United Airlines Flexes In Chicago As American Tries To Block Gate Expansion
United Airlines has fired back at American Airlines in a new memo from company President Brett Hart, defending its right to expand at Chicago O’Hare and accusing American of years of neglect in the Windy City.
At the center of the dispute is a proposed gate reallocation at O’Hare International Airport (ORD), which would award United up to six additional gates this autumn. The plan, overseen by the Chicago Department of Aviation, is based on gate usage metrics spelled out in the airport’s 2018 Use and Lease Agreement. Put simply: fly more, get more gates. That formula favors United, whose growing fleet and aggressive network expansion have translated into more seats and more departures at ORD.
> Read More: United Airlines Is Leaving American Airlines In The Dust At Chicago O’Hare
American Airlines, unsurprisingly, is not thrilled. It has filed a lawsuit to block the reallocation process, a move that United blasted as a meritless attempt to stall progress and protect Americans’ underused real estate. In Hart’s memo to employees, reviewed by Live And Let’s Fly, he did not hold back in his attack against the lawsuit filed by American Airlines:
“We unequivocally reject American’s efforts to block the City’s process. We plan to take steps to protect our interests and utilize these new gates to benefit our customers.”
He’s got a point. United currently operates 52% of O’Hare’s departures but only has 48% of the gates. American, by contrast, has occupied 41% of the gates while flying just 37% of the departures (based on final 2024 numbers). And while United has hired more than 2,000 local employees in recent years (with plans to add 5,400 more by 2027), American has increasingly focused on its strongholds in Dallas (DFW) and Charlotte (CLT), where it has further solidified its fortress hubs.
There’s also a broader industry trend at play here. As legacy carriers concentrate growth in fortress hubs, competitive airports like O’Hare risk stagnating. Hart warns that ORD is falling behind, not just in gates and destinations, but in aircraft size, daily departures, and overall network strength. Meanwhile, DFW and CLT continue to climb the ranks thanks in large part to American’s investment outside of Chicago.
CONCLUSION
In tone and substance, the memo is part internal morale boost, part external warning shot. United is making it clear: it’s not going to sit by while American sues to keep gates it’s underutilizing.
The stakes are high, not just for United and American, but for the competitive future of one of the nation’s busiest airports. With new international routes from Chicago already underway, United is betting big on its hometown…and it wants the real estate to match. Now AA is playing catch-up with new routes introduced this year, but it is too little, too late?
What remains to be seen is how this fight plays out in court…and whether Chicago will reward growth or protect legacy entitlements. Who will better utilize the six new gates? Chicago seems to think the answer is United, but can American convince a court otherwise or force a settlement that will more evenly distribute the new gates?
It’s sort-of like a kid who was given a choice between $500 or 5 large candy bars and the toddler chooses the candy bars. After eating the candy, the kid now wants the $500 to buy a PS5.
AA made their decision and haven’t focused on ORD regardless of what UA has done. AA have ORD more for a domestic midwest hub this entire time. If they can’t expand to international destinations by themselves, then they should try to move all OW carriers’ departures to T3 (AS, CX, QR, RJ, and fully have AY at T3) and increase ticketing capacities to funnel passengers to their OW partners.
AA has made a lot of bad strategic choices but they have every right to have the courts review the gate allocation process if they believe there are factors that have not been considered that hinder a fair decision.
It doesn’t matter if AA or UA are getting a higher flight/gate usage ratio. The question is simply whether AA was required to use its gates more to avoid losing them.
Let’s also remember that the City of Dallas and Southwest were convinced that DL had no right to access to Love Field after Southwest acquired the two ex-United gates, DL sued first in district court, won, the case went to the appeals court as well as with the FAA, and DL now has its own gate at Love Field.
Airports and airlines play favorites which is why there is a system of checks and balances.
Let AA use that process and we’ll see how it turns out.
Worth mentioning that DL does not have one of the UA gates at DAL. They sued over access to Love Field and the UA space being taken away but it’s worth mentioning that WN still got the two UA gates at DAL over Delta. Delta has one of the former Virgin/AS gates after a settlement with the city since Alaska wasn’t using one of their gates (at the time), not a final win in the courts.
It’s not really the same as the ORD issue. Also, why does DL and Love Field need to be mentioned on a thread about AA/UA at ORD? Delta does not always need to be in the conversation.
We can all interpret a case the way we THINK a case should be interpreted but a contract is a legal document and there is a whole industry of specialized people that will decided the merits of AA’s case.
I am not saying whether I think AA or UA or the City of Chicago will win the case. I am simply saying that AA does have the right to have its arguments heard in court.
And the commonality with the DL/Love Field case is that DL was going up against the City of Dallas and WN. DL was the underdog and won; that MIGHT be the case with AA and the City of Chicago.
DL doesn’t care which gate it ended up w/ – and it actually cost the City more for DL to gain the right to use a different gate; the City paid for the conversion of the ex-AS gate.
I’m honestly tired of the random ways you find to bring up delta on things that aren’t even related — Delta did not win their court case. They settled. Though it was more about the city of Dallas that settled since AS didn’t need their second gate and the city found a way to let Delta stay that also let Southwest WIN (they kept the two UA gates they purchased).
There’s a lot that could be said about DL getting an AA gate designed for an LCC/ULCC when DL was denied that already. Delta did not get what they wanted and DL can’t even do a shred of what they told DOT they would with a Love Field Gate. They could now but have limited ATL service because Delta couldn’t sustain LGA or LAX service to Love Field.
