The latest chapter in an ongoing legal battle between Abbott Laboratories and parents of babies born prematurely is slated to play out in Chicago this week — with the beginning of a trial that could have implications for the company and families across the country.

North suburban-based Abbott has been entangled in litigation with parents for years over whether its specialized, cow’s milk-based formulas for infants born prematurely cause a life-threatening intestinal disease called necrotizing enterocolitis. 

Abbott now faces more than 1,700 lawsuits over the issue in courts across the country. But so far, only two cases against Abbott have gone to trial — both in Missouri state court. 

Now, for the first time in Cook County Circuit Court, cases over the matter are scheduled to go to trial, with jury selection set to start Wednesday. 

The stakes are high for Abbott and for families of babies born prematurely. 

For Abbott, hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line. In one of the cases that already went to trial in Missouri, the jury returned a $495 million verdict against Abbott, though that case is now under appeal.

The potential implications are even larger for families. While the parents say in their lawsuits that Abbott must be held accountable, the company’s CEO has suggested that Abbott could pull the specialized formula altogether because of the flood of litigation. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has previously warned that the specialized formulas are a “routine and necessary” part of care for some infants, and steps must be taken to “protect the supply of infant formula for those who need it.”

“The last thing you want is for companies like Abbott to say, ‘The headaches are not worth it. We’re simply going to stop making this product,’ because then that leaves parents of preterm infants in a very, very precarious place,” said Peter Pitts, a former associate commissioner at the FDA and president and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in other, similar cases, however, say Abbott’s threat to pull the formulas is a scare tactic.

Abbott declined to comment for this article, as did attorneys for the parents whose cases are heading to trial this week. The trial could last about six to eight weeks.

The heart of the cases

The trial scheduled for later this week involves four lawsuits, going to trial together, all filed in 2022 by Illinois parents whose babies were born prematurely at Chicago area hospitals between 2012 and 2019. 

Though the complaints are short on personal details, they all contain the same basic allegations: prematurely born babies fell ill and are now suffering from long-term health problems as a result of consuming Abbott’s cow’s milk-based products. 

The parents behind the lawsuits contend that Abbott failed to provide warnings about the risks of its products, was negligent, and misrepresented the safety of the products — all allegations that Abbott denies in court documents.

Abbott has argued in court documents that the babies’ injuries were “the result of unavoidable circumstances” and that the “benefits of Abbott’s products outweigh the risks, if any, that might be associated with the product.”

At the heart of the cases is the question of whether Abbott’s specialized formulas caused the babies to contract NEC, a disease in which tissue lining the intestine becomes inflamed and dies. Preterm and low-birth-weight babies are at higher risk than full-term babies of developing NEC, potentially because of their immature digestive systems, according to the National Institutes of Health. Research indicates 15% to 40% of infants with the disease die.

A study published in 2024 found the risk of NEC in preterm babies, born before 29 weeks of pregnancy, who were fed formula was twice as high as in those fed donated breast milk — echoing findings from other past studies. The U.S. surgeon general in 2011 also acknowledged that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of NEC for premature infants.

It remains unclear, however, exactly what causes NEC. Some pre-term babies who drink only breast milk also develop the disease. 

In 2024, three major government agencies — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — released a joint statement on NEC and premature infants, following a report by a group of experts who were asked to compile information about the science behind the issue.

In that statement, the agencies said, “There is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.”

“Available evidence supports the hypothesis that it is the absence of human milk — rather than the exposure to formula — that is associated with an increase in the risk of NEC,” according to the statement.

The agencies wrote that “important scientific gaps exist” when it comes to understanding NEC and how feeding practices may relate to it.

Those findings should be important when juries consider whether Abbott is liable, critics of the lawsuits say.

“They’re terrible,” Pitts said of the situations where infants got sick or died with NEC. “But the tort bar relies on emotion to win these cases rather than the law, regulatory science or the facts.”

Attorneys who have represented parents in similar cases, however, say even if the cause of NEC isn’t totally clear, it’s enough that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of NEC in preterm infants.  

