years. One can only hope this project doesn't turn into the nightmare disaster the Jane Byrne Interchanged turned into..... But again we are talking about Chicago when is the last time a construction project was completed on-time and on budget????

BA295 now scheduled as a B777 versus an A380 starting today (3/26/2023). Arrival is also 2 hours earlier (13:15 versus 15:15). Today's flight is G-STBC B777-36N(ER):

BB78710 wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

...and its only just begun: 2 years of construction!
I'm wondering how much this will lead to increased loads at MDW.
Maybe UA/AA will add a flight or two to the south side for the duration.
(said only partly in jest)

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/dr ... -gridlock/

I think people will figure it out fairly quickly. The good thing about Chicago is there are enough arterial streets running North/South and then East/West where the traveling public will have options to avoid 90/94 if they so choose.

I think one of the best things Chicago has going for it during this construction is the fact the city is built on a grid system. For those who know the city they know how to get to O'Hare without having to use that stretch of 90/94 that will be under construction for at least 2 years. One can only hope this project doesn't turn into the nightmare disaster the Jane Byrne Interchanged turned into..... But again we are talking about Chicago when is the last time a construction project was completed on-time and on budget????

Speaking of construction projects completed on-time. Flew into T5 Thursday and the line for the CBP was 1 hr and 50 minutes, mind you this was a Thursday...in MARCH! We came into M36 on Iberia and proceeded thru the new corridors underneath the new expansion. My son actually did distance on his phone from gate to booth and it was a whopping 1/4 mile walk (1267 steps). There are only two moving walkways that are still a good walking distance just to get to and there was another walkway that was either not yet operational or broken, we couldn't tell. On top of that the wheelchair que was over 100 people long. Double lines of wheelchairs with people in them as far as the eye could see and no assistants anywhere to be found to push these people. All passengers whether US or not get fed into the same line. I cannot stress how poorly this is reflecting on the airport. I heard countless times from people standing in line, "I will never fly thru this airport again", "I am going to miss my connection", and my favorite "is this Chicago or some third world country".

I understand that there is a lot of construction going on, but the planning logistics for this are abysmal. The CDA seems to have really dropped the ball on this. They should have kept open the north end of T-5 for Int'l arrivals until the south expansion was fully completed before allowing Delta to move over. The moving walkways and a completed CBP area still seem to be months away and the summer crush is approaching very quickly and ORD is not going to be ready. The other issue at T5 is the ATS. There is just not enough train cars and frequency to handle all the passengers. We waited two trains before finally getting on one because the line extended to the escalators. It seems the city is more concerned with completing the parking garage ($$$) at T5 then then the terminal itself. Just dreadful.

D-ABYU arrived an hour and a half late this afternoon and has since taxied over from T-5 to the Scenic Hold Pad north of 9C-27C. LH have cancelled the return flight this evening... wonder what's up?

This is about the best video I’ve seen documenting the completed portions of T5 (basically only Delta section) and all areas of existing T5 being renovated and retail and concessions to come in expansion. It will not be complete until end of year.

https://youtu.be/Va22hFQzdm4

yeogeo wrote:

D-ABYU arrived an hour and a half late this afternoon and has since taxied over from T-5 to the Scenic Hold Pad north of 9C-27C. LH have cancelled the return flight this evening... wonder what's up?

Strike tomorrow (03/27/2023) in Germany. Per Lufthansa website:
https://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/flight-information#accordion-item-section--1037221624

Lufthansa wrote:

For Monday, March 27, the trade union ver.di has called for a one-day strike at several German airports - this will stop flight operations at Lufthansa.

Sorry to get sentimental on ya this evening but seems MD-11F’s are near their end at O’Hare:
We will soon see the day when FedEx flies out the last of these a/c with a water cannon salute, like we saw the last of Lufty’s MD-11F’s a year or so ago.

“Currently, FedEx Express is operating 54 MD-11s, with 20 grounded, but intends to phase them out of the fleet after reaching a fork in the road.… As we now look at the demand environment, we don’t see that high demand coming through. So, we looked at opportunities to rightsize the fleet.”
https://theloadstar.com/cost-cutting-fe ... -and-777s/

UPS still has MD-11’s flying but from my experience they're not very regular visitors to O’Hare, although with 42 in the fleet they must appear in town from time to time (maybe someone here could confirm they're operating at O'Hare these days).


...and then there’s Western Globals’ birds which regularly hang around O’Hare, like in the photo below, but for how long they'll be around is anyone’s guess.


Any other trijets at O’Hare lately?

