I personally think it would be great. AA doesn’t need ORD and Chicago deserves more.

i imagine it's a profitable operation, if not i could see your point.

Easy, it'll allow UA and WN to significantly increase fares originating or terminating in Chicago. Terrible for the customer and great for UA and WN.

Just don't see it. While I agree that AA has divested at ORD in recent years, they still have over 500 flights a day. That's a significant amount. They have streamlined operations to meet the ever-changing demand. Doug Parker has paid very little attention to Chicago and it shows. He believes that there is very little case for expansion and thus they have maintained the status quo with most adjustments being made to Int'l ops. Domestically, they are still very strong out of ORD. Leaving ORD would leave a gaping hole in their network.

It would allow UA and WN to exploit the lack of additional competition to artificially raise prices well beyond current levels, they likely wouldn't raise schedules too much. AA would loss many customers who use ORD as O&D as a connection point. It make OW connections harder and would likely see the withdrawal of international services from OW carriers as they usually need the feed from AA. It would be a big loss for the Chicago Area.

So who exactly would come swooping in and create a mega hub, with the supposed deserving multiple long haul flights to far flung exotic destinations? And give UA this fight you keep clamoring for? DL, with MSP and DTW down the road? Nope.

ORD would probably have a much greater level of Int'l service from UA than it currently does with AA to compete with. While great for the customer, the reality is that having two mega carriers dilutes yields and basically splits any route into two and results in an almost inevitable tit for tat situation where neither can afford to get behind. I know it's a very unpopular opinion, but I too think that ORD is worse off with UA and AA than if it was just UA. Some routes that would work if it was just UA (or just AA) cannot be realistically sustained because at least some (up to half) of the potential customer base is almost always lost to the competition (AA) which simply doesn't happen at ATL, DFW, or IAH where the US3 have more liberty to try new routes without having to always factor in a loss to another equally dominant airline from the start. ORD is a great example of a double edged sword-the customer typically benefits from competition, but loses when both carriers are either deadlocked or have an informal gentleman's agreement to not outdo the other (neither renovates the terminal, neither lowers prices, neither expands the network).

TLDR: Having two mega carriers at ORD can either make the experience twice as good or twice as bad than it would be with just one mega carrier. Ultimately, it's up to UA and AA to decide whether they will compete against each other or collude against the customer. If it's the former, the consumer wins big time. If it's the latter, it's even worse for the consumer than a monopoly because the duopoly at ORD acts like two mega monopolies that limit choice even further than at ATL or DFW.

JBusworth wrote:

It would allow UA and WN to exploit the lack of additional competition to artificially raise prices well beyond current levels,

It'd be no different than allowing UA and WN to exploit Houston and Denver, AA and WN exploiting Dallas or to some extent DL and WN exploiting Atlanta. Not to mention the outright near-monopoly controlled markets like CLT, DTW, MSP and SLC. Chicago area travelers would do just fine if the hypothetical would occur because UA, plus every LCC, and ULCC would definitely fill the void.

nomorerjs wrote:

I personally think it would be great. AA doesn’t need ORD and Chicago deserves more.

I'm a UA/Star guy (hometown airline and all that), but I've never had a bad experience with AA when I've used them. Flew overseas with AA for the first time this year in J to LHR and weirdly enough caught many of the same Chicago-based crew both ends - they could not have been nicer, and the 787 was perfect.

Sure T3 could use a little updating, but that's coming. In the mornings, when it's clean, I think it's fine...even borderline retro-cool if the nostalgia hits just right. I'd miss AA if they left Chicago, and I'm not sure what you mean by Chicago deserve more? They are #2 in my book of majors ahead of DL, any day.

Btw, this is a topic of conversation aptly-suited for the Chicago thread.....

viewtopic.php?t=1374447&start=100

How on Earth would turning Chicago into a monopoly be good?

Without AA then UA would fill that gap overnight. They would cut routes/frequencies out of IAD/IAH/LAX to create a mega hub out of ORD. UA has more than 500 flights a day at ORD currently? Theoretically depending on AA’s withdrawal reason (bankruptcy vs insanity of giving up a key market) then UA can create a challenge to DFW.

Yes of course IAH is down the road but it’s geographical location/busIness community/tourism draw is much smaller than ORD.