“The semantics about … definitive causation, is all sort of nonsense when a mother or father is in a room trying to decide how to feed their child and you don’t tell them anything about (the increased risk of NEC with formula feeding),” said Tor Hoerman, an attorney representing parents involved in other, similar cases in Cook County and around the country. 

“If something increases the risk of a terrible disease, tell me,” he said.

Hoerman represents the mother who filed the lawsuit that resulted in a $495 million verdict against Abbott in 2024. 

Abbott, however, has argued in court documents that it wouldn’t have made a difference in the cases set to go to trial this week if Abbott had provided a warning about the products because the parents didn’t read the packaging. Also, Abbott contends, in three of the four cases, medical providers gave parents information about NEC risks and nutrition, and in three of the cases, formula was the only option for feeding the infants, as there was no mother’s milk or donated breast milk available at the hospitals for them at the time. 

“Indeed, in three of the cases, the NICU medical treaters gave the Plaintiff-parents information about NEC risks and nutrition — the same thing they presumably wanted to hear from Abbott — and even so, formula was given,” Abbott said in a court document. “There is no basis to infer that a different warning from Abbott would have produced a different treatment.”

Lobbying and litigation

Abbott has been exploring multiple ways to get relief when it comes to the debate over the safety of its preterm infant formulas.

In the past, Abbott CEO Robert Ford has suggested that the company could drop the products entirely if Abbott keeps facing litigation. The specialized formulas account for a very small part of Abbott’s revenue, though attorneys for parents suing the company say the formulas help Abbott build brand loyalty and secure hospital contracts.

Abbott has also proposed giving up control over sales and distribution of the formulas to the federal government “to protect the long-term supply for American babies and their doctors,” an Abbott spokesperson previously said in a statement. 

When asked if the government would consider it, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it does not comment on pending litigation. Abbott declined to comment on the government’s response for this article.

Disclosure forms also show that Abbott has been actively lobbying for legislation on the issue. Last year, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced a bill that would temporarily preempt certain lawsuits against Abbott and other manufacturers of specialized formulas for preterm infants while the FDA studies the issue. 

That bill, however, hasn’t made any progress since it was introduced a year ago, meaning cases like the ones scheduled for trial this week continue to move forward.

Of the two cases that have been heard in state court so far against Abbott, one resulted in the $495 million verdict against Abbott. In the other, Abbott and Mead Johnson Nutrition, another company that also makes formulas for babies born prematurely, were found not liable for a boy developing NEC. But a St. Louis judge later granted a motion for a new trial citing “errors and misconduct” in the original trial. Abbott is appealing that decision.

Another similar case also went to trial in St. Clair County, Ill., but that case was filed against Mead Johnson, not Abbott. In that case, the jury decided on a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson.

Hundreds of cases have also been filed in federal court in Chicago. Four of those cases were chosen as bellwether cases, meaning their outcomes are meant to help guide how all the other cases in federal court in Chicago might proceed, and/or how to settle those cases. So far, three of those bellwether cases were thrown out before they went to trial. The fourth bellwether case is scheduled to go to trial in July.

Though the four cases scheduled for trial in Cook County Circuit Court this week are not technically considered bellwether cases, the hope is that they could serve a similar purpose, said Elizabeth Kaveny, who is representing dozens of parents who’ve filed other lawsuits in federal court and state courts.

“It can hopefully lead to meaningful settlement discussions between the parties so hundreds of (cases) would not need to be tried,” Kaveny said. 

So far, Abbott has not settled any of the cases.

“At this point in the litigation, we hopefully win and Abbott will change their conduct, but even if the jury doesn’t come back in the plaintiffs’ favor, it doesn’t change that we will continue,” Hoerman said.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/abbott-laboratories-formula-trial/ 

The latest chapter in an ongoing legal battle between Abbott Laboratories and parents of babies born prematurely is slated to play out in Chicago this week — with the beginning of a trial that could have implications for the company and families across the country.

