Hat tip to @ORDfan who has been posting monthly O'hare statistics in the Chicago Aviation thread. I pulled numbers for both O'hare and ATL so far this year, and it appears that O'hare is on track to overtake ATL for bragging rights of world's busiest airport by flight ops.

In this site you can get O'hare's official traffic statistics from the Chicago Department of Aviation: https://www.flychicago.com/business/CDA ... affic.aspx

Similarly, from this site, you can get ATL's official stats: http://www.atl.com/business-information/statistics/

According to the Dec-2017 reports:
ATL's final flight ops tally was: 880,342
ORD's final flight ops tally was: 867,049

Based on July's reports, ATL's traffic is up 0.99% year-to-date, while ORD's traffic is up 4.43%
Assuming these percentages carry through the rest of the year (July is over halfway through the year, so I think the final numbers will likely come somewhere close), we can project the final year tally:
ATL: 880342 * 1.0099 = 889,057
ORD: 867049 * 1.0443 = 905,459
Difference between the two: 16,401 flights

Now a lot of things can still affect these numbers e.g. snowstorms in ORD leading to massive cancellations, etc. But so far, it appears that ORD is on track to retake the title of world's busiest airport (by flight ops).

Besides bragging rights (ORD is my hometown airport ), this is really a testament to the success of the massive airfield reconfiguration and new runway construction that ORD has undertaken. With one runway still yet to be completed and brought into service, will O'Hare now consistently remain #1 for the medium term until ATL builds new runways?

And with the planned $8 Billion reconstruction and expansion of the terminal complex, is it possible that in 10 years O'Hare might retake the title by passenger numbers as well?

Let the horse race begin!

Doesn't surprise me at all, by movements, ORD has always looked and felt busier than ATL, so it was only a matter of time before the numbers caught up.

muralir wrote:

will O'Hare now consistently remain #1 for the medium term until ATL builds new runways?

ATL's current runways aren't at full capacity and any plans to add a 6th runway are years away. Looks like ORD will take over this title with ATL keeping busiest in terms of passengers (for now). ATL's issue is gate space, not runways.

Given ORD's status as a major hub for both UA and AA, their O&D advantage over ATL and their geographical position, they should have never lost the title in the first place.

If UA and AA would start upgauging more flights at ORD (UA flys a pathetic 42% mainline into ORD, with lots of CR2's), they'd close the gap with ATL for pax numbers as well. The terminal reconstruction/reconfiguration will certainly help close the gap, but ultimately, UA/AA need to reduce their 50 seaters in the market.

Fargo wrote:

If UA and AA would start upgauging more flights at ORD (UA flys a pathetic 42% mainline into ORD, with lots of CR2's), they'd close the gap with ATL for pax numbers as well. The terminal reconstruction/reconfiguration will certainly help close the gap, but ultimately, UA/AA need to reduce their 50 seaters in the market.

The 50's seaters are the reason ORD is managing to catch ATL. The minute AA/UA starts decreasing them, ORD's flight ops will fall.

Personally I don't see much bragging rights here. I'd be impressed if AA/UA matches DL mainline capacity at ATL while having the most flight ops, otherwise it's all smoke due to the sheer number of regional jets ORD sees.

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

Let's see how ORD does when the first winter cold front moves through with winds out of the NNW gusting to 40. 4....5 hour delays?

2018 pax until July-2018 (excluding August as ORD has not reported August numbers yet)

ATL: 62,526,518
LAX: 51,108,698
ORD: 51,090,535

The reason I state this is ORD is catching up LAX in terms of total pax unless August till December makes a huge difference.
ORD is still behind ATL in terms of total pax but there is a good chance ORD can take #2 behind ATL.

iyerhari wrote:

2018 pax until July-2018 (excluding August as ORD has not reported August numbers yet)

ATL: 62,526,518
LAX: 51,108,698
ORD: 51,090,535

The reason I state this is ORD is catching up LAX in terms of total pax unless August till December makes a huge difference.
ORD is still behind ATL in terms of total pax but there is a good chance ORD can take #2 behind ATL.

ORD unlikely to overtake LAX, as its experiences stronger traffic decline heading into Q4.