Of course AS or DL would fight UA for the space, but UA would be better suited to take over a larger portion of the business traffic. Whoever takes that part of the traffic would probably expand 100-200 flights a day. F9 and NK are already cozy in ORD, so both would probably get an extra 25-75 flights a day. That would leave UA at the low end of a net gain of 150 flights a day...or on a high end of 350. Either way, UA would love this.

nomorerjs wrote:

I personally think it would be great. AA doesn’t need ORD and Chicago deserves more.

A) AA DOES need chicago. They can’t have their Midwest hubs be Dallas and Charlotte. Look at all the Eagle cities flown only or almost entirely out of ORD.
Also, what are you trying to say, Chicago deserves more? People like both carriers. Just because they’re not your favorite doesn’t mean that they are bad for your city.

I've often thought about just this scenario. I agree UA would probably fill the gap by creating a mega/world hub with increased frequency, upgauging routes and adding international destinations. This would then rival DFW and ATL in terms of a one carrier hub, although ORD already rivals them, just as a dual hub currently. AA has basically no year round intl routes except LHR and have decreased intl capacity on the routes it does serve down from 777s to 787s across the board. I like AA more than UA and wish they would re-emphasize ORD as a global hub, not just domestic with the majority being Eagle flights. Not to mention, correct me if I'm wrong, dropping mainline to MSY soon. Just one more destination downgraded.

If AA was leaving ORD I bet Delta would move in.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

ORD would probably have a much greater level of Int'l service from UA than it currently does with AA to compete with. While great for the customer, the reality is that having two mega carriers dilutes yields and basically splits any route into two and results in an almost inevitable tit for tat situation where neither can afford to get behind. I know it's a very unpopular opinion, but I too think that ORD is worse off with UA and AA than if it was just UA. Some routes that would work if it was just UA (or just AA) cannot be realistically sustained because at least some (up to half) of the potential customer base is almost always lost to the competition (AA) which simply doesn't happen at ATL, DFW, or IAH where the US3 have more liberty to try new routes without having to always factor in a loss to another equally dominant airline from the start. ORD is a great example of a double edged sword-the customer typically benefits from competition, but loses when both carriers are either deadlocked or have an informal gentleman's agreement to not outdo the other (neither renovates the terminal, neither lowers prices, neither expands the network).

I couldn't agree more. I also think UA would have the opportunity to grow quite a bit at ORD and would be able to offer a lot more international destinations than they offer now. They can add more frequency into secondary cities and they could upgrade many cities to mainline. Of course, none of this could be done without more aircraft and UA doesn't have any to spare except for a bunch of retired 744s.

But I do think costs would go up even with LCCs filling some of the void. I could see DL adding some more point to point routes also, they seem to have the ability to make those work.

I would welcome JetBlue or Alaska to come in to pick up the slack left by AA

To me, it's interesting that UA pointed out many of AA's network advantages (esp from a domestic perspective) at their 2016 UA Investor Day. Obviously, it helps that the new President had come from AA, but speaking from UA's point-of-view, they mentioned how AA was serving a lot of unique markets from ORD like Rochester, MN that UA was not - and how despite the fact that AA's INTL ORD operation was smaller than UA's, AA had traditionally profited heavily in the domestic space vs. UA in the INTL space. And, that it was connecting traffic - not just point-to-point - that could provide the highest overall revenue contribution to the network.

I'm mincing a lot of the specific verbiage and obviously, this is a very holistic statement, but I think those takeaways are indicators that the AA Hub at ORD is NOT a marginal hub by any means.

I’ve often wondered this very same thing. UA would love this as they would finally have a hub that they can completely dominate the way DL does ATL. They are the only carrier of the big 3 who doesn’t have a hub with 700+ flights a day. This scenario would probably put ORD in the top 3 of busiest passenger airports. All that said, this would be bad for the Chicagoland air traveler. AA keeps UA in check on fares, which I wholeheartedly take advantage of. But there is WN at MDW to keep them semi-honest. If AA were to leave, could any airline utilize their current fleet to fill that void?

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

ORD would probably have a much greater level of Int'l service from UA than it currently does with AA to compete with. While great for the customer, the reality is that having two mega carriers dilutes yields and basically splits any route into two and results in an almost inevitable tit for tat situation where neither can afford to get behind. I know it's a very unpopular opinion, but I too think that ORD is worse off with UA and AA than if it was just UA.

That's not an "unpopular opinion," it's just plain ignorance of how market competition works.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

Some routes that would work if it was just UA (or just AA) cannot be realistically sustained because at least some (up to half) of the potential customer base is almost always lost to the competition

Name one.