North suburban-based Abbott has been entangled in litigation with parents for years over whether its specialized, cow’s milk-based formulas for infants born prematurely cause a life-threatening intestinal disease called necrotizing enterocolitis. 

Abbott now faces more than 1,700 lawsuits over the issue in courts across the country. But so far, only two cases against Abbott have gone to trial — both in Missouri state court. 

Now, for the first time in Cook County Circuit Court, cases over the matter are scheduled to go to trial, with jury selection set to start Wednesday. 

The stakes are high for Abbott and for families of babies born prematurely. 

For Abbott, hundreds of millions of dollars are on the line. In one of the cases that already went to trial in Missouri, the jury returned a $495 million verdict against Abbott, though that case is now under appeal.

The potential implications are even larger for families. While the parents say in their lawsuits that Abbott must be held accountable, the company’s CEO has suggested that Abbott could pull the specialized formula altogether because of the flood of litigation. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has previously warned that the specialized formulas are a “routine and necessary” part of care for some infants, and steps must be taken to “protect the supply of infant formula for those who need it.”

“The last thing you want is for companies like Abbott to say, ‘The headaches are not worth it. We’re simply going to stop making this product,’ because then that leaves parents of preterm infants in a very, very precarious place,” said Peter Pitts, a former associate commissioner at the FDA and president and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Attorneys for plaintiffs in other, similar cases, however, say Abbott’s threat to pull the formulas is a scare tactic.

Abbott declined to comment for this article, as did attorneys for the parents whose cases are heading to trial this week. The trial could last about six to eight weeks.

The heart of the cases

The trial scheduled for later this week involves four lawsuits, going to trial together, all filed in 2022 by Illinois parents whose babies were born prematurely at Chicago area hospitals between 2012 and 2019. 

Though the complaints are short on personal details, they all contain the same basic allegations: prematurely born babies fell ill and are now suffering from long-term health problems as a result of consuming Abbott’s cow’s milk-based products. 

The parents behind the lawsuits contend that Abbott failed to provide warnings about the risks of its products, was negligent, and misrepresented the safety of the products — all allegations that Abbott denies in court documents.

Abbott has argued in court documents that the babies’ injuries were “the result of unavoidable circumstances” and that the “benefits of Abbott’s products outweigh the risks, if any, that might be associated with the product.”

At the heart of the cases is the question of whether Abbott’s specialized formulas caused the babies to contract NEC, a disease in which tissue lining the intestine becomes inflamed and dies. Preterm and low-birth-weight babies are at higher risk than full-term babies of developing NEC, potentially because of their immature digestive systems, according to the National Institutes of Health. Research indicates 15% to 40% of infants with the disease die.

A study published in 2024 found the risk of NEC in preterm babies, born before 29 weeks of pregnancy, who were fed formula was twice as high as in those fed donated breast milk — echoing findings from other past studies. The U.S. surgeon general in 2011 also acknowledged that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of NEC for premature infants.

It remains unclear, however, exactly what causes NEC. Some pre-term babies who drink only breast milk also develop the disease. 

In 2024, three major government agencies — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health — released a joint statement on NEC and premature infants, following a report by a group of experts who were asked to compile information about the science behind the issue.

In that statement, the agencies said, “There is no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.”

“Available evidence supports the hypothesis that it is the absence of human milk — rather than the exposure to formula — that is associated with an increase in the risk of NEC,” according to the statement.

The agencies wrote that “important scientific gaps exist” when it comes to understanding NEC and how feeding practices may relate to it.

Those findings should be important when juries consider whether Abbott is liable, critics of the lawsuits say.

“They’re terrible,” Pitts said of the situations where infants got sick or died with NEC. “But the tort bar relies on emotion to win these cases rather than the law, regulatory science or the facts.”

Attorneys who have represented parents in similar cases, however, say even if the cause of NEC isn’t totally clear, it’s enough that formula feeding is associated with higher rates of NEC in preterm infants.  