The MD/DC a/c have had a long history at O’Hare...
will miss them when gone

se210 wrote:

BA295 now scheduled as a B777 versus an A380 starting today (3/26/2023). Arrival is also 2 hours earlier (13:15 versus 15:15). Today's flight is G-STBC B777-36N(ER):

I have two BA flights booked in April and may. Both on a 380. Sure would be nice if it was 777 with new J seats. Just checked BA site - shoes 380.
Must be one off change.

schernov wrote:

se210 wrote:

BA295 now scheduled as a B777 versus an A380 starting today (3/26/2023). Arrival is also 2 hours earlier (13:15 versus 15:15). Today's flight is G-STBC B777-36N(ER):
I have two BA flights booked in April and may. Both on a 380. Sure would be nice if it was 777 with new J seats. Just checked BA site - shoes 380.
Must be one off change.

BA295 is showing all 777s for the remainder of March and April. Prior to today (3/26/23), BA295 was operating as an A380.
BA297 will be operating mainly as an A380 in March and April with a few flight days as a B787 (e.g. Mar 30, 31, Apr 1, 13). Prior to today (3/26/23), BA297 was operating as an A350.
So basically, starting today (3/26/23), BA295 switched from an A380 to a B777 and BA297 switched from an A350 to an A380/B787.

atlflyer wrote:

This is about the best video I’ve seen documenting the completed portions of T5 (basically only Delta section) and all areas of existing T5 being renovated and retail and concessions to come in expansion. It will not be complete until end of year.

https://youtu.be/Va22hFQzdm4

Thanks for sharing! Great look at T5

More March ORD aircraft swaps. Flightradar24 is showing AF136 switching from an A350 to a B787-9 starting tomorrow (3/28/23). However, just for today (3/27/23), AF136 is operating as a B777-228 (ER) (F-GSPQ).

....P.S. According to ADS-B Exchange, the last time F-GSPQ was at ORD was as AF136 over a year ago on 01/10/2022.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

...and its only just begun: 2 years of construction!
I'm wondering how much this will lead to increased loads at MDW.
Maybe UA/AA will add a flight or two to the south side for the duration.
(said only partly in jest)

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/dr ... -gridlock/

I think people will figure it out fairly quickly. The good thing about Chicago is there are enough arterial streets running North/South and then East/West where the traveling public will have options to avoid 90/94 if they so choose.

I think one of the best things Chicago has going for it during this construction is the fact the city is built on a grid system. For those who know the city they know how to get to O'Hare without having to use that stretch of 90/94 that will be under construction for at least 2 years. One can only hope this project doesn't turn into the nightmare disaster the Jane Byrne Interchanged turned into..... But again we are talking about Chicago when is the last time a construction project was completed on-time and on budget????

Speaking of construction projects completed on-time. Flew into T5 Thursday and the line for the CBP was 1 hr and 50 minutes, mind you this was a Thursday...in MARCH! We came into M36 on Iberia and proceeded thru the new corridors underneath the new expansion. My son actually did distance on his phone from gate to booth and it was a whopping 1/4 mile walk (1267 steps). There are only two moving walkways that are still a good walking distance just to get to and there was another walkway that was either not yet operational or broken, we couldn't tell. On top of that the wheelchair que was over 100 people long. Double lines of wheelchairs with people in them as far as the eye could see and no assistants anywhere to be found to push these people. All passengers whether US or not get fed into the same line. I cannot stress how poorly this is reflecting on the airport. I heard countless times from people standing in line, "I will never fly thru this airport again", "I am going to miss my connection", and my favorite "is this Chicago or some third world country".

I understand that there is a lot of construction going on, but the planning logistics for this are abysmal. The CDA seems to have really dropped the ball on this. They should have kept open the north end of T-5 for Int'l arrivals until the south expansion was fully completed before allowing Delta to move over. The moving walkways and a completed CBP area still seem to be months away and the summer crush is approaching very quickly and ORD is not going to be ready. The other issue at T5 is the ATS. There is just not enough train cars and frequency to handle all the passengers. We waited two trains before finally getting on one because the line extended to the escalators. It seems the city is more concerned with completing the parking garage ($$$) at T5 then then the terminal itself. Just dreadful.

I arrived from DOH at 4PM last week and I concur, immigration is a total mess. I have global entry so for me personally it was a breeze but the line for everyone else lasted over an hour. It’s really a horrible way to land into the US after a 15 hour flight. It looked like the new immigration booths are coming along so hopefully that new section opens up soon. But still, even after all the new immigration booths will there still be enough capacity at T5 to avoid these lines from getting too long? I’m worried this is going to be a permanent feature at T5.