Neither AA nor UA have an obligation to serve a route just because the other does. Businesses will often choose to forgo a market that a competitor entered first if will not sustain two participants. AA didn't launch LAX-SIN just because UA did.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

ORD is a great example of a double edged sword-the customer typically benefits from competition, but loses when both carriers are either deadlocked or have an informal gentleman's agreement to not outdo the other (neither renovates the terminal, neither lowers prices, neither expands the network).

Competition is not a double-edged sword. It's a relentless treadmill that makes everyone healthier.

IrishAyes wrote:

To me, it's interesting that UA pointed out many of AA's network advantages (esp from a domestic perspective) at their 2016 UA Investor Day. Obviously, it helps that the new President had come from AA, but speaking from UA's point-of-view, they mentioned how AA was serving a lot of unique markets from ORD like Rochester, MN that UA was not - and how despite the fact that AA's INTL ORD operation was smaller than UA's, AA had traditionally profited heavily in the domestic space vs. UA in the INTL space. And, that it was connecting traffic - not just point-to-point - that could provide the highest overall revenue contribution to the network.

I'm mincing a lot of the specific verbiage and obviously, this is a very holistic statement, but I think those takeaways are indicators that the AA Hub at ORD is NOT a marginal hub by any means.

I agree, though as I pointed out in the DFW-KEF thread a moment or two ago, it *looks* like a withdrawal when you see 738s lined up in place of 763s along K and places like AMS and KEF added at DFW that a few years ago would have most assuredly been ORD additions. Granted, Kirby knows things we don't, but I seem to recall that AA had trouble making ORD work in the interval between their F100 retirements and the E170 deliveries, leaving a massive gap between the ERJ145 and MD-80. They've shored up ORD as a regional and E-W connecting hub, though at the expense of long haul.

kordcj wrote:

If AA were to leave, could any airline utilize their current fleet to fill that void?

It's a fair question. I think yes, because a lot of the connecting flows that DL carries through DTW and MSP directly compete with what AA does at ORD. Whether WN, B6, NK, AS or anyone else could take over the regional flying into secondary and tertiary markets is up for discussion.

Amidst all this talk, let's not forget though that AA has added gates at ORD in the past few years.

jetblastdubai wrote:

JBusworth wrote:

It would allow UA and WN to exploit the lack of additional competition to artificially raise prices well beyond current levels,

It'd be no different than allowing UA and WN to exploit Houston and Denver, AA and WN exploiting Dallas or to some extent DL and WN exploiting Atlanta. Not to mention the outright near-monopoly controlled markets like CLT, DTW, MSP and SLC. Chicago area travelers would do just fine if the hypothetical would occur because UA, plus every LCC, and ULCC would definitely fill the void.

As crazy as it seems at first, I actually think you're probably right. If AA weren't at ORD anymore, then ORD would probably look a lot more like SFO. Sure, UA is #1 at SFO and has no other legacy hub competition, but that doesn't mean UA doesn't face competition on nearly every route out of SFO. DL and AA have sizable operations there, and AS/VX is nothing to sneeze at either. There's no one, singular, full-service alternative to UA at SFO, but there are still options on most routes. Similarly, I think ORD is too big of a market for for any airline to let another airline have a complete monopoly there. If AA ever significantly downsized ORD, then I think they would still keep some sort of sizable presence there (think AA at JFK), and DL and all the others would probably step up service to hubs and focus cities too.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Just don't see it. While I agree that AA has divested at ORD in recent years, they still have over 500 flights a day. That's a significant amount. They have streamlined operations to meet the ever-changing demand. Doug Parker has paid very little attention to Chicago and it shows. He believes that there is very little case for expansion and thus they have maintained the status quo with most adjustments being made to Int'l ops. Domestically, they are still very strong out of ORD. Leaving ORD would leave a gaping hole in their network.

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

AA has a huge domestic presence in ORD. It's true that in the winter its intl' flights are down to LHR,PEK,PVG,NRT,MBJ,PUJ,CUN,SJU,SJD,PVR.
In the Summer however they do add CDG,DUB,MAN,BCN,VCE,FCO. All things considered that is not bad at all, especially how the intl' market at ORD heats up in the Summer.
There is also a rumor they are seriously considering flying ORD-WAW/KRK direct. Honestly might be a stretch especially at ORD with LO/UA but with AB now gone it might work in the summer. I myself have used my AA miles to fly ORD-TXL-KRK.