“The semantics about … definitive causation, is all sort of nonsense when a mother or father is in a room trying to decide how to feed their child and you don’t tell them anything about (the increased risk of NEC with formula feeding),” said Tor Hoerman, an attorney representing parents involved in other, similar cases in Cook County and around the country. 

“If something increases the risk of a terrible disease, tell me,” he said.

Hoerman represents the mother who filed the lawsuit that resulted in a $495 million verdict against Abbott in 2024. 

Abbott, however, has argued in court documents that it wouldn’t have made a difference in the cases set to go to trial this week if Abbott had provided a warning about the products because the parents didn’t read the packaging. Also, Abbott contends, in three of the four cases, medical providers gave parents information about NEC risks and nutrition, and in three of the cases, formula was the only option for feeding the infants, as there was no mother’s milk or donated breast milk available at the hospitals for them at the time. 

“Indeed, in three of the cases, the NICU medical treaters gave the Plaintiff-parents information about NEC risks and nutrition — the same thing they presumably wanted to hear from Abbott — and even so, formula was given,” Abbott said in a court document. “There is no basis to infer that a different warning from Abbott would have produced a different treatment.”

Lobbying and litigation

Abbott has been exploring multiple ways to get relief when it comes to the debate over the safety of its preterm infant formulas.

In the past, Abbott CEO Robert Ford has suggested that the company could drop the products entirely if Abbott keeps facing litigation. The specialized formulas account for a very small part of Abbott’s revenue, though attorneys for parents suing the company say the formulas help Abbott build brand loyalty and secure hospital contracts.

Abbott has also proposed giving up control over sales and distribution of the formulas to the federal government “to protect the long-term supply for American babies and their doctors,” an Abbott spokesperson previously said in a statement. 

When asked if the government would consider it, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it does not comment on pending litigation. Abbott declined to comment on the government’s response for this article.

Disclosure forms also show that Abbott has been actively lobbying for legislation on the issue. Last year, a Tennessee lawmaker introduced a bill that would temporarily preempt certain lawsuits against Abbott and other manufacturers of specialized formulas for preterm infants while the FDA studies the issue. 

That bill, however, hasn’t made any progress since it was introduced a year ago, meaning cases like the ones scheduled for trial this week continue to move forward.

Of the two cases that have been heard in state court so far against Abbott, one resulted in the $495 million verdict against Abbott. In the other, Abbott and Mead Johnson Nutrition, another company that also makes formulas for babies born prematurely, were found not liable for a boy developing NEC. But a St. Louis judge later granted a motion for a new trial citing “errors and misconduct” in the original trial. Abbott is appealing that decision.

Another similar case also went to trial in St. Clair County, Ill., but that case was filed against Mead Johnson, not Abbott. In that case, the jury decided on a $60 million verdict against Mead Johnson.

Hundreds of cases have also been filed in federal court in Chicago. Four of those cases were chosen as bellwether cases, meaning their outcomes are meant to help guide how all the other cases in federal court in Chicago might proceed, and/or how to settle those cases. So far, three of those bellwether cases were thrown out before they went to trial. The fourth bellwether case is scheduled to go to trial in July.

Though the four cases scheduled for trial in Cook County Circuit Court this week are not technically considered bellwether cases, the hope is that they could serve a similar purpose, said Elizabeth Kaveny, who is representing dozens of parents who’ve filed other lawsuits in federal court and state courts.

“It can hopefully lead to meaningful settlement discussions between the parties so hundreds of (cases) would not need to be tried,” Kaveny said. 

So far, Abbott has not settled any of the cases.

“At this point in the litigation, we hopefully win and Abbott will change their conduct, but even if the jury doesn’t come back in the plaintiffs’ favor, it doesn’t change that we will continue,” Hoerman said.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/abbott-laboratories-formula-trial/ 

End this war now.

I stand firmly on the side of the American people and our troops and against the war of aggression in Iran started by the Israeli government and the Donald Trump administration. This war of choice is in violation of both international law and the U.S. Constitution, which requires congressional authorization for war.

I expect our elected representatives to use all means at their disposal to end this war, whether they be our U.S. senators and representatives, governor or state lawmakers.