” and it actually cost the City more for DL to gain the right to use a different gate”
But give me a break. the City of Dallas doesn’t give two Sh*ts about Delta. Delta can’t even reliably start a service to Love Field without cancelling it. And the city of Dallas isn’t the corrupt city of Atlanta that Delta is used to abusing to their own ends. Good for the city of Dallas for winning on the merits of the UA lease cancellation while still not letting any federal case law stand for Delta.
When Delta can sustain service from LGA or LAX to Love Field after published service, come back and talk to us.
Only you could confuse a federal case with a city contract case to turn it into a comment thread about Delta on an ORD UA/AA article. What a troll…
The Love Field issue was about whether a carrier can be forced, under federal laws, to vacate an airport when their gate lease runs out from their carrier they lease it from: UA (after Delta didn’t win the AA gates they had leased). It was a federal issue.
The AA/UA case is about usage and whether a contract signed with the city is being correctly interpreted. It’s not a federal issue and not similar to the DL and Love Field federal case.
This is why every hates your banter. What does delta have to do with anything?
because it involves an airline suing the city. and won.
If it goes over your head, just move on.
No. You just troll. I’m good.
You need to read, Tim.
Southwest has the two United Love Field gates they “purchased” from United. Delta has none of those two. Delta also lost access to the two AA gates they used to use. The city of Dallas found a settlement that AS was amenable to. It was not a win in court by DL aside from the fact that DL wanted to keep service to DAL and did. But let’s also not forget DL’s miserable performance in DAL since… LAX and LGA barely started… if they even did.
Delta is now using one of the two AA gates AS won only because the city of Dallas found a settlement. Delta did not win. The city found a settlement that worked for all parties but Southwest won and Delta got a gate. Delta was not victorious in court.
Your reality is not of this world. Nor is your ability to stay on topic. The DL case was a federal issue. the AA/UA ORD stuff is a city contract dispute.
American today gives off the vibe of a 50-year-old who never did anything to improve his life and still works the same dead-end job as he did when he was 20 while all his friends moved on to better things, and he looks literally anywhere but himself to assign blame.
American came out from the US Airways merger in a better spot than United and many predicted that it was them who were going to catch up to Delta, leaving United, that was a hot mess at the time, in the dust. Legacy AA had just introduced a hard product that was even more upscale than Delta from the the 777-300ER to the new A319s and A321Ts. They had the best facility at JFK for decades while DL cobbled together T2 and T3 until they were able to make T4 into something functional. And in Chicago, United under Smisek was ceding even major domestic markets like ORD-DFW by putting them on CRJs. Even going into Covid, United was in a far more vulnerable position to them with their strong TPAC exposure and an under-invested domestic network. And somehow AA’s management team saw all this and consistently decided ” let’s hand our competitors all of these advantages, only invest in DFW/CLT and sunbelt/RJ flying, and turn our product into Spirit at UA/DL prices”.
And now that they’ve woken up and realized they don’t like where they are, they are going on a lawsuit tour to sue their competitors for the great injustice of competing and winning against them instead of focusing on how they can move forward to fix their own product and network.
UAL chart does not show how many domestic destinations UAL and AAL served from ORD. Does someone has the figure?
I guessed UAL operated flights from ORD using more mainline planes and scheduled more frequency. Thus AA lost ORD departed passengers market share.
I’m certain UA would certainly manipulate the numbers to suit its narrative.
As I understand it, American thought the “clock” had not yet started ticking the 2018 agreement with United and the city because (per Gary Leff) the “Gate‑Space Ramp‑up Period” had not concluded until the opening of the new L-Stringer gates in mid-March 2025. I wonder if American had intended to increase its traffic at ORD just before it thought the city would have the right to reassess “preferential” allocation of gates and things kept getting pushed back because of aircraft delivery delays. American may be right about the city reallocating too soon, but I question how American could not see a risk to delaying investment in ORD until these recent 787-9 (78J) deliveries. American seems to get so much wrong these days and perhaps this is all poor contingency planning–or just failure to plan at all.
This is a very good point – and I appreciated Gary’s take on this issue as well.
It’s not like AA can say they were investing in their current aircraft! Haha. We just flew on an old US Airways A320. There were still “channel” and “volume” buttons for the non-existent IFE post-Project Oasis. My 5 year old asked why they were still there and I said (like Bluey’s father), “It all started with a fairy tale called ‘Project Oasis’ and an evil wizard named Doug Parker.” I still can’t get over how Scott Kirby went from spreadsheet man to the guy who retrofitted new 737-MAX9 aircraft to install IFE that was intentionally omitted ~4 years earlier when UA took delivery. Kirby went from villain to vanquishing hero.
Scott Kirby’s playbook is clear. This is what he said he would have done had he had his chance at American (post US merger), “ We’re going to sort of the same playbook. We’re going to do all this stuff. We’re going to push United out of the Transcon market, then we’re going to push them out of Los Angeles, and we’re going to push them out of Chicago. I said that on December 9, 2013.” – JP Morgan Industrial Conference, March 2025.
He’s clearly executing the same playbook now as United CEO. He’s trying to push American out of ORD. That may be a great strategy for United shareholders, but is anti-competitive and will drive up fares for all of us who fly in and out of ORD. A two airline hub is better for all of us.
Meanwhile, he has significantly devalued the United MileagePlus program, which also hurts consumers. And now he is planning to merge with B6, which will again reduce choice for the flying public.
Fascinating quote, Nick. Thanks.