The Feds Step in to Prevent Impending Chicago Gridlock at O’Hare


The arms race at Chicagoʻs OʻHare airport looks like itʻs about to be put on pause now that the Federal Aviation Administration has decided to step into the fray. This is good news for travelers, but it is entirely unclear which airlines will come out winners at this point.

The feds have decided to convene a meeting Wednesday with all interested parties to discuss what to do about the overscheduling situation this summer at O’Hare. The meeting is open to all airlines and the Chicago Department of Aviation. You can be sure both American and United will be there.

The basic point of the meeting is to figure out how to come up with a schedule that can actually be operated. As the FAA notes, peak days have more than 3,080 daily operations this year compared to only 2,680 last summer. That is not sustainable. This has been an open secret for months now in the wake of American and United bulking up their operations. There was never any chance that all of these flights could operate without serious operational problems. Now the FAA has to figure out how it wants to implement this.

The reality is that O’Hare can support about 100 departures and 100 arrivals per hour on a good day, with some wiggle room. The FAA says that means it can usually support about 2,800 total daily operations once you take into account the middle of the night when nothing is flying.

With that in mind, I turned to my trusty Cirium data to see where things stand. I looked at total operations by day for a random Monday in July this year and last year. The FAA says that it will look at flying in half-hour increments, so that’s how I broke it down. You can see where the pain points will be quite clearly.

Let’s start with 2025. Here is a look at operations by half hour on a day that had 2,502 scheduled passenger operations. (Yes, one flaw is I didn’t look at cargo and non-scheduled operations, but you get the point.)

O’Hare Scheduled Passenger Operations by Half Hour – July 14, 2025

Data via Cirium

Were there times when O’Hare exceeded the 100 operations per half hour threshold? Absolutely. Most notably it was clogged with United’s big morning departure bank between 7 and 7:30am as well as the airline’s big arrival bank between 6:30 and 7pm. But look at the half hour right after those times. There was slack in the system to accommodate this overuse. The airport could function.

Now let’s take a look at the plan for this year.

O’Hare Scheduled Passenger Operations by Half Hour – July 13, 2026

Data via Cirium

Oh my. There are now nine half hours that exceed the airport’s max operating limit compared to three last year. And that 7am bank has become a monster with a total of 136 scheduled operations. The problem now is that instead of having a lot of slack in the 7:30am time period, there are still 94 scheduled operations. This can start to cascade throughout the day, and it is going to be ugly.

Keep in mind, I’m still just talking about a blue-sky day. Imagine what happens when storms roll through. It will be absolute chaos.

The airline industry has been talking about this ever since the build up between American and United began, so it felt like a game of chicken. Now, the government is stepping in to put an end to it.

The plan for Wednesday is this. The FAA will decide which half hour slots are problematic. It will then take each airline into a room individually and beat them until they cut flights.

Just kidding. It will actually go like this.

… the air carrier will be asked to offer flight reductions or schedule modifications…. Any offer of flight reductions should specify the precise number of arrivals and departures, if any, the submitting air carrier is willing to remove from each of the severely congested periods… indicating whether the flight operation(s) would be cancelled or moved to another time period. The offer may not be explicitly contingent on specific flight reductions by other air carriers, but may be conditioned on the Administrator’s implementation of an overall reduction of specified numbers of flight operations toward the target during the
periods in question.

In the end, the FAA will put forth the schedule with voluntary cuts. If that solves the problem, great. If not, that’s when the beatings begin. Again, just kidding. They will go through the same boring process over and over until there’s a solution.

I’ve had some people reach out to me saying they think this is terrible news for United since it is so much bigger. Others think this was a stroke of brilliance on United’s part. I tend to fall in the latter camp, and I actually figure this was United’s plan the entire time. I would be shocked if United actually thought it was going to operate all those flights it filed.

The way I see it is this. Up until about 2018, United had about 100 more daily departures than American. In 2018 that increased closer to about 150. When United began to recover during the pandemic before American did, it found itself back with a 150 departure advantage, but that was off a lower base. American’s daily departures had dropped to around 350. You know what, let’s just look at the Cirium data chart before I go on.