Comparison of pax (million) LAX vs ORD 2017
Aug - 8.1* / 7.6 (*2018 actual)
Sep - 6.8 / 6.8
Oct - 7.2 / 7.1
Nov - 6.8 / 6.4
Dec - 7.1 / 6.4
TTL - 36.0 / 34.3

PerfectGriffin wrote:

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

If I’m not mistaken both UA and AA are pulling CR2’s out of the desert. EV is flying 20 more for UAx.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

It has somewhat, but the sheer number is still massive. Both AA/UA are running mainline at about 40% of departures in ORD, while DL is running mainline at ATL at about 80%. Even with larger aircraft ATL still has more flight ops currently; so you really have to take flight ops stats with a grain of salt when a airport uses them.

jfern022 wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

If I’m not mistaken both UA and AA are pulling CR2’s out of the desert. EV is flying 20 more for UAx.

IIRC, the 20 EV CR2's for UA are simply coming from OO.

neomax wrote:

ORD has always looked and felt busier than ATL

Maybe you should read this out loud, to understand just how ridiculous it sounds....

neomax wrote:

so it was only a matter of time before the numbers caught up.

ORD has "caught" ATL several times over the last two decades in terms of ops numbers.

ATL has consistently been far busier pax-wise since 1998, but much less consistent in terms of ops.

YellowJ wrote:

Fargo wrote:

If UA and AA would start upgauging more flights at ORD (UA flys a pathetic 42% mainline into ORD, with lots of CR2's), they'd close the gap with ATL for pax numbers as well. The terminal reconstruction/reconfiguration will certainly help close the gap, but ultimately, UA/AA need to reduce their 50 seaters in the market.

The 50's seaters are the reason ORD is managing to catch ATL. The minute AA/UA starts decreasing them, ORD's flight ops will fall.

Personally I don't see much bragging rights here. I'd be impressed if AA/UA matches DL mainline capacity at ATL while having the most flight ops, otherwise it's all smoke due to the sheer number of regional jets ORD sees.

All smoke? It’s just a factual representation of ops. And obviously ATL will retain the passengers carried number. There is no drama in facts.

YellowJ wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

It has somewhat, but the sheer number is still massive. Both AA/UA are running mainline at about 40% of departures in ORD, while DL is running mainline at ATL at about 80%. Even with larger aircraft ATL still has more flight ops currently; so you really have to take flight ops stats with a grain of salt when a airport uses them.

UA in particular is puzzling. I know they have always been a regional heavy airline, but the fact that almost 60% of their flights at their flagship hub at ORD are on RJ's is pretty astounding (and not in a good way).

DL and AA's flagship hubs at ATL and DFW are 80% and 60% mainline respectively, ORD should be between 55-60% mainline for UA. If they really want to gain an edge over AA at ORD, then more mainline flying would help. UA really needs the A220/E2.

SFOtoORD wrote:

YellowJ wrote:

Fargo wrote:

If UA and AA would start upgauging more flights at ORD (UA flys a pathetic 42% mainline into ORD, with lots of CR2's), they'd close the gap with ATL for pax numbers as well. The terminal reconstruction/reconfiguration will certainly help close the gap, but ultimately, UA/AA need to reduce their 50 seaters in the market.

The 50's seaters are the reason ORD is managing to catch ATL. The minute AA/UA starts decreasing them, ORD's flight ops will fall.

Personally I don't see much bragging rights here. I'd be impressed if AA/UA matches DL mainline capacity at ATL while having the most flight ops, otherwise it's all smoke due to the sheer number of regional jets ORD sees.

All smoke? It’s just a factual representation of ops. And obviously ATL will retain the passengers carried number. There is no drama in facts.

What Drama?

I mentioned smoke because ORD has caught up to ATL quite a few times in aircraft movements. But are we really glorifying 600+ CRJ2/E145 flights and saying Yay, ORD is #1.

Fargo wrote:

YellowJ wrote:

PerfectGriffin wrote:

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

It has somewhat, but the sheer number is still massive. Both AA/UA are running mainline at about 40% of departures in ORD, while DL is running mainline at ATL at about 80%. Even with larger aircraft ATL still has more flight ops currently; so you really have to take flight ops stats with a grain of salt when a airport uses them.

UA in particular is puzzling. I know they have always been a regional heavy airline, but the fact that almost 60% of their flights at their flagship hub at ORD are on RJ's is pretty astounding (and not in a good way).

DL and AA's flagship hubs at ATL and DFW are 80% and 60% mainline respectively, ORD should be between 55-60% mainline for UA. If they really want to gain an edge over AA at ORD, then more mainline flying would help. UA really needs the A220/E2.