I think the point that American doesn't compete well at ORD is not true domestically. They offer an effective network against UA. Unfortunately as many have noted, where they lack is international, the fact that they ignore Germany one of the largest economies and won't compete against LH/UA is as many noted not the vision Parker talked about prior to the merger.

The investments in the Flagship Lounge and Admirals Club make flying American vs United a tough call except for the fact that I just dont want to transfer through LHR. At this point American has gone all 787 and unfortunately, they have chosen to focus only on tourist locations in summer instead of year round flights to places like FRA, MUC, CDG, AMS, ZRH where they could actually compete for business travelers with in my view a great hard product in business class.

blink182 wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

To me, it's interesting that UA pointed out many of AA's network advantages (esp from a domestic perspective) at their 2016 UA Investor Day. Obviously, it helps that the new President had come from AA, but speaking from UA's point-of-view, they mentioned how AA was serving a lot of unique markets from ORD like Rochester, MN that UA was not - and how despite the fact that AA's INTL ORD operation was smaller than UA's, AA had traditionally profited heavily in the domestic space vs. UA in the INTL space. And, that it was connecting traffic - not just point-to-point - that could provide the highest overall revenue contribution to the network.

I'm mincing a lot of the specific verbiage and obviously, this is a very holistic statement, but I think those takeaways are indicators that the AA Hub at ORD is NOT a marginal hub by any means.

I agree, though as I pointed out in the DFW-KEF thread a moment or two ago, it *looks* like a withdrawal when you see 738s lined up in place of 763s along K and places like AMS and KEF added at DFW that a few years ago would have most assuredly been ORD additions. Granted, Kirby knows things we don't, but I seem to recall that AA had trouble making ORD work in the interval between their F100 retirements and the E170 deliveries, leaving a massive gap between the ERJ145 and MD-80. They've shored up ORD as a regional and E-W connecting hub, though at the expense of long haul.

kordcj wrote:

If AA were to leave, could any airline utilize their current fleet to fill that void?

It's a fair question. I think yes, because a lot of the connecting flows that DL carries through DTW and MSP directly compete with what AA does at ORD. Whether WN, B6, NK, AS or anyone else could take over the regional flying into secondary and tertiary markets is up for discussion.

Amidst all this talk, let's not forget though that AA has added gates at ORD in the past few years.

Those added gates are a total of 5 and strictly for more regional jets. AA says they're for E175 but they've cut back E175 service at ORD, although they're adding some back. That still isn't mainline however. These gates would be more impactful if they were mainline. This shows the type of investment AA is making at ORD, regional only.

ckfred wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Just don't see it. While I agree that AA has divested at ORD in recent years, they still have over 500 flights a day. That's a significant amount. They have streamlined operations to meet the ever-changing demand. Doug Parker has paid very little attention to Chicago and it shows. He believes that there is very little case for expansion and thus they have maintained the status quo with most adjustments being made to Int'l ops. Domestically, they are still very strong out of ORD. Leaving ORD would leave a gaping hole in their network.

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

I too remember reading Parker saying those things. To this point, it appears he was lying as they have done the opposite of expand, other than regional. And moved or cancelled intl routes in favor of other hubs. They have upgauged some routes, but the overall number of mainline destinations appears to have shrunk in the past few years.

dc10lover wrote:

If AA was leaving ORD I bet Delta would move in.

I wouldn't be sure about that. Because Delta already has MSP and DTW, from both of which they are serving markets all over the Midwest, the Northern States and Canada.

Worst comes to worst, if American decides to dehub ORD, they will still fly at least to DFW (of course), LGA, PHL (if not mainline at least Eagle), DCA (if not mainline at least Eagle), MIA, CLT (if not mainline at least Eagle), PHX and LAX. But for sure DFW, LGA, MIA, PHX and LAX will still be served with mainline equipment at least 2x daily. And on the international scene, they will have keep at least one daily flight to LHR on their own metal, if not year round at least seasonal. I'm not saying this will happen, I'm just mentioning the least that will be left over if that ever happens.
I see American keeping at least one concourse for themselves.

ORD is, without a doubt, one of THE WORST stations I have the dissatisfaction of going through. 60-70% of my arrivals into the field is immediately preceded by a stand stop that is in excess of 10 minutes or more. If the arrival is on 9L/27R, it could be up to 30 minutes before we even arrive at the gate.

Unfortunately, ORD is somewhat essential to our domestic ops, especially in the Midwest. International flights could be routed through PHL, but besides that, there is really no one who does it better to the small towns in the region. ORD is poorly laid out, inside and out, susceptible to terrible weather and delays, and really lacks the convenience customers expect. I, for one, would be happy to never fly into ORD again, but duty calls.