United O’Hare Departures vs American by Day Over Time

Data via Cirium

So with United at 500 daily and American at only 350, United had a huge advantage. But then American decided it was time to ramp up in Chicago. Seeing the gains it had made already while American was down, United decided it should go all out to try to stop American from gaining ground.

So, United added its own flights every time American did, and often, United would add even more. This summer, American is at around 520 daily departures with United as high as 780. United has increased its lead to having a more than 250 daily departure advantage. Or at least, that’s what it filed.

Does any of this make sense from a demand perspective? No. But this is a strategic move. I’m betting United never figured it would fly those 780 daily flights. Instead, if it could keep its ratio compared to American high enough, when the FAA inevitably came knocking on the door to reduce flying, they could proportionally reduce flying individually. And then, United would still have cemented a massive flight percentage premium over what American has, just with everyone having fewer flights overall.

Of course, we don’t know how the FAA will look at this. Will it agree to reductions based on what’s filed? Or will it look at what flew last year, or perhaps pre-pandemic? Chances are American will argue for going back as far as possible while United wants to use this summer. We will know more soon.

Regardless of what happens, United is likely going to still have a very substantial number of flights compared to American when all is said and done. And that had to be the airline’s ultimate goal.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

Brett Avatar

44 responses to “The Feds Step in to Prevent Impending Chicago Gridlock at O’Hare”

  1. David SF eastbay Avatar
    David SF eastbay

    The FAA should look back at a time when things ran well and say those are the number of flights UA/AA can operate this summer during peak times and nothing more. Other airlines shouldn’t have to alter their flights just because UA and AA are playing ‘my schedule is bigger than your schedule.’

  2. Matt Avatar
    Matt

    All great numbers and insight as usual, but how will CDA perceive this, and will it affect gate allocation in CY2027?

    1. Brett Avatar

      Matt – Gate allocation will continue as planned based on the lease. The CDA is invited to the process, but in the end the airlines will have to figure this out with the feds.

      1. Mark Silagy Avatar
        Mark Silagy

        Brett, given the CDA gate allocation process is a key if not THE key driver in what drove this escalation, it would seem essential that they be required to be part of the process to resolve the situation. If, for example, they agreed to a formula that guaranteed a gate allocation threshold for each carrier given it is clear both intend to continue operating major hubs in Chicago, that would allow each carrier to make schedule adjustments without fear of losing a gate to their competitor. It’s easy to point the blame at AA and UA for creating the problem when in fact, the underlying issue is the CDA’s policy that is at the root of the issue.

  3. Angry Bob Crandall Avatar
    Angry Bob Crandall

    CF,
    “If” UA and AA are really planning on trying to fly their full schedules, is it remotely possible for them to up gauge some flights (i.e., Eagle to mainline)?

    1. Brett Avatar

      Angry Bob – They could, but that wouldn’t make much sense in a lot of these routes. I mean, you have United adding places like Kalamazoo and Americna places like Lincoln. More seats will not solve anything in those markets!

  4. Tim Dunn Avatar
    Tim Dunn

    There is some precedent and fairly recently for the FAA to get involved in schedules at a non-slot controlled airport and that was EWR, also a UA hub, last year.

    UA did, in fact, cut the most flights to get back to what the FAA wanted but the airport lost a higher percentage of flights and capacity because of reductions by B6 and NK that mirrored their system. Other airlines had little movement in schedules compared to UA.

    UA offset some of the flight cuts at EWR with larger gauge which is an issue given how many CRJ550 flights UA operates at ORD; UA can easily keep as much if not more capacity into ORD by upgauging but they don’t get as much of a schedule advantage.

    Chances are that airlines other than AA and UA can legitimately say that this isn’t their problem and they aren’t going to sacrifice much if anything to fix it while AA and UA are likely going to proportionately have to reduce in line w/ what was added that put ORD over the cap the FAA established.

