There are a lot of headlines right now about how Chicago O’Hare (ORD) has become the busiest airport in the United States, overtaking Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta (ATL). That’s interesting, because Atlanta has for years not only been the busiest airport in the country, but also the busiest airport in the world. So what has really happened here? Are the Windy City’s claims accurate?
In this post:
“Chicago O’Hare crowned America’s busiest airfield”
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has issued a press release, declaring Chicago O’Hare the busiest airfield in the United States:
- In 2025, the airport saw 857,392 takeoffs and landings, more than any other airport in the country
- As a point of comparison, in 2024, the airport had 776,036 takeoffs and landings, meaning traffic grew around 10% year-over-year, which is impressive
How far ahead of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta was Chicago O’Hare?
- In 2025, the airport saw 807,625 takeoffs and landings, meaning Chicago saw around 6% more movements than Atlanta
- As a point of comparison, in 2024, the airport had 796,224 takeoffs and landings, meaning traffic grew only a little over 1% year-over-year, which isn’t so impressive
For what it’s worth, by this metric, the other top five airports in the country were Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), Denver (DEN), and Las Vegas (LAS).
Here’s how Mayor Johnson describes this achievement for Chicago:
“This is more than a statistic, it’s a statement about Chicago’s momentum. From the runways of O’Hare to the neighborhoods across our city, Chicago is building, growing, and leading. We are open for business, open to the world, and once again setting the pace for the nation.”
Has Chicago really overtaken Atlanta? Not quite…
The Chicago Mayor is technically correct — Chicago O’Hare has become the busiest airfield, which is to say that it has the most aircraft movements. What’s interesting is how the media at large has picked up on this. Most stories suggest that Chicago now has the busiest airport in the country, but that’s not using the traditional metrics.
If you look at data from OAG, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta had 63.1 million departing seats in 2025, compared to Chicago O’Hare’s 50.6 million seats. By that metric, Atlanta has the world’s busiest airport, while Chicago has the world’s eighth busiest airport, and the difference in traffic between the airports is around 25%.
So what gives here? How can there be such a big difference between the number of seats and the number of takeoffs and landings? It’s quite simple — the average aircraft size in Atlanta is way bigger than in Chicago:
- Chicago O’Hare is a massive regional jet market, given that you have both American and United competing, with so many frequencies served by regional jets
- Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta is a fortress hub for Delta, so the airline largely flies big, mainline aircraft to the airport, rather than smaller regional jets
- I imagine that cargo and private jet operations are also a factor here, but not quite as much as the general difference in terms of passenger aircraft size
There’s no right or wrong way to define a “busy” airport. If you’re worried about whether the taxiway will be congested, then total number of movements is important (and gosh, O’Hare taxiway situation has sucked for a very long time).
Meanwhile if you’re worried about the terminal being crowded, then total number of passengers is important. By Chicago’s metrics of “busy,” Dubai would be considered a rather quiet airport, given that the average plane there is massive (Emirates has an all wide body fleet). That means the airport sees a ton of passengers, but not that many aircraft takeoffs and landings.
Anyway, with American and United competing so fiercely in Chicago, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Chicago narrow the gap on Atlanta a bit in 2026, but I wouldn’t expect passenger numbers in Chicago to exceed those in Atlanta.
Bottom line
Chicago O’Hare claims to now be the busiest airfield in the country. That’s true, which is to say that the airfield sees the most takeoffs and landings. What’s not quite true is how it’s widely being reported that Chicago O’Hare has overtaken Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta as the world’s busiest airport, if we’re measuring by passenger numbers (which is typically what people care about).
So while Chicago saw 6% more aircraft movements in 2025, Atlanta still saw around 25% more passengers. This comes down to the average aircraft size being much bigger in Atlanta… it’s that simple.
What do you make of this Atlanta vs. Chicago size battle?
O’hate is literally one of the world’s worst airports in the world with two of the worst airlines in the world.. if you want to see a world class airport ran right, smoothly, plenty of restaurants, seating and so easy to navigate, you will find that at THE WORLD’S BUSIEST AIRPORT…. ATLANTA with the best, Delta airlines!
I think ORD should take the cake. Aircraft movements are a lot more difficult than passenger count IMO.
There are lots of ways that an airport can be deemed busiest. As far as statistics that are actually useful for a traveler, I think neither most passengers nor most flights is all that useful.
For me, the two biggest are most connected (i.e. how many unique non-stop destinations can I reach by at least daily frequency), and least average CASM. I don't know about the latter, but ORD typically ranks pretty high on connectivity.
...There are lots of ways that an airport can be deemed busiest. As far as statistics that are actually useful for a traveler, I think neither most passengers nor most flights is all that useful.