In the 0.00000001% chance AA didn't have a hub at ORD, another carrier moving in would mean THEY would have to close a hub. To build an operation the size of AA at ORD, no airline is going to out and buy more aircraft. The idea is really ludicrous IMO.

asically

PUDFW wrote:

I think the point that American doesn't compete well at ORD is not true domestically. They offer an effective network against UA. Unfortunately as many have noted, where they lack is international, the fact that they ignore Germany one of the largest economies and won't compete against LH/UA is as many noted not the vision Parker talked about prior to the merger.

The investments in the Flagship Lounge and Admirals Club make flying American vs United a tough call except for the fact that I just dont want to transfer through LHR. At this point American has gone all 787 and unfortunately, they have chosen to focus only on tourist locations in summer instead of year round flights to places like FRA, MUC, CDG, AMS, ZRH where they could actually compete for business travelers with in my view a great hard product in business class.

FRA, MUC, CDG, AMS, ZRH are all covered by LH, AF, KL, and LX. These airlines have service that is far superior to AA. In addition, UA fly to everyone of these cities daily. AA does not want to bleed money on these routes. At DFW and PHL, they have Int'l routes exclusively to themselves with the lone exception of FRA which is covered by LF in both cities.With that said, they honestly have fallen way behind in Int'l ops across the country, but especially in Chicago. They just can't compete for business travelers. The Int'l carriers have the superior service and UA has the business contracts. That leaves AA with people who only are very loyal to them or use their FF points to go overseas. AA only continues to fly to LHR because of the BA feed which basically prints money for them. Their Int'l service is a distant third, and that's saying something. I have flown AA to every city in their Asian network from ORD and to every city in their European network and in my opinion, their service is just awful. FA's that are in their twilight years that can't even give you the time of day, food that is barely edible, and an IFE that is sub-par. All of these Int'l airlines that I have flown out of ORD are lights out in these same categories. Heck, even UA beats the pants off AA in these categories. AA has drastically lost it's way under Doug Parker. Gone are the glory days of Bob Crandell and their Luxury Liners. In it's place is the same type of airline that Parker ran when he was at America West, and it shows.

ILS28ORD wrote:

Those added gates are a total of 5 and strictly for more regional jets. AA says they're for E175 but they've cut back E175 service at ORD, although they're adding some back. That still isn't mainline however. These gates would be more impactful if they were mainline. This shows the type of investment AA is making at ORD, regional only.

Your insight is not correct.... It makes no difference what the new gates are. It allows them to move regional jets to the 5 new gates and use mainline at the current gates previously wasting mainline gates with regional. Who knows whether they will just add more regional, but the fact that the new gates are regional in no way indicates they wouldn't add mainline.

Quick question: how did the AA and UA hubs at ORD come about? Was it UA that had a hub there first or AA?

Maybe with more 789/350 deliveries, we'll see the return of ORD-CDG/DUB/MAN/HEL on a year round basis. This might simply be the year that they're caught between not having enough 757/763/787 capacity to go around, and ORD was the sacrificial lamb.

That said, OW needs to find a way to build a broader network outside of LHR and MAD. They should make a play for LOT, which has long been rumored to be less than thrilled at playing third fiddle to the LH colossus in Star. WAW would balance out LHR/MAD nicely and fill more than a few gaps, and LO's longhaul network is almost perfectly aligned with AA's anyways (JFK, ORD, LAX).

TripleA wrote:

Quick question: how did the AA and UA hubs at ORD come about? Was it UA that had a hub there first or AA?

United & AA have had hubs in Chicago since the propeller era, first they were purely domestic operations with a little Canada and Mexico thrown in. Then came deregulation and the start of Oceanic flying by both in the early to mid 1980's. Then in 1990-1991 AA and United went on international route buying sprees amok, UA got almost everything worth having at PAN AN and AA got TWA's Heathrow routes and Eastern's Latin routes.

While little of these routes touched ORD except TWA(AA's) London route, they increased Pacific and London flying from both the east and west coasts. With Pan AM's former, now United, SFO to Tokyo and Hong Kong routes United decided lets fly there from ORD, so Chicago to Tokyo and HKG were born. The same thing happen to Sao Paulo, Brazil UA flew from MIA and JFK so it added ORD to GRU flights too. AA and UA added so many routes from their coastal gateways they flew to the same international destinations from their mid west hubs of Chicago, DFW and Houston. Eastern never flew from DFW to Buenos Aires or Sao Paulo but AA does along with their Miami flights to those cities. ORD has so much international flying by UA and AA because routes were purchased by them when other were selling.

