United Airlines and American Airlines continue to battle fiercely over gates at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), with both carriers vying for growth in one of the world’s busiest aviation hubs. While the details matter, the good news is that consumers will ultimately benefit no matter who wins the war.
The Ongoing Gate Battle Between United And American At Chicago O’Hare: Where Do Things Stand?
This gate battle between Chicago’s two largest carriers is escalating and currently sits in a complex state:
- United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby recently mocked American Airlines in leaked internal slides (leaked by JonNYC), pointing out American’s comparatively weaker operational performance at ORD and claiming that American often cancels more flights there than its competitors.
- American Airlines previously filed a federal lawsuit accusing the city of Chicago of improperly favoring United Airlines when distributing gates at O’Hare, arguing that this preferential treatment undermined competition.
- American has now dropped its federal lawsuit, choosing instead to escalate its legal challenge in local Illinois courts, potentially hoping to leverage more favorable local political sentiment.
- At issue are gate allocations after an expansion in Terminal 3.
- Chicago city officials have allocated some of these highly coveted gates to United Airlines, which American alleges unfairly restricts its growth, limits consumer choice, and violates contractual agreements.
In short, United aims to expand its already substantial hub at ORD, and American seeks to maintain (and ideally grow) its market share.
My Take: Competition Is Healthy—Consumers Ultimately Win
I’ve previously expressed my views clearly on this topic. You can revisit my thoughts here: United And American Battle For Gates At Chicago O’Hare.
While View From The Wing really gets into the weeds on the legal matters at play, I’ll take a broader look at this matter.
Of course, robust competition is crucial: vigorous competition between airlines benefits travelers. Increased competition means:
- More flights
- Better prices
- Enhanced schedules
- Additional destinations
I also anticipate American Airlines will prevail eventually in clawing a gate or two back. But let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture that consumers are ultimately going to win no matter what happens.
United Airlines expanding its presence at O’Hare is hardly detrimental to consumers; more routes and more destinations serve travelers’ interests. If American expands its footprint at ORD, travelers similarly win. Ideally, gate allocation should fairly reflect each airline’s historical presence, current operations, and future commitments…but that’s ultimately not my concern.
Instead, my concern is simply the expansion of flight options at ORD. Even if United continues to build its lead over American and the City of Chicago is helping United’s cause in a desperate bid to keep corporate headquarters in Chicago rather than moving to Denver, I love how United has grown…that benefits conusmers regardless of what American Airlines does.
This gate fight underscores the need for Chicago officials to transparently demonstrate that gate allocations are not politically or arbitrarily driven. United Airlines should have every right to maximize its ORD operations, just as American Airlines should be entitled to a fair share of gates and the competitive opportunities they provide. I am not siding with United here…
But while a resolution that favors transparent and equitable competition is the best outcome, I’m thankful that any outcome will support consumers because more gates will mean more flights and with the two carriers at war, both are actively growing in the Windy City. Don’t lose sight of that.
CONCLUSION
The battle over gates at Chicago O’Hare between United Airlines and American Airlines remains heated. While American Airlines continues its legal fight in Illinois courts after dropping federal litigation, my focus is on consumer benefits. Both United and American can and should have ample opportunity to grow in Chicago, because in the end, it’s the traveling public who benefits most from healthy airline competition. The very fight itself, regardless of what happens, is pushing both AA and UA to add more flights on larger aircraft from Chicago. Consumers will win either way this battle ends. In some sense, I want it to drag on so that both carriers will continue to invest in ORD…
More gates to UAL may also increase prices for the consumer in Chicago as they will have less choice in airlines for a given nonstop route
AA reduced their daily flights at ORD during covid and never fully recovered. They have been underutilizing their gates for years. Only now are they inching back up to their pre covid departure numbers. This is why they are losing gates, not because the city is favoring United. And its not really gates, its square footage… there’s some complicated formula.
If AA follows through with their commitment to add these flights, they will probably win back their gates at the expense of other airlines that are underutilizing their’s (southwest).
Common use doesn’t work for hub scheduling. What would work is use it or lose it gate provision stipulating minimum flights operated (vs scheduled) per gate.
“Gates hoarding” reduces choice for travellers, especially those residing in Chicago. LCC or ULCC carriers need access to gates to start new routes.
AA lost so many gates because they flew 350 flights/day in the peak summer last year. AA’s daily flights were down tremendously vs pre-covid. Instead of sitting on gates, blocking them from use from other airlines to drive more competition like AA has done, UA has over utilized their gate frontage. More flight and more seats its best for customers – and AA has been incredibly anti-competitive on that front. I am shocked at how disingenuous this take is Matthew. I recommend you ready Cranky’s articles on this topic, you clearly are missing information. You should never advocate for an anti-competitive airline.
I’m only advocating for more flights.
And to be clear, I am not defending AA’s conduct. Instead, I’m only saying contractually they exercised their rights to sit on their gates. I’m glad it cannot do this any longer…but contractually, they should be given time to cure their issue…and if they are willing to ramp up flights now, then I’m quite happy to see them ramp back up to pre-COVID levels. It’s good for consumers and forces United to keep upping its game.
Why can’t the city just make the gates common use?
I don’t care about any of you and how you might benefit from this. This is my airport and I’m 1K and ExP. I want both of them to start kissing my ass heavily to gain my patronage. I see no ass-kissing right now, so I’m going with whoever didn’t piss me off lately. Right now, that’s AA, and they just got me on a loaded flight on standby. So they get my money for now. UA needs to up their game. I want more than bagtags.
Hahahahahaha deadass. Open your purse Kirby!
Chicago has plenty of competition with Midway airport also. 3 airlines with hubs is over kill. A strong and growing United with new destinations and more frequency is what Chicago wins with. United has been Chicago’s airline for over 90 years. That is not the case with American
United, a hometown airline with a long history at ORD and a HUGE economic benefactor in terms of salaries, taxes, knock-off benefits. AA, a mediocre carrier that shrank its ORD presence voluntarily to build PHL and CLT and DFW… hard to boo-hoo for AA on this one.