    There was no doubt that UA would remain the largest airline at ORD; the difference is that, unlike EWR where UA and CO before has maintained about 65% of the flights, AA and UA’s percentages of flights will both go up but AA’s ability to remain a viable competitor just received a huge boost w/ the FAA’s action.

    1. Alex B. Avatar
      Alex B.

      This kind of schedule coordination is explicitly defined as part of the ‘level 2’ airports that don’t have full blown slot controls; these airports in the US are ORD, EWR, LAX and SFO.

    2. DTWNYC Avatar
      DTWNYC

      “DTWNYC Guest
      February 28, 2026, 1:32 pm

      Nope. If the FAA allows UA to add more flights, UA wins. If the FAA keeps status quo, United also wins since they are already ahead of AA who won’t be able to effectively compete and are profitable in Chicago.

      The rest of your post is nonsense
      Helpful (1)
      Reply
      Tim Dunn Diamond
      February 28, 2026, 1:38 pm

      you aren’t real smart, are you?

      The FAA forced cuts on UA at EWR. It will do the same. Other airlines besides AA and UA are likely to resist cutting anything and they will likely prevail.

      UA was convinced it could throw capacity at the market and force AA’s share down. They will not be able to do that.

      AA might be forced to some of its planned growth but I guaranteed that a larger portion of UA’s planned growth will be cut than AA’s.

      The UA fan nut squad is in full scale meltdown mode trying to call this a win.

      It is an indictment of UA’s abject failed strategies.”

      Not so dumb now Tim. Cranky flier articulated exactly what I posted on another blog. Look who’s not the smart one?

      1. Tim Dunn Avatar
        Tim Dunn

        copy and paste doesn’t make you smarter.

        UA did bear the brunt of the cuts at EWR. The biggest cuts at EWR came from B6 and NK in line w/ their system cuts.

        UA asked for slot controls at EWR and the FAA gave it enhanced schedule coordination. What happened at EWR can not be described as a win in any book that is even remotely based on the facts.

        We are all speculating to some extent at what will happen at ORD. Most of the people that are commenting are not neutral.
        There is no planet on which AA and UA will be required to cut the same NUMBER of flights. It will be proportional relative to some baseline. And it is very unlikely that carriers other than AA or UA will have to cut much if anything.

        If you believe otherwise, the answer is not copying and pasting what has been discussed elsewhere on the internet but wait until the verdict is in which I strongly suspect will show that UA will end up cutting the largest number of flights.

        and the point still remains that if UA was really serious about capacity they would use some of the $12 billion in new airplanes they have budgeted for this year to get rid of the CRJ550s on at least a 1 new MAXs for 3 CRJ550s

    3. Bill from DC Avatar
      Bill from DC

      Tons of words but none that actually support the assertion that “AA’s ability to remain a viable competitor just received a huge boost w/ the FAA’s action.”

      1. Tim Dunn Avatar
        Tim Dunn

        The mere fact that the FAA stepped in to prevent wholesale overscheduling IS the reason that AA’s chances of surviving the ORD shootout have vastly improved.

        There is no doubt that UA was and is larger at ORD but they cannot disproportionately keep adding capacity beyond what the airport and airspace can handle.

        UA might win even more share at and connecting through ORD but it won’t win by using schedules as a tool to eliminate a hub competitor which UA execs have repeatedly said they expected to do.

        The fact that UA execs were so outspoken about their intent to get AA’s hub out of ORD directly resulted in federal intervention. Has it not occurred to you that there are far more parties that did not want UA to succeed at dominating ORD to the exclusion of AA than wanted it to happen?

        1. Bill from DC Avatar
          Bill from DC

          This is quite an unsubstantiated leap… “The fact that UA execs were so outspoken about their intent to get AA’s hub out of ORD directly resulted in federal intervention.”

          Scheduled traffic levels at ORD directly led to federal intervention, not statements made by executives.

  5. Stormcrash Avatar
    Stormcrash

    Who else thinks we need a new soap opera style name for the battle over Chicago similar to the “As Seattle Turns” saga from the early days of the Delta Alaska conflict in Seattle?