Crazy idea: AA moves its ORD hub ops over to United's former CLE hub. AA wins by getting a midwest hub they can dominate, AA customers win by not having to connect in ORD, UA wins by having ORD to itself, and Cleveland wins by regaining a hub.

If there was no more AA hub at ORD, I wonder if jetBlue would be making eyes with them in hopes of fixing their issue with flights to the Midwest?

I'll never understand why, on an enthusiast site, people want to see things go away in the industry. I see it all the time, people wanting hub A to go away, wanting Airline B to merge with Airline C, predicting Airline D's demise.

I don't know about you all, but I want more variety, not less, as an enthusiast.

I'm not even the world's biggest AA fan (I certainly don't wish them anything bad), but I'd honestly prefer to see them grow in ORD or at least stay status quo!

Just my 2 cents. Off soap box.

chicawgo wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

Those added gates are a total of 5 and strictly for more regional jets. AA says they're for E175 but they've cut back E175 service at ORD, although they're adding some back. That still isn't mainline however. These gates would be more impactful if they were mainline. This shows the type of investment AA is making at ORD, regional only.

Your insight is not correct.... It makes no difference what the new gates are. It allows them to move regional jets to the 5 new gates and use mainline at the current gates previously wasting mainline gates with regional. Who knows whether they will just add more regional, but the fact that the new gates are regional in no way indicates they wouldn't add mainline.

I suppose only time will tell. I'll believe it when I see it. i hope you are correct.

Austin787 wrote:

Crazy idea: AA moves its ORD hub ops over to United's former CLE hub. AA wins by getting a midwest hub they can dominate, AA customers win by not having to connect in ORD, UA wins by having ORD to itself, and Cleveland wins by regaining a hub.

Yeah, thats definable a crazy idea. Thats like saying poor people should just get credit cards so they could eat all they want or that starving people in Africa should just move to France so they wouldnt be hungry anymore.

The end result might be good but the 99% of the in between is way the hell off the mark.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Neither AA nor UA have an obligation to serve a route just because the other does. Businesses will often choose to forgo a market that a competitor entered first if will not sustain two participants. AA didn't launch LAX-SIN just because UA did.

Apparently you don't understand game theory. There's a reason airlines products are so similar and the reason they tend to opt for competitive markets rather than "blue ocean" ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling%27s_law

ckfred wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Just don't see it. While I agree that AA has divested at ORD in recent years, they still have over 500 flights a day. That's a significant amount. They have streamlined operations to meet the ever-changing demand. Doug Parker has paid very little attention to Chicago and it shows. He believes that there is very little case for expansion and thus they have maintained the status quo with most adjustments being made to Int'l ops. Domestically, they are still very strong out of ORD. Leaving ORD would leave a gaping hole in their network.

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

If AA were to hypothetically dehub ORD, then WN could move its Chicago operations from MDW to ORD, making it much easier for most of Chicagoland to use WN. Problem solved.

But AA isn't going anywhere. In fact, they SHOULD be expanding at ORD. Yes, the terminals are outdated and constrained, but only having one year-round TATL flight to LHR? At the minimum, they should make CDG a year-round flight again and then add FRA to compete with UA/LF. Also, domestically speaking, more mainline service is needed. There are too many routes that could use mainline that only have RJ's.

Chicago is the third largest market in the country with significant O&D traffic, what the heck is AA doing? It's time for it to regain its pre-merger status as the second largest AA hub after DFW. That title should not belong to CLT, which has way too big of a hub operation for its market and location (but that's another topic.........)

PUDFW wrote:

I think the point that American doesn't compete well at ORD is not true domestically. They offer an effective network against UA. Unfortunately as many have noted, where they lack is international, the fact that they ignore Germany one of the largest economies and won't compete against LH/UA is as many noted not the vision Parker talked about prior to the merger.

Good point, but a lot of that domestic capacity is RJ's, they need more mainline at ORD.

ADrum23 wrote:

ckfred wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Just don't see it. While I agree that AA has divested at ORD in recent years, they still have over 500 flights a day. That's a significant amount. They have streamlined operations to meet the ever-changing demand. Doug Parker has paid very little attention to Chicago and it shows. He believes that there is very little case for expansion and thus they have maintained the status quo with most adjustments being made to Int'l ops. Domestically, they are still very strong out of ORD. Leaving ORD would leave a gaping hole in their network.