For me, the two biggest are most connected (i.e. how many unique non-stop destinations can I reach by at least daily frequency), and least average CASM. I don't know about the latter, but ORD typically ranks pretty high on connectivity.
That said, between most passengers and most flights, I actually think most flights is the better metric for passengers. Most people don't buy tickets based on aircraft type. They buy it based on price and schedule. All those regional jets do have a purpose besides hogging gates: there are a lot of small and even mid-sized towns for which it's far better to run 2-3 regional jets daily rather than a single 737.
Even for myself, I'd rather connect through an airport that has multiple flights to my final destination, even if they're RJs, than one single large aircraft. That way, I have more flexibility in choosing convenient timings, and if there are any delays on my first leg, I have a much better shot at still reaching my destination rather than spending the night at the layover airport.
The choice is usually not 5 daily RJs from ORD vs 5 737s from ATL. It's more like 5 RJs from ORD vs 3 737s from ATL. The former gives passengers (both O&D and connecting) much more advantage than the latter. Who cares how many pax you're sharing the flight with? It's not like domestic narrowbodies have lie flat seats and bars in the back. Heck, some of the regional jets are actually more comfortable than domestic 737s and A32x.
Crazy Brandon Jackson is a total dummy. This is complexity untrue and Chicago maintains it post as forth busiest airport in. The contiguous united states.
Living in the ATL region nobody wants to fight the traffic trying to get to the airport. And with the Delta stranglehold on ATL nobody wants to pay their fares. So, they opt for smaller airports with feeders to elsewhere. Even if you connect via Delta through ATL their schedules are not great and layovers excessively long. They need to work on their feeder schedules. I opt to go through DFW or ORD or even the dreaded CLT from a smaller airport near me.
Doesnt matter, mark my words, with DFW's new state of art additional terminal F, focused on AA and one world international and 30+ new gates, plus them finishing adding like 10-15 to existing terminals plus renovations...by 2030 or sooner DFW for the big win. hehehe. plus its just a better not crowded feeling, modern, way better airport.
Yeah but ORD isn't sitting still. They just completed an expansion of T5, and now they're working on massive expansion of the main terminal complex, adding several concourses and redoing T2 as a global terminal for star alliance and one world airlines. Once they finish that, the reconfiguration actually nets them a bunch of new land on which they can build 2-3 more concourses in the future pretty easily if/when the traffic merits it.
As...
Yeah but ORD isn't sitting still. They just completed an expansion of T5, and now they're working on massive expansion of the main terminal complex, adding several concourses and redoing T2 as a global terminal for star alliance and one world airlines. Once they finish that, the reconfiguration actually nets them a bunch of new land on which they can build 2-3 more concourses in the future pretty easily if/when the traffic merits it.
As an ORD homer, I'm not too worried about DFW. It will always be big, of course, but their planned expansions aren't as much as ORD's. The big wildcard is Denver. They're in expansion mode as well, and have the space and layout to essentially build as much as they want. Their yearly growth has catapulted them in the rankings, and I imagine they'll continue to grow pretty aggressively.
By 2030, I think it will depend on which airports actually complete their construction projects on-time. On the downside, all of these big expansions (including plans at LAX, EWR, and JFK) mean that the per-passenger landing fees are set to explode at most of the biggest airports, meaning higher ticket prices most likely.
Years ago, the headline was about salsa topping ketchup as top-selling/favorite condiment. Ketchup by far sold more volume/weight, so it was the favorite in that sense. Salsa costs a lot more. So, salsa has less total volume/weight, but the $ales were more. No difference, here, pick the stat that produces the ranking you want.
Which stat puts CMH on top?
You know why? Because people like to say salsa.
It's only right. Let's go OHR! Realistically, Windy City can still easily be one of the world's top destinations if not for crime.
“… if not for crime.”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOL!!!!!1!!!!
Forget crime, that Lake Effect weather keeps me away half the year. Brrrrr. If Chicago had SF’s weather it would be unstoppable.
ORD for decades was the world’s busiest airport by pax. Lost it to ATL in the 90s? 00s?
ORD had led by plane movements for a decade or more (not sure during pandemic).
ORD is helped by having the most runways (8) in the world for a commercial airport.
Won’t be surprised to see ORD overtake ATL in pax once again once the satellites and Global Terminal are completed.
Also keep in mind, Chicago has a second airport at 20+ mil pax, so Chicago may have more pax than ATL.
ORD did use to be the busiest airport in the world for quite some time
Ben's use of "the airport" in the first 4 bullets is really cool -- in the first two, it is ORD, in the next two, it is ATL. The reader can only infer the referent of the 3rd and 4th bullets' instances of "the airport" from the existence of the first two bullets. (I started reading from the 3rd bullet for some reason and had no idea which airport was being talked about.) Presumably this...
