Back to Squawk list
  • 19

United and American Take Action Against Chicago O'Hare Airport Expansion

United and American Airlines are seeking Mayor Brandon Johnson's intervention to modify O'Hare Airport's expansion plans, which include a new "global terminal" for both domestic and international flights. The project, initially budgeted at $8.7 billion, is now $1.5 billion over budget, prompting the carriers to request a slowdown, scale-back, or potential grounding of the expansion. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

avionik99 32
They are spending far too much on having a fancy modernist design instead of a functional, efficient one. It is a real difficult task to navigate thru a huge airport. The design should be all about efficiency and ease of navigating, not in looks. Look at Denver's airport, it has a weird circus tent look but it's not an efficient airport to navigate thru especially when the rental cars are what seems like miles away from the terminals.
Cleffer 25
No "Seems" about it. They are and they are far from the only ones. Too much focus on the bells and whistles and not enough on the practicality of it all.
Zander Gilliam 2
Yeah lol it looks like ur in a tent and u don’t know where to go
Jon Schwartz 18
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong-thomas Sowell
mbrews 1
Great comment, Jon. Simply read the headline - United and American are the ones who will pay the airport costs for an overpriced expansion.
Matt West 16
The problem I see is that a number of our large airports were created after WWII reutilizing old training fields. ORD, DAL, and LAX are an example. LAX was nothing but a grass strip, and when the B-36 arrived in the late '40s to ORD for an Air Show, it was still in the middle of nowhere. However, since then, the cities have grown around them with zero room for expansion.

DFW was a good idea back in the day to create a large airport with room to grow. I think they could grow for a long time without issue, and indeed have (Terminal D, B Stinger, C Stinger, Terminal F).

As convenient as it is, it may be time to construct airports outside of large populated areas. If you have convenient, CHEAP, transit such as Edinburgh (EDI) does, then travellers could have the best of both worlds.

Just my 2 cents.
srobak 4
Except ord did expand. Twice. The most recent was a decade ago - the city shoved immanent domain down the throats of hundreds of businesses and homeowners to add 3 runways and ground facilities along the north, northwest and west sides of the airport. It cost thousands of jobs, put long standing companies out of business and left people on the street to watch their homes get bulldozed. Don't think that other major airports haven't one won't continue to do that as well.
James Simms 6
They’ve been trying since forever to get a third airport well South of Chicago. Costs & NIMBY’s has prevented it so far.
Build a popular airport in a greenfield area then it attracts industry and homes, its not long before its surrounded on old sides with no space to grow.
You would do well to evaluate the expetience of Berlin over the past 30 years, as the city struggled to eventually close all other airfields and concentrate on Schoeneberg.

Everyone - it seems - wants to fly. Not everyone wants a big airfield on their doorstep.

Public transport to the airport? Brilliant idea. Well done IAD.
Stephen Rowe 1
For a large airport, I think Dallas has one of the best functional layouts. You basically get off the plane, cross a walkway to baggage claim, then a few more steps and you'reout the door.

[This poster has been suspended.]