When Parker & Co. were courting union support for the US purchase of AA, he made the point that management had become afraid to compete at ORD and allowed UA and WN to grow at AA's expense.

I wonder when union leadership will call out Parker for not following through on his promises to expand at ORD.

Granted, AA is somewhat gate constrained, although the new gates on L should allow for some expansion in domestic flying. But, AA just announced that ORD-MAN will become seasonal. That leaves ORD-LHR as the only year-round route. The fact that Parker isn't rebuilding the ORD gateway to Europe runs completely counter to what he said to the unions.

Doug Parker needs to be fired, he is doing a terrible job and AA is falling behind (they are not being proactive like DL, they are instead cutting and being reactive). His latest comments about AA never losing money again should have been enough to show him the door, that was an incredibly arrogant and stupid remark to make.

How is AA falling behind? Theyre just retrenching to where they are most profitable.

speedbird52 wrote:

How on Earth would turning Chicago into a monopoly be good?

As a poster above mentioned, what is the difference between ORD hypothetically being a 1 hub airline vs DL's ATL/DTW,MSP, or AA's CLT, DFW ? Sure the population of Chicago is quite a bit larger than many of the aforementioned hubs but I imagine the folks in those cities get along just fine.

It could be argued that having a one airline market is better than the alternatives. A good case study for this is LAX. None of the US network carriers (US3) is that much stronger than the others. While they are busy squabbling for market share among themselves International carriers continue to swoop in to connect the dots. I believe each of the US3 still consider LAX a hub. But if you look at their domestic and international offerings, they often pale in comparison to other hubs relative to the size of the market that is Los Angeles. One could certainly make the argument that any of the US3 would be better equipped to offer more "on-metal" services for consumers if they weren't competing so heavily. Look at the difference between AA, DL and UA at LAX vs UA at SFO where UA far and away dominates.

77H

The problem with AA is that it will never "dehub" ORD per say, but if AA doesn't commit it's attention and DP decides to just let it continue as it always has, UA will gradually gain a stronger foothold in the market, and slowly but surely make AA irrelevant, especially with Kirby at the helm at UA.

The situation at ORD today is very similar to DFW in 2005. I remember at the time, people thought DFW would always have two mega carriers, AA and DL going head to head forever. The thing is, having a duopoly with two mega carriers going head to head so fiercely is completely unsustainable in the long term. ORD is the last remaining example of such a duopoly at a single airport in this country for a reason- all the other ones have slowly been lost to the stronger airline when the other decides to take it easy. Within a couple year's time, I would be willing to bet that UA edges out AA to the point where AA will find it harder to keep up if they don't change their strategy and make ORD a priority. The only reason that ORD is a hub for AA is because it is profitable. If UA cranks up the heat and turns the cash flow in the other direction, AA may seriously take a long and hard look at their commitment to ORD, how AA slowly pushed DL out of the market by making DFW unprofitable.

ORD is UA's #1 hub
ORD is AA's #3 hub

You tell me who's more determined to take control. As someone mentioned above, UA doesn't have a dominant airport with 700+ flights, and they have more incentive to kick out AA. ORD may have two carriers today, but so did DFW not that long ago. I really don't know if ORD will be able to keep both forever. I hate to portray such a negative outlook, but it's a reality that most won't understand until it's here. 10 years down the road, we may find it hard to believe that there was actually a time that AA had a hub at ORD the same way many find it hard to believe today that DL actually ran a big operation in DFW as recently as 2005.

77H wrote:

It could be argued that having a one airline market is better than the alternatives. A good case study for this is LAX. None of the US network carriers (US3) is that much stronger than the others. While they are busy squabbling for market share among themselves International carriers continue to swoop in to connect the dots. I believe each of the US3 still consider LAX a hub. But if you look at their domestic and international offerings, they often pale in comparison to other hubs relative to the size of the market that is Los Angeles. One could certainly make the argument that any of the US3 would be better equipped to offer more "on-metal" services for consumers if they weren't competing so heavily. Look at the difference between AA, DL and UA at LAX vs UA at SFO where UA far and away dominates.

This is basically what it comes down to. Contrary to popular belief, no one wins with competition on both price and quality. The whole reason ULCC's exist today is because of hypercompetitiveness on price, but then consumers complain about the pitiful quality of the product. At a fortress hub like ATL or DFW, an airline essentially controls the price, but offers a much higher level of quality because they are in control than if any sort of meaningful competition is present. Money Delta isn't spending to compete at ATL or AA at DFW is invested into the airport and consumers have a better experience qualitatively, even if the price is higher than the norm.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

Having one dominant carrier is not a perfect situation, but it beats having competition in more ways than most would believe. I now live in Orlando, but once lived in Seattle, and the dominance of AS was a perk that I miss dearly.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

The problem with AA is that it will never "dehub" ORD per say, but if AA doesn't commit it's attention and DP decides to just let it continue as it always has, UA will gradually gain a stronger foothold in the market, and slowly but surely make AA irrelevant, especially with Kirby at the helm at UA.

The situation at ORD today is very similar to DFW in 2005. I remember at the time, people thought DFW would always have two mega carriers, AA and DL going head to head forever. The thing is, having a duopoly with two mega carriers going head to head so fiercely is completely unsustainable in the long term. ORD is the last remaining example of such a duopoly at a single airport in this country for a reason- all the other ones have slowly been lost to the stronger airline when the other decides to take it easy. Within a couple year's time, I would be willing to bet that UA edges out AA to the point where AA will find it harder to keep up if they don't change their strategy and make ORD a priority. The only reason that ORD is a hub for AA is because it is profitable. If UA cranks up the heat and turns the cash flow in the other direction, AA may seriously take a long and hard look at their commitment to ORD, how AA slowly pushed DL out of the market by making DFW unprofitable.

ORD is UA's #1 hub
ORD is AA's #3 hub

You tell me who's more determined to take control. As someone mentioned above, UA doesn't have a dominant airport with 700+ flights, and they have more incentive to kick out AA. ORD may have two carriers today, but so did DFW not that long ago. I really don't know if ORD will be able to keep both forever. I hate to portray such a negative outlook, but it's a reality that most won't understand until it's here. 10 years down the road, we may find it hard to believe that there was actually a time that AA had a hub at ORD the same way many find it hard to believe today that DL actually ran a big operation in DFW as recently as 2005.

Good points, but how would AA compete in the Midwest if they were to dehub AA? By dehubbing ORD, AA would have another large hole in its network (in addition to the existing hole of nothing in Northern California and the Mountain States/Pacific Northwest).

I don't think AA dehubs ORD, in fact, I think they come to their senses and expand it again at some point. Unlike DL at DFW (that was a much different situation, not to mention a much different era), it would be very foolish for AA to dehub ORD (mainly for the reason I stated above, they'd essentially be shut out of the Midwest and all of their hubs would be then be concentrated to the East Coast and Southwest). Plus, with all the ongoing negative publicity with UA, they could lose ground themselves via cuts if they lose passengers (already, WN has surpassed them as the third largest US airline by passenger traffic). Not saying UA is going belly up anytime soon or they will be facing dire circumstances, but most people I talk to consider them the worst of the US-based airlines. I know when I go to Chicago, I'd much rather fly AA than UA.

All in all, I think the predictions on the demise of AA's ORD hub are premature. Not saying it couldn't or won't happen, but I'd honestly be very surprised if it did. That being said, what would be the chances WN moves some (or perhaps all?) of their operations to ORD if AA dehubbed?

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

Having one dominant carrier is not a perfect situation, but it beats having competition in more ways than most would believe. I now live in Orlando, but once lived in Seattle, and the dominance of AS was a perk that I miss dearly.

It beats having competition if you care about quality and convenience. Unfortunately for most people (not me though), price comes before both of those.

Another problem with a big fortress hub is that a single airline can control anywhere from 75-90% of airport traffic and thus, an airport is at the mercy of that particular airline. If something happens to the airline and they have to cut, the airport could be greatly affected and with no alternatives to turn to. Additionally, if the airline decides to dehub that particular airport, it would be an absolute catastrophe for the airport in question. MEM and CVG with DL are good examples of this (yes, CVG is still technically a hub, but it is more of a glorified focus city now).

On the above note, CLT is another good example of an airport that could be in grave danger if AA ever went through another bankruptcy or the industry went through another downturn. AA controls 90% of the traffic and CLT is expanding simply for AA, with not a lot of effort to attract other carriers. The only reason I believe AA keeps CLT as a hub is to compete with DL at ATL. If it were not for that, the CLT hub would be pretty pointless. Not saying anything will happen to the AA CLT hub, but you never know.