UA would have to consider ORD it's Flagship hub first

My guess would be that honor goes to either EWR/SFO, the hubs which command the highest premium. UA does need more mainline planes I agree; though I wonder if sharing ORD with AA is the main reason it's so regional heavy for both of them.

Hasn’t ORD passed ATL by ops in the past 2 or 3 years?

YellowJ wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

YellowJ wrote:

The 50's seaters are the reason ORD is managing to catch ATL. The minute AA/UA starts decreasing them, ORD's flight ops will fall.

Personally I don't see much bragging rights here. I'd be impressed if AA/UA matches DL mainline capacity at ATL while having the most flight ops, otherwise it's all smoke due to the sheer number of regional jets ORD sees.

All smoke? It’s just a factual representation of ops. And obviously ATL will retain the passengers carried number. There is no drama in facts.

What Drama?

I mentioned smoke because ORD has caught up to ATL quite a few times in aircraft movements. But are we really glorifying 600+ CRJ2/E145 flights and saying Yay, ORD is #1.

Glorifying and smoke? It’s just a fact. If you don’t like that one then choose other facts.

LAX772LR wrote:

neomax wrote:

ORD has always looked and felt busier than ATL

Maybe you should read this out loud, to understand just how ridiculous it sounds....

neomax wrote:

so it was only a matter of time before the numbers caught up.

ORD has "caught" ATL several times over the last two decades in terms of ops numbers.

ATL has consistently been far busier pax-wise since 1998, but much less consistent in terms of ops.

I understood neomax’s statement to mean that there always seems like there are more plane movements or passengers than there really are. I’d liken this to the previously less efficient design of ORD’s runways and the terminal set up.

ORD always seems to have long takeoff queues and well defined arrival stacks. This was likely due to the less efficient runway configuration. Additionally all the terminals and concourses are interconnected rather than dispersed to stand alone concourses like ATL.

Since ORD’s runway configuration has changed and runways have been added it seems like queues have gone down and the stacks are a lot shorter.

77H

SFOtoORD wrote:

YellowJ wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

All smoke? It’s just a factual representation of ops. And obviously ATL will retain the passengers carried number. There is no drama in facts.

What Drama?

I mentioned smoke because ORD has caught up to ATL quite a few times in aircraft movements. But are we really glorifying 600+ CRJ2/E145 flights and saying Yay, ORD is #1.

Glorifying and smoke? It’s just a fact. If you don’t like that one then choose other facts.

It's a possibility, not a fact. "On track to" alludes that it may happen, not that it will.

jetero wrote:

Hasn’t ORD passed ATL by ops in the past 2 or 3 years?

ORD and ATL have traded off a couple times in the past 5-10 years. But those were generally one-off years with ATL retaking the lead the next year. That's why I'm wondering if this change could be more permanent for the foreseeable future given all the runways that are finally online.

PerfectGriffin wrote:

I thought the number of 50 seaters was decreasing at ORD?

Technically they are, albeit only slightly:
YTD ORD's flight ops are +4.47%
YTD ORD's passenger count is +4.92

So the average number of passengers / flight has gone up this year. Of course, that also depends on load factors, and mix of flights (international flights are +4.13% in movements and an astounding +9.63% in passenger count). If I were to speculate, I'd guess that the number of 50 seaters is probably about the same, and the increase in passengers / flight is due to the increase in international flight numbers, and perhaps overall slightly higher load factors.

Also, with the runways easing congestion, I wouldn't be surprised if RJ flying *increases*, as there are a ton of small midwestern towns who can't justify mainline flights, but wouldn't justify a precious slot if ORD was slot constrained like it used to be.

But so far, the overall numbers suggest that there's a general trend toward upgauging.

Fargo wrote:

Given ORD's status as a major hub for both UA and AA, their O&D advantage over ATL and their geographical position, they should have never lost the title in the first place.

They lost that title consistently ~20 years ago when the FAA imposed slot restrictions on ORD due to the way delays at ORD would mess up the entire national grid. That led UA and AA to start shifting some of their hub operations to their other hubs. That, combined with the decrease in traffic after 9/11 meant that even after slot restrictions were lifted, O'Hare kinda limped along.

Plus, the lack of any serious investment in the airport for 20 years (Terminal 5 was the last big expansion, and that was >25 yrs ago), means its facilities are seriously outdated.

