ORD...........Yikes!
 

I needed to talk about this as I could not believe it! For whatever reason, I simply have never flown threw ORD. Everything has been through DEN and the western U.S. and if going east I would always fly A/C most likely through YYZ.

We were coming back from PEK and had a brief stopover in ORD........I could not believe how outdated and simply disgusting ORD is! Maybe other terminals were different but we were flying to YWG ( can't remember the terminal nor do I feel like looking it up right now :) ) I could not believe the depressing feeling for such a well known, busy airport! It felt like we were jammed pack like sardines in this place; old dirty washrooms; the ceiling felt low with minimal light; we were looking for a place to eat and sit down and could find only two places with minimal seating............had to stand in line forever and got seated practically eating on the lap of the couple beside us.

I simply was surprised on the hole this place was..........will be doing everything possible to never set foot through that place again:D The city of Chicago should be embarrassed.

If you think ORD is bad go to IAD or LGA.

You were probably in Terminal 2, one of the original CF Murphy and Associates that has not been massively remodeled or replaced. That's where United flies commuter flights from to places like YWG and other second- and third-rate destinations that I don't feel like looking up right now. :)

You could say that about *insert almost any USA airport here*.

Meh, ORD isn't that bad. In the US airports are owned by the Government (City or some authority) and typically don't get much more funding than the fees they collect (most of which are set by some legislative body). I'd rather have lower fees than a nicer airport. Most of the "nice" elements of airports are built by the carriers not the government (take a look at UA's investment at SFO and BOS; paid for by UA not SF or MassPort). If you want a nicer airport tell the airline you're traveling on, not the City.

Were you flying the express (UX) or AC flights in/out of ORD??? E / F gates (Terminal 2) -- the C / D (T1 main terminal) is very different.

If it's just that, why would be the AA terminal in IAD so nice, and the UA terminal such a dump?

I hate to play can I top this but the IAD United Express commuter terminal is the pits of hell. No food, minimal bathrooms, cold and dark. Plus it's about a million miles from the international gates and up and down 8 staircases. I swear I will never fly out of IAD again. I'd rather drive to IAD to catch an international flight than do the UNITED Express route again!

Because UA gates are still considered "temporary" (and the airport authority is resisting updates and wanting funds from tenants {such as UA}) while B gates are permanent.

there is no doubt in my mind the IAD UX (A) gates are the bottom of the bottom. Especially noticeable because of the adjacency to the nicer B gates.

Some of us call it home :).

It had to be terminal 2. And it does feel like you're packed in like a sardine there. But I wouldn't call it disgusting. I assume at some point US will move to terminal 3, if there's room. Anyone heard any good rumors on this or on who will take those gates? Or if US is staying there?

Just wait until your return flight from YWG. It's the newest airport terminal with nothing to do. They rebuilt that whole airport a couple of years ago with no real improvement for US departures. The US departure corner has a Tim's coffee hut and nothing else.

For my money, ORD is a pretty lower-middle of the range for domestic terminals. I just hate how often flights get delayed out of there. Plus there isn't enough seating or power outlets or anything at peak flight times, either at the gates or in the food options.

IAD isn't a hub for AA and they likely pay higher landing and lease fees which, for the relatively low number of flights they have, aren't that bad. UA likely has a much more complex deal which has them taking on larger responsibility for the facilities they use in exchange for lower fees.

Well, there are food options in terminal A. What I hate is getting to/from Terminal C to/from A. The trains are connected to maximize the amount of walking you have to do. Hardly friendly for short connections, which many UX flights are.

I'd much rather come in Terminal A and depart from Terminal B, as B is very nice and you have the LH lounge there.

And like others said, ORD terminals C/D are fine. It's E/F that's the pits. IAD C/D on the other hand, really needs to be redone like Terminal B.

Billy

Because UA doesn't care about its IAD customers, that's why.

I think that's a little simplistic. It may be more correct to say the UA doesn't think it needs to improve the IAD terminal in order to remain completive...and I think they are right.

You'll notice the recent UA terminal investment has come where there is strong competition. SFO with Virgin and BOS with JetBlue. Both Virgin and JetBlue use their swankiness as a way to court customers and UA has stepped up to meet that. They don't need to do that in IAD. Even the improvements at IAH are likely intended to pull RJ traffic from DFW rather than just make things nicer for UA customers.