SkyAware123 1
They ARE building them outside large populated areas. The spread of cities has caught up with it. Just look at Denver. They just need to reserve space large enough for substantial growth. Even if it's not needed, they can always sell it back and most likely w a profit.
Jim Fisher 1
I was at that airshow! I still remember the awesome sight and sound of flights of 3 B-36s flying overhead at low altitude.
godutch 34
Overbudget? Chicago? Unions? connection! (Sarcasm intended)
SkyAware123 12
You left out corruption
Robert Graham 4
We live in Charleston SC and our newspaper has SC state news. Going over budget isn't only caused by unions. Some projects here have gone maybe 300% and they haven't even been started. Unions may be a factor, but SC has almost 0 unions and still budgets skyrocket. I'm thinking other states probably have similar problems.
any airport expansion in any city,is not done specifically by the city itself,nor the city council,but usually with bond issues approved by the voters,in consideration of talks and discussions held with the carriers who would benefit from expansion or modernization..the airlines do pay part of the building costs because of the ticket counters needed,the added gate space,baggage facilities and even the tramways or trains that run between terminals..the airlines know better than the promoters of new,modern looking terminals,what the traveller wants and needs,which is ease of movement from one area to another via walkways or trams,large lobbies to accommodate crowds,restaurants and a few shops scatterd here and there,and ease of parking outside the terminals..simple,basic issues..i dont know of people who must have a terminal that has trees and high glassed in ceilings etecetera akin to a shopping mall..give a traveller access to wifi,maybe an electric cart or wheelchair assist,and most are happy with their airports..of course flight crews want the long and safe runways,but as far as spending billions,that seems a bit much when possibly doing some "downsizing" of the plans would be enough..
srobak 2
Chicago voters aren't involved. They were unanimously against the last expansion - but it happened anyway.
Peter Fuller 15
Perhaps a deeper dig might show that United and American want to protect their hub duopoly, and don’t want anything built that might make it easier for other airlines to take some of their market share at ORD.
peter..i dont think so..gate lobby space and the number of gates are requested and allocated by the city to individual airlines depending upon their needs and how much rent they pay the city..other carriers would have to put out the money for remodeling and get approval for new routes if attempts were made to take over slots by ual and aa at ord..airlines do not like to move hubs nor crew bases as that also entails moving certain offices as well..
rob strong 22
$8B to $12B. An it will go to $15B if approved, and no one will pay the price for the mismanagement except the taxpayer, or fliers with added taxes. This is the problem with government. Will they scale back or modify the plan to fit a more appropriate budget? No. Government gets it every time. Personally, I'd love United to pull out of ORD completely and move HQ. Stick it to them.
Yes-/we ate already saddled with the extra costs of being a sanctuary city. Where does the mayor think all this money will come from?? The middle class Chicagoans who have worked their whole lives are now asked to fund high cost projects as their own funds dwindle.
John Lasher 1
Pull out of ORD completely? Where are they going to go? MDW is already overtaxed with flight delays aplenty.
mbrews 3
They are referring to moving the thousands of CORPORATE EMPLOYEES. Houston Texas is a major hub for United, and would be on the shortlist. The Denver hub would also be a contender.
srobak 2
Gary, Rockford, Kenosha, dupage, Aurora, Milwaukee
How about the Gary Airport?
matt jensen 0
Gary Airport only logical choice - already built with runways long enough for everything short of A300s. C17s make regular stops there.
MDW is efficiency compared to ORD - the giant white elephant we used to fly out of.
Guy Rhodes 3
Gary regularly sees A300’s as part of the UPS operations there. C17’s are far less common, but the airport can certainly handle them of course.
Kyle Barnoff 3
Lol, Gary for United ORD headquarters... hahaha good one.
Terry Briggs 2
C17s have short take off and landing capabilities which most commercial aircraft do not.
rob strong -1
NO, HQ. That will take flights with them.
jeff slack 5
I hope it is a heated roof; Chicago, huge dumps of snow, a glass roof?
Zander Gilliam 2
BlueOak 2
Imagine that - Chicago politics resulting in +25% construction costs so far… and the hard part, the fancy global terminal hasn’t even started yet. That should scare any Airline faced with paying for it in fees.

Meanwhile, United again making noise about leaving Chicago…
robin cooper 4
most practical is indianapolis, already regarded as one of the best midsized airports in the country. also has far better road access, getting to ORD of Gary by road is a nightmare. indiana is a far more financially responsible state.
Brian Chandler 0
Indianapolis airport vs Ohare is like comparing Wrigley Field to the baseball diamond in the local park behind your house. Just a useless comment. But enjoy taking your AAconnect plane to Ohare.
srobak 3
You must not have been there in a while. Their most recent expansion came with a new terminal that tripled the gate count and is situated in a manner to easily allow for significant expansion of the terminal and multiple concourses. It also got a new runway and an extension to another, and it also serves as a FedEx hub that alone can turn 40 aircraft simultaneously. It also has a massive parking area with plenty of room to grow there as well.
SkyAware123 -1
Thank that turd joe biden for insane inflation that made this even worse.
Randy Marco -4
You're an ignoramus! Inflation was due to 8 trillion added to the DEFICIT by the conman & CRIMINAL drumpf!


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.