    American is going to need to be very bullish on defending their schedule because any one to one cut between them and united just cements United’s advantage. I don’t know how viable either schedule actually is on its own but American does at least have the angle of having announced the expansion first and can claim true intent to fly said schedule and paint uniteds move purely as an attempt at monopolistic behavior with an unrealistic schedule that existed only to add noise and confusion and stifle competition

    1. MaxPower Avatar
      MaxPower

      1. Chicago Air
      2. Gate Wars
      3. Windy City Runways
      4. Hub(s) — ORD
      5. Terminal 3

      or…
      Cleared for Favor

      The Tower

      Advantaged

      The Allocation

      Priority Handling

      City of Favors

      The Gate Deal

      Machine Air

      Windy City Fix

      1. SEAN Avatar
        SEAN

        No, no, no… Guiding Flight.

        On another note, there are far too many regional flights clogging up the system & before any comments about connecting feed making a flight profitable, there needs to be an understanding that any large hub can only have ex amount of throughput before diminishing returns sets in.

        1. Stormcrash Avatar
          Stormcrash

          Oh Guiding Flight is a good one for sure

        2. MaxPower Avatar
          MaxPower

          Great one lol

      2. Kilroy Avatar
        Kilroy

        My vote is for “AApples United in the Orchard” as a name for this soap opera.

        1. MaxPower Avatar
          MaxPower

          Excellent choice lol

      3. MaxPower Avatar
        MaxPower

        “B(Insert globe emoji)ld & the BeAAutiful” (is there anything more iconic and beautiful than the Home Alone portion of T3?)

  6. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    AA claims that it flew ~480 departures in the peak in summer 2025 vs UA’s ~580 (which looks to be confirmed in that dip in the middle of the graph between ’25-’26. Given this capacity re-evaluation is for IATA summer, wouldn’t that suggest that AA could in fact ask the FAA to look at last summer?

    Then it would depend on if the FAA would ask for a proportionate decrease from what was filed or what was actually flown in 2025 – if it’s the latter, then wouldn’t that be advantage AA? That ratio would not be in line with their gate share either (UA ~95 vs AA ~60). Would it be possible that the FAA would ask airlines to decrease their schedule vs 2025 for not just AA but other airlines?

    In the chart it looks like the periods when UA has its biggest advantage in # of departures vs AA is historically during IATA winter which did not have a similar order (though this may change).

    1. Brett Avatar

      Jeremy – The FAA has asked each airline to volunteer cuts. So, after a few rounds of that, we’ll see if more pressure is needed. But they aren’t really setting the rules. They’re just starting out by hoping the airlines can solve this individually with their help.

    2. Eric R Avatar
      Eric R

      UA could make a valid argument that summer 2025 is not a true representation for AA, but rather AA’s last minute attempt to catch up once they realized the gate allocation risk.

      I think in the end, the FAA will have to intervene because neither airline will cut enough out of fear of losing gates. The ORD situation is much different than the EWR situation since both AA & UA deem ORD much more critical than both NK/B6 viewed EWR.

  7. David C Avatar
    David C

    Everyone keeps talking like it is a total cut instead of looking at those 1/2 hour increments.

    Which airline has a better ability to shift timing of flights?

    I’d say UA does. Not only that, many of their additions were a new late evening bank that seems outside of the 1/2 hour hot zones.

    If the gates at ORD are going to continue to be allocated based on flights operated, looks like with 90 gates, UA has the 24 hour advantage.

    We haven’t even started with political pressure if smaller cities start getting reductions..the FAA will get calls.

    I AM happy that the FAA is being proactive. This is the perfect scenario where government intervention is appropriate and necessary.
    Kudos to them.
    Kudos to the Ninja ATC folks at ORD that keep that airfield moving.

    Been waiting for this article since last week. Thank you Brett.

  8. southbay flier Avatar
    southbay flier

    Isn’t ORD also undergoing construction? This makes sense for the Feds to step in. It seems like the pissing match between AA and United has gotten out of hand. I don’t remember the battle for Seattle being this bad.