In 2012 and 2013 the average passenger load per airport operation was 76. In 2017 it was 92 and is trending to be about the same for 2018. Over the same period, actual operations have stayed pretty steady but passengers have increased from 67M in 2012 to 80M in 2017.

Definitely less RJs as a percentage of operations.

muralir wrote:

Plus, the lack of any serious investment in the airport for 20 years (Terminal 5 was the last big expansion, and that was >25 yrs ago), means its facilities are seriously outdated.

I’m not really an ORD apologist, but what’s outdated about an area like Concourse G? It’s been nearly 20 years since its renovation but it has aged well and is much nicer than many newer regional facilities.

Cubsrule wrote:

muralir wrote:

Plus, the lack of any serious investment in the airport for 20 years (Terminal 5 was the last big expansion, and that was >25 yrs ago), means its facilities are seriously outdated.

I’m not really an ORD apologist, but what’s outdated about an area like Concourse G? It’s been nearly 20 years since its renovation but it has aged well and is much nicer than many newer regional facilities.

It's not so much the cosmetic / appearance part (I still really love T1). It's that all the terminals were designed for pre-9/11 in terms of security areas, connections, passenger flows, etc. not to mention the current mix of planes, etc. They've done as best they can, but even things like planes needing to be towed from T5 to T1/2/3 is a real impediment to modern hub and alliance operations.

Fortunately, plans like the Global Terminal give O'Hare a chance to leapfrog other major hub airports and really optimize hub operations, which would incentivize UA and AA to relocate more flights here.

muralir wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

muralir wrote:

Plus, the lack of any serious investment in the airport for 20 years (Terminal 5 was the last big expansion, and that was >25 yrs ago), means its facilities are seriously outdated.

I’m not really an ORD apologist, but what’s outdated about an area like Concourse G? It’s been nearly 20 years since its renovation but it has aged well and is much nicer than many newer regional facilities.

It's not so much the cosmetic / appearance part (I still really love T1). It's that all the terminals were designed for pre-9/11 in terms of security areas, connections, passenger flows, etc. not to mention the current mix of planes, etc. They've done as best they can, but even things like planes needing to be towed from T5 to T1/2/3 is a real impediment to modern hub and alliance operations.

Fortunately, plans like the Global Terminal give O'Hare a chance to leapfrog other major hub airports and really optimize hub operations, which would incentivize UA and AA to relocate more flights here.

There are a lot of benefits post 9/11 of an ORD type layout as well. Having separate terminals spreads security out and makes it much quicker from curb to gate. Also, I’d rather have a connection from ORD B to F than ATL B to F.

Security times have been almost instantaneous since that bad summer a few years ago. ATL security from intl to domestic is a disaster. I’ve waited 2 hours before. There are benefits to having them spread out.

Ward86IND wrote:

Let's see how ORD does when the first winter cold front moves through with winds out of the NNW gusting to 40. 4....5 hour delays?

Probably better than DL when it snows or ices in ATL again.

muralir wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

muralir wrote:

Plus, the lack of any serious investment in the airport for 20 years (Terminal 5 was the last big expansion, and that was >25 yrs ago), means its facilities are seriously outdated.

I’m not really an ORD apologist, but what’s outdated about an area like Concourse G? It’s been nearly 20 years since its renovation but it has aged well and is much nicer than many newer regional facilities.

It's not so much the cosmetic / appearance part (I still really love T1). It's that all the terminals were designed for pre-9/11 in terms of security areas, connections, passenger flows, etc. not to mention the current mix of planes, etc. They've done as best they can, but even things like planes needing to be towed from T5 to T1/2/3 is a real impediment to modern hub and alliance operations.

Fortunately, plans like the Global Terminal give O'Hare a chance to leapfrog other major hub airports and really optimize hub operations, which would incentivize UA and AA to relocate more flights here.

None of the terminals has its pre-9/11 footprint anymore, though. Between TRIP 10 years ago and various smaller projects more recently, the O&D experience is better than it has been in decades, and most connecting passengers have a decent experience as well. I can’t remember the last time I waited more than 10 minutes in a TSA line.

muralir wrote:

Hat tip to @ORDfan who has been posting monthly O'hare statistics in the Chicago Aviation thread. I pulled numbers for both O'hare and ATL so far this year, and it appears that O'hare is on track to overtake ATL for bragging rights of world's busiest airport by flight ops.