Ben's use of "the airport" in the first 4 bullets is really cool -- in the first two, it is ORD, in the next two, it is ATL. The reader can only infer the referent of the 3rd and 4th bullets' instances of "the airport" from the existence of the first two bullets. (I started reading from the 3rd bullet for some reason and had no idea which airport was being talked about.) Presumably this is because the same info is being repeated but with different numbers, so it must be the other airport. And the first airport is clearly ORD. And we figure all this out without conscious thinking (unless we start with the 3rd bullet).
(This message possibly of interest to the small population who are both LangGeeks and AvGeeks.)
I prefer the term lexiphile because the double-G in langgeek hurts my brain. Both hobbies pair well with my [severe] case of ferroequinologism and mild philatelic habits. My friends group chat isn’t called “nerd herd” for nothing. Plenty of grammar gurus in the comments on OMAAT, though!
Thank you for "ferroequinologism", new word for me!
Lucky - Quick estimates I found online show that ORD does 10,000+ more cargo takeoff/landings than ATL. Might explain part of the discrepancy.
For the aircraft spotter, ORD is better than boring ATL, full of Delta planes. Of course, ORD cannot compare with LHR or JFK.
Ben is correct.
The skies over Chicago will become even more crowded as AA and UA fight it out w/ RJs trying to win on flights while limiting the amount of capacity.
Meanwhile, DL's hub at ATL has one of the highest average aircraft sizes of large US hubs.
and DL offers more seats from ATL than any other hub in the world.
We love our RJs, short bus rider. Go pleasure yourself with your A350-1000 sex toy and shut up.
Asking for a friend but where does one obtain one of these silicone A350-1000s?
Again, not for me.
It's CFRP
CFRP
That sounds uncomfortable.
you have so much to learn.
It's irrelevant regarding passengers or enplanements. Chicago is by far the better city. Atlanta was burnt by General Sherman, we were burnt by a cow, which is far cooler. But it's mostly because United is headquartered here and Atlanta has the most evil airline on Earth, run by a man that mixes his analingus efforts on Satan and Guillaume Faury, and whose amateur spokestwit here is a verified retard (yes, you, Timbits).
Atlanta is racist but Chicago is famous for governors being promoted to prison inmate afterwards, Kerner, Walker, Ryan, Blago. Pritzker is so fat he should be on a prison diet.
Chicago architecture easily beats Atlanta. But Atlanta never committed terrorism in the form of a mayor destroying an airport (Meigs Field) in the early morning hours.
As a passenger, I slightly prefer ORD.
All of that is countered by the 100 Nobels won by my alma mater and the fact that I was born in the city.
least obvious ragebait
You’re absolutely correct, but let’s remember that it’s still the Midwest. Have some humility and remember that you share a country with the Northeast and California, even if you’re king of flyover land.
ORD, your typical negativity is sometimes outshined by days like today. Being razed to dirt by a mildly disgruntled cow is indeed far cooler than any other way a major fire has started before or since. It of course also allowed Chicago to grow into the sparkling marvel that it is today, much like Japan following WWII.
I came here for ORD’s ‘hot take’ on this, and I was not disappointed.
For what it’s worth, ORD almost certainly overtook DFW and DEN in passenger count this year, moving up from the #4 to the #2 slot. And it should add another 5%+ to that figure next year!
I assume Chicago probably experiences more cargo traffic than Atlanta. Does anyone know if that's true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cargo_airports_in_the_United_States
tl;dr Yes ORD has significantly more cargo traffic than ATL. A couple of years ago, ORD was deemed the busiest port in the country (beating out water ports like LA and Long Beach) by value, meaning the dollar value of the goods that were transported. Of course, that's because ORD has a lot of high-value low-weight air cargo, like electronics and pharmaceuticals. While ocean freight tends to be high weight and cheaper. But that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cargo_airports_in_the_United_States
tl;dr Yes ORD has significantly more cargo traffic than ATL. A couple of years ago, ORD was deemed the busiest port in the country (beating out water ports like LA and Long Beach) by value, meaning the dollar value of the goods that were transported. Of course, that's because ORD has a lot of high-value low-weight air cargo, like electronics and pharmaceuticals. While ocean freight tends to be high weight and cheaper. But that gives you a sense of the scale of its cargo operations.
That said, a lot of that cargo is in the belly of passenger jets, but they do get a lot of dedicated cargo flights as well.
how much of a factor are the cargo flights for ORD? I definitely see a decent number of cargo 747s flying over in Chicago