    1. Brett Avatar

      southbay – Yep, and it will be for ages.

  9. emac Avatar
    emac

    ugh this could kill my 2026 prediction that ORD will be the least reliable airport this summer!

    1. Aer Dingus Avatar
      Aer Dingus

      Based on my regular travels on United through ORD, I would keep your bet. Last week we left the gate on time at 7p….wheels up nearly an hour later. For a 25 minute flight to GRR. In great weather.

      My only thought at that time was to make sure, if possible, to avoid ORD this spring and summer.

      1. Bill from DC Avatar
        Bill from DC

        And fall. And winter.

  10. George Romey Avatar
    George Romey

    Summer time means thunderstorms, which means delays. What does that mean for you when your incoming plane has no gate to go to, can’t get to the gate even if it’s open or your crew is sitting out on the tarmac? You will get rebooked for 1-2 days down the road and all costs will be on you.

  11. Matt C Avatar
    Matt C

    I thought all that new concrete they poured was supposed to alleviate these issues. 6 parallels is a lot of runway.

    1. Emil D Avatar
      Emil D

      Brett,
      Can you please help with the math? 3 runways for departures and 3 for arrivals. Spaced 90 seconds apart and thats 270 operations per hour. There technically should already be excess runway capacity.

      1. Brett Avatar

        Emil D – I’m not sure exactly what the math uses, but this is published capacity. Depending upon the winds, it can change significantly, even slightly increasing. But 200 is the good rule of thumb.

        1. ejwpj Avatar
          ejwpj

          But….. there is also major congestion on specific concourses at times….. such as the “L” and “G” concourses (both mostly AA). It can be a shambles at times watching arring aircraft wait up to 30 minutes and more to get into their gate!
          Not sure how you would factor that in…..!

        2. Matt C Avatar
          Matt C

          And that’s not even counting if they’re using 22L or 4R for departures.

      2. Kilroy Avatar
        Kilroy

        If you want to read up on the details, halfway down this page is a link to the FAA’s capacity analysis for ORD, though it was last updated in 2018. It’s showing right around 200 operations per hour on instruments, for both East & West flows.

        https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/profiles

  12. 1990 Avatar
    1990

    “arms race” … holy hyperbole, Batman…

  13. andrew Avatar
    andrew

    What about extra landing fees or peak time slots. Like, if you want to land at peak times you pay extra. Do that till you reduce demand at those times and push demand to slower time slots. This would be congestion pricing.

    1. Kilroy Avatar
      Kilroy

      Set a fixed cap on the number of runway operations per 1/2 hour timeslot and auction off the rights to the airlines on a quarterly basis, a few quarters in advance. If American wants to try to outbid United (or vice versa) for the prime timeslots just so that it can run a ton of RJs to places that most people outside of a 3 hour drive of those locales have never heard of. it would be their business and their money.

      The airlines might not like it because of the cost (though one could cap the total revenue pool derived from landing fees, to make the total revenue or average amount paid per landing about the same), but I really like the idea. It would help reduce the politics factor from the equation and force airlines to think a bit more rationally about the economics of their scheduling decisions.

      1. Bill from DC Avatar
        Bill from DC

        This is a fantastic idea!

  14. TWFlyGuy Avatar
    TWFlyGuy

    It will be interesting to see how AA might use their more republican heavy delegations (TX, FL, NC) vs. UA’s more democratic leaning representatives (IL, CO, CA, NJ). If it goes disproportionately against AA the administration might be more inclined to listen to AA’s team.

  15. Bick Rowen Avatar
    Bick Rowen

    A should be allowed to return to pre-COVID levels without impediment, & no group (UA) should use COVID to unfairly gain off anyone else (AA).

  16. Bill from DC Avatar
    Bill from DC

    United continues to play chess at ORD while AmericAAn’t and the airport authority are playing checkers. Or maybe tiddlywinks.

    You don’t need a crystal ball to see how this is going to turn out.

Leave a Reply to 1990 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier