Jack, The airlines already have it in their power to manage the “day of” movement of their aircraft in real time to resolve this, but refuse. In fact, airlines have had the power to fix this for decades as independently validated by FAA, Embry-Riddle University (Vitaly Guzhva, 386-212-4609, <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]), GE Aviation, Georgia Tech, Delta Air Lines and others. GreenLandings? is also supported by the Port Authority of New and New Jersey (Ralph Tamburro, 917-828-7741, <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]). I can easily show any interested airline how to retake control over the movement of their aircraft to prevent most delays, as well as gate holdouts. It is like what we discussed when we had lunch a couple of years ago, FAA has no concept of the problem, so how could they fix this. As I have said, this can only be fixed internally by each airline. Not by ATC, not by FAA/Eurocontrol, not by more regulations, not by adjusting schedules, not with capacity limitations, not by a focus on D0, not by airports and not by labor. Further, ATC regulation and ATC are already in charge are, which has not worked out well. ATC has no concept of the business needs of each aircraft (schedules, connections, gate availability, crew legality, fuel, ramp congestion, maintenance, etc.), and never should. Airlines have all the data, computational power, communication capability, etc. to dramatically improve their “day of” operation but simply have no interest. Finally, we already have a Future Uniform Cohesive Knowledge Utilizing Planning solution - DOT’s Brand New ATC System. Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada cell - (303) 521-6047 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] From: Jack Keady via Mifnet <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2026 13:48 To: ATHGroup--- via Mifnet <[email protected]>; Mifnet Mifnet <[email protected]> Cc: Jack Keady <[email protected]> Subject: [Mifnet 🛰 75495] Re: FW: Cliff Argue gate question Mike - I'm focusing on your example of an inbound seeing an empty gate but being unable to reach it due to five outbound pushes. And we know this happens all the time. What would be a solution to this? One thing would be to regulate airlines as to minimizing these situations. Have them report instances of waiting for a gate inbound or outbound congestion due to "company" traffic, not ATC Another way would be for the ATC to take charge. Have them track every idle minute an aircraft is waiting while ATC could clear them to either threshold or gate Finally, this whole issue could be turned over to AI. A company i am hoping to get funding for would review an airports schedule every morning and measure the million or more eventualities and then issue an entire schematic for the whole day. This new company for which I am launching and seeking funding for will be named Future Uniform Cohesive Knowledge Utilizing Planning. Please do not try and create an acronym. j keady - founder and nutjob On Sunday, February 22, 2026 at 12:48:36 PM PST, ATHGroup--- via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Jack, Having flown into and out of ORD over and over again, most of the gate holds are driven by the gross inefficient use of the available gates and much less so by actual gate availability or ATC actions. For example, why fly fast enroute if your gate is not available? Yet airlines do this all the time. Not only does this waste fuel enroute, but it also congests the terminal airspace, delays other aircraft increases noise, takes up a valuable landing slot which should be used by a late aircraft, congests the ramp, and - as proven by ATH Group - leads to increased taxi times while early flights wait for their gate. Further, the airline has ramp workers, fuelers, and other secondary processes “standing by,” wasting time, and costing money. One action produces lower quality with numerous highly variant and costly effects. Yet airlines do nothing. Nothing academic here - just well-understood supply chain and defect prevention tools from a system perspective. Although not a common occurrence, the example below happens over and over again on a much smaller scale. Gate availability problems are easily predictable hours prior to landing, yet the airline’s only response is to change gates. In fact, I had one gate management team tell me that they were so proud that they were able to do 1,000 gate changes in one day. Can you say Defect Correction? On my flight from Portland, OR (PDX) to Chicago (ORD). That day, the tailwinds were in excess of 180 knots, which would and my flight into ORD 30 to 40 minutes early. Of course, the PDX agents wanted to shut the door 10 minutes early and “push” the aircraft to ORD, since everyone was on board the aircraft (local goal of “shutting the door” early to meet an “on time departure” or D0), which I prevented, and we left on time. Next, I taxied very slowly, and cruised at a low speed for better fuel mileage, to the point ATC asked why I was flying so slowly. Apparently, the controller had never had an A320 cruising at .715 Mach. When I arrived at ORD, I landed 16 minutes prior to schedule, instead of 30 to 40 minutes like all the other arriving aircraft which were “pushed” off their departure gates to meet D0 and wasted fuel going normal speed. Of course, when so many aircraft land 30 to 40 minutes early at a hub airport, the gates are still full from the previous arrival bank. This forces ATC to temporarily park and manage aircraft everywhere and anywhere they can, to the point that - as I exited the runway - I couldn't talk with ATC as they were completely overloaded with D0 “pushed” aircraft parked everywhere waiting for their gate. After a few minutes, I was able to break in on the radio, and received clearance to my gate, which was open. As I entered the alley, yes, my gate was open, but it was blocked by five other aircraft that had just left their gates, which were awaiting taxi clearance to depart. The end result was that ORD devolved into a classic gridlock situation between the departures and D0 forced early arrivals, as the ATC system and airport were completely overwhelmed. I sat for 20 minutes looking at my empty gate 200 yards ahead but couldn't get to it. Of course, like everyone else who landed 30 to 40 minutes early, I was late to the gate (20 minutes), even though I landed 16 minutes early. Could ATC and the airport have handled this better? Of course! But the real solution was for the airlines to manage their departures by “pulling” the right aircraft from their departure gates to not overload the ORD ATC system or the airport. Clearly, if a simple line pilot recognized the problem hours prior (accurate ETA information hours in advance), an airline should have done the same, and prevented the problem from developing in the first place (Defect Prevention, ala W. Edwards Deming). Given the facts, one would think airlines would jump at the chance to internally implement an FAA proven, independently validated, inexpensive solution that, within months, can improve on time performance, product quality, profits, and ATC - while cutting costs, fuel, CO2, noise, and daily defects, all with a return on investment measured in months, if not weeks. Michael xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx R. Michael Baiada cell - (303) 521-6047 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> From: Jack Keady via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2026 11:44 To: David Wardell via Mifnet <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: Jack Keady <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [Mifnet 🛰 75489] Cliff Argue gate question Cliff - re ORD article below, it would seem to make sense if every major airline was mandated to keep and empty gate available in order to eliminate a "wait for gate" queue. Does this make much sense and what is the legality? The headline debate is the escalating American Airlines–United Airlines (AA-UA) one-upmanship at Chicago O’Hare (ORD), with the episode calling out a summer schedule in which AA is targeting ~550 daily departures while UA is pushing 750+. <https://src.trvdp.com/images/f32138fcfa733e2168a7caef5f2766ec7e285bd0_2.jpg> <https://src.trvdp.com/images/f32138fcfa733e2168a7caef5f2766ec7e285bd0_2.jpg> <https://ib.adnxs.com/getuid?https%3A%2F%2Fv6.truvidplayer.com%2Flive%2Fusersync.php%3Fprovider_id%3Dxandr%26user_id%3D%24UID%26gdpr%3D0%26gdpr_consent%3D> <https://image8.pubmatic.com/AdServer/ImgSync?p=167031&gdpr=0&gdpr_consent=&pu=https%3A%2F%2Fv6.truvidplayer.com%2Flive%2Fusersync.php%3Fprovider_id%3Dpubmatic%26user_id%3D%23PMUID> <https://sync.smartadserver.com/getuid?url=https%3A//v6.truvidplayer.com/live/usersync.php%3Fprovider_id%3Dequative%26user_id%3D%5bsas_uid%5d&gdpr_consent=&nwid=3356> Vinay frames the structural reality: UA has held a long-running gate-space advantage at ORD—roughly 50% more raw gate space—and post-pandemic momentum has shifted local share in UA’s favor. The key nuance: ORD today is not the ORD of the early 2000s. Airfield capacity is stronger after runway reconfiguration, but the “summer-from-hell” risk has evolved. The constraint is less about takeoff/landing throughput and more about gates—think aircraft sitting and waiting for a spot to park. Vinay also floats a top-line implication: if the capacity surge sticks, ORD could push past its 2019 peak (noted at just over 84 million passengers) and potentially approach90 million, tightening the race for “busiest” bragging rights.
Where Southwest Fits The conversation adds a third angle: Southwest Airlines’ (WN) dual-airport presence (MDW + growing at ORD) and early interline/codeshare dynamics could subtly reshape flows as legacy carriers flood markets with aggressive pricing. The bigger takeaway: even marginal network adjustments by WN can matter when two network carriers are chasing frequency leadership in the same metro.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revised: 20250507 You are receiving The Mifnet because you requested to join this list. The Mifnet is largely a labor of love, however the infrastructure isn't exactly cost-free. If you'd care to make a small contribution to the effort, please know that it would be greatly appreciated: https://wardell.us/url/mifbit All posts sent to the list should abide by these policies: 1) List members acknowledge that participation in Mifnet is a privilege--not a right. 2) Posts are always off the record, absent specific permission from the author. 3) The tone of discussions is collegial. 4) Posts are expected to be in reasonably good taste. 5) We discuss ideas and not personalities, and we don't speak ill of other Mifnet members. * The Mifnet WEB SITE is: https://www.mifnet.com/ * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list at any time please visit: https://lists.mifnet.com/ OR: SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=leave * Send Mifnet mailing list POSTS/SUBMISSIONS to: [email protected] * You may reach the person managing The Mifnet at: [email protected] * Please consider the DIGEST version of The Mifnet, which consolidates all list traffic into 1-3 messages daily. See instructions at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * Manage your personal Mifnet SUBSCRIPTION at: https://lists.mifnet.com/ * For a list of all available Mifnet commands, SEND THIS MESSAGE via email: [email protected]?subject=help * View The Mifnet LIST POLICIES and PRIVACY POLICY at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/policies * View instructions for Mifnet DELIVERY PROBLEMS at: https://mifnet.com/index.php/delivery-problems * View The Mifnet LIST ARCHIVE at: https://lists.mifnet.com/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/