In this site you can get O'hare's official traffic statistics from the Chicago Department of Aviation: https://www.flychicago.com/business/CDA ... affic.aspx

Similarly, from this site, you can get ATL's official stats: http://www.atl.com/business-information/statistics/

According to the Dec-2017 reports:
ATL's final flight ops tally was: 880,342
ORD's final flight ops tally was: 867,049

Based on July's reports, ATL's traffic is up 0.99% year-to-date, while ORD's traffic is up 4.43%
Assuming these percentages carry through the rest of the year (July is over halfway through the year, so I think the final numbers will likely come somewhere close), we can project the final year tally:
ATL: 880342 * 1.0099 = 889,057
ORD: 867049 * 1.0443 = 905,459
Difference between the two: 16,401 flights

Now a lot of things can still affect these numbers e.g. snowstorms in ORD leading to massive cancellations, etc. But so far, it appears that ORD is on track to retake the title of world's busiest airport (by flight ops).

Besides bragging rights (ORD is my hometown airport ), this is really a testament to the success of the massive airfield reconfiguration and new runway construction that ORD has undertaken. With one runway still yet to be completed and brought into service, will O'Hare now consistently remain #1 for the medium term until ATL builds new runways?

And with the planned $8 Billion reconstruction and expansion of the terminal complex, is it possible that in 10 years O'Hare might retake the title by passenger numbers as well?

Let the horse race begin!

ATL is in the midst of a 6 billion dollar expansion. Also with the deliever of A220, ATL will probably see new markest and additonal flights since Atlanta's population is growing faster than Chicago which is actually losing people. ATL also have alot of runway capacity at the moment.

Atlwarrior wrote:

muralir wrote:

Hat tip to @ORDfan who has been posting monthly O'hare statistics in the Chicago Aviation thread. I pulled numbers for both O'hare and ATL so far this year, and it appears that O'hare is on track to overtake ATL for bragging rights of world's busiest airport by flight ops.

In this site you can get O'hare's official traffic statistics from the Chicago Department of Aviation: https://www.flychicago.com/business/CDA ... affic.aspx

Similarly, from this site, you can get ATL's official stats: http://www.atl.com/business-information/statistics/

According to the Dec-2017 reports:
ATL's final flight ops tally was: 880,342
ORD's final flight ops tally was: 867,049

Based on July's reports, ATL's traffic is up 0.99% year-to-date, while ORD's traffic is up 4.43%
Assuming these percentages carry through the rest of the year (July is over halfway through the year, so I think the final numbers will likely come somewhere close), we can project the final year tally:


















ATL: 880342 * 1.0099 = 889,057
ORD: 867049 * 1.0443 = 905,459
Difference between the two: 16,401 flights

Now a lot of things can still affect these numbers e.g. snowstorms in ORD leading to massive cancellations, etc. But so far, it appears that ORD is on track to retake the title of world's busiest airport (by flight ops).

Besides bragging rights (ORD is my hometown airport ), this is really a testament to the success of the massive airfield reconfiguration and new runway construction that ORD has undertaken. With one runway still yet to be completed and brought into service, will O'Hare now consistently remain #1 for the medium term until ATL builds new runways?

And with the planned $8 Billion reconstruction and expansion of the terminal complex, is it possible that in 10 years O'Hare might retake the title by passenger numbers as well?

Let the horse race begin!

ATL is in the midst of a 6 billion dollar expansion. Also with the deliever of A220, ATL will probably see new markest and additonal flights since Atlanta's population is growing faster than Chicago which is actually losing people. ATL also have alot of runway capacity at the moment.

Chicago ,may be losing population. But the same thing cannot be said about the Chicago SMSA - forecast to be 10,200,000 in 2020 -- up by 23% from 2000.
Unless only residents of the city fly out of ORD, that is a distinction to be made.

As a point of reference Atlanta's SMSA is forceast to be 6,817,025 by 2020.
.

http://d1c25a6gwz7q5e.cloudfront.net/papers/1319.pdf

Cubsrule wrote:

None of the terminals has its pre-9/11 footprint anymore, though. Between TRIP 10 years ago and various smaller projects more recently, the O&D experience is better than it has been in decades, and most connecting passengers have a decent experience as well. I can’t remember the last time I waited more than 10 minutes in a TSA line.

That's true. Like I mentioned, the airport has done as much as possible within the physical constraints it's dealing with. But for example, the terminals don't have enough space for concessions or enough seats to accommodate the fact that post 9/11 people come to the airport earlier and stay in the terminals longer. T1, for example, IMHO feels cramped with all the kiosks they've stuffed in the main concourses and the restaurants' seating that encroaches into the halls. None of those were there when T1 opened. There is also not enough space for all the lounges that airlines want to build, which is a relatively new phenomenon, again driven by the fact that people are spending more time in the airport.

Also, T5's security lines are a mess in the afternoon departure crowd. Even in the business class priority lane, I waited >1hr in the afternoon the last time I travelled. There isn't enough space to expand those lines further.

Also, not strictly related to the physical plant, but ORD had a longterm very restrictive lease in which airlines could squat on gates without using them, and had veto power over new construction. This meant new entrants like jetBlue or the ULCCs had difficulty getting gates even as plenty of gates were being underutilized. Those leases are now expired and have been renegotiated to be much more favorable for the airport. All gates are essentially common use gates (although some are designated as priority for certain airlines), with use-it-or-lose-it clauses that allow the city to re-assign gates if they're not being fully used. No airline "owns" gates anymore. This means that hopefully gates will be much more efficiently used, and gives the airport the flexibility to relocate airlines to optimize connection flows and departure / arrival banks.

IMHO, in determining its effectiveness as a hub, we shouldn't be comparing ORD to ATL and other US airports. I agree that even now, ORD is miles better than JFK or LAX. We should look to modern asian airports like SIN, ICN, HKG as examples of what we could and should do with the planned global terminal. A true modern global terminal like that would run rings around anything in the US today.

People are so obsessed with RJs at ORD.

IMHO, the abundance of RJs at ORD is indicative of the massive amount of smaller markets that AA and UA fly to from ORD. From GEG in Montana to BGR in Maine to PSP in California and EYW in Florida. Do you really expect these routes to be mainline? This is what makes ORD the most connected airport in the US. https://www.travelctm.com/resources/ins ... irports-2/

I am rarely on an RJ flight from ORD that should be a mainline.

Atlwarrior wrote:

muralir wrote:

Hat tip to @ORDfan who has been posting monthly O'hare statistics in the Chicago Aviation thread. I pulled numbers for both O'hare and ATL so far this year, and it appears that O'hare is on track to overtake ATL for bragging rights of world's busiest airport by flight ops.

In this site you can get O'hare's official traffic statistics from the Chicago Department of Aviation: https://www.flychicago.com/business/CDA ... affic.aspx

Similarly, from this site, you can get ATL's official stats: http://www.atl.com/business-information/statistics/

According to the Dec-2017 reports:
ATL's final flight ops tally was: 880,342
ORD's final flight ops tally was: 867,049

Based on July's reports, ATL's traffic is up 0.99% year-to-date, while ORD's traffic is up 4.43%
Assuming these percentages carry through the rest of the year (July is over halfway through the year, so I think the final numbers will likely come somewhere close), we can project the final year tally:
ATL: 880342 * 1.0099 = 889,057
ORD: 867049 * 1.0443 = 905,459
Difference between the two: 16,401 flights

Now a lot of things can still affect these numbers e.g. snowstorms in ORD leading to massive cancellations, etc. But so far, it appears that ORD is on track to retake the title of world's busiest airport (by flight ops).

Besides bragging rights (ORD is my hometown airport ), this is really a testament to the success of the massive airfield reconfiguration and new runway construction that ORD has undertaken. With one runway still yet to be completed and brought into service, will O'Hare now consistently remain #1 for the medium term until ATL builds new runways?

And with the planned $8 Billion reconstruction and expansion of the terminal complex, is it possible that in 10 years O'Hare might retake the title by passenger numbers as well?

Let the horse race begin!

ATL is in the midst of a 6 billion dollar expansion. Also with the delivery of the A220, ATL will probably see new markets and additional flights since Atlanta's population is growing faster than Chicago which is actually losing people. ATL also have a lot of runway capacity at the moment.

The Chicago MSA/CSA as a whole isn't actually losing population, but it is growing at less than 1%. Sure, ATL is growing faster, but it is still way behind ORD as far as O&D. Market population doesn't always tell the whole story as to how a particular airport is doing.

How many new flights/markets can be realistically be added with the A220, DL already has over 1,000 flights with 80% of that mainline. At some point, they will hit a critical mass. Also, ATL is getting to be pretty landlocked, there really isn't much more room to build additional gates. After the sixth runway is built, they will be maxed out and will not be able to expand much more without massive disruptions to the surrounding area.