Furthermore, anyone who aspires to office, either in 2026 or 2028, needs to be clear now that they stand against this war. Retroactive protestation of regret, or of being misled, as some politicians did after the Iraq War, will carry no weight.

If you support the war at this moment, the American people will not vote for you. Period.

— Mohiuddin Ahmed, River Forest

We’ll know in 5 years

First, as to whether the attacks on Iran are a good idea, ask back in five years. Regardless of whether you are for or against the idea of the attacks, we’re really not going to know whether the attacks are a good idea until we see how they play out and things develop. Obviously, partisans (and there are plenty on both sides) think they already know what the answer is. As for me, I will wait and see.

Second, consider North Korea. I remember back in the 1990s and 2000s, American presidents said that North Korea must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. But, ultimately, just saying that, plus imposing sanctions and trying to negotiate with the North Koreans, didn’t work, and in 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, joining the nuclear club. It is my understanding that the George W. Bush administration just did not see a good way to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons at that point.

People survey the damage to surrounding buildings after a police station was destroyed in Tehran by U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, photographed during a government-led media tour on March 3, 2026. (Arash Khamooshi/The New York Times)

Which brings us to Iran. Once again, president after president has said that Iran must not get nuclear weapons. But nobody has really figured out how to stop Iran. President Barack Obama tried negotiations, but even the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement would only have delayed Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Sanctions have been tried, at varying levels of severity, but they weren’t going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, either. Iran has consistently refused to do what was necessary for the world to know it would never get nuclear weapons.

But maybe, because of everything that has happened since Oct. 7, 2023,  the situation in Iran has reached a point in which, unlike the situation the Bush administration faced with North Korea, there was a chance to take action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I don’t know whether what the Donald Trump administration has done, and is doing, will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but I do think that just negotiating would not have worked. It didn’t work with North Korea; it wouldn’t have worked with Iran.

Whether what the Trump administration has done will work? Well, check back in five years.

— Patrick J. Allen, River Forest

On dangerous ground

To learn that dozens of children were killed in the earliest hours of the United States-Israeli military assault on Iran should cause chills and gut-wrenching agony in all Americans of conscience.

President Donald Trump’s dismissive reaction was calling for retribution for the three U.S. soldiers killed on a military base, as if he were unaware of the consequences of his aggression. Shredding predecessor Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran became a clear indication of Trump’s desire for war.

Another thing should remain clear: China will not remain idle while the United States attempts to cut off its access to Iranian oil. Trump is treading on very dangerous ground potentially affecting our very existence.

— Sid Sussman, Hallandale Beach, Florida

Shareholders in war

Whaddya know! Manufacturing has returned to the U.S. We manufacture war. And we, fellow Americans, are the shareholders.

— Carey Payne, Elk Grove Village

When will Congress lead?

I am now sick to my stomach.

Here we go again being at war with no plan. What is the mission? Why are we doing this? What is the desired outcome? How many soldiers are we willing to lose? How many civilians will be killed? How much damage will be inflicted? How much will be spent, now and to rebuild? Why was Congress not involved? Will this war end or go on for 20 years with no resolution?

The amount of money that America chooses to spend on destruction, here or targeted at other countries, is appalling. Yet we can’t seem to figure out a way to pay for health care for all of us. We can spend money on guns and bullets to destroy our own citizens, and we can spend enormous amounts of money for missiles, bombs and military craft, but not for child care or elder care. It seems that our priorities are confused.

It appears that this president wants to remake our country and now the world in his image of carnage that he has proclaimed so often. When will Congress finally take back and use its constitutional power to rein in these dangerous and costly actions?

In this darkness, when will the Congress finally take the lead to stop these impetuous decisions and do what governments should do, which is to take care of their people?

— Laura Davis, Inverness

Put American lives first

I am an older millennial. When I graduated high school 20 years ago, the Iraq surge defined the backdrop of our lives. Some of my classmates enlisted straight out of graduation, drawn by service, duty and the promise of a college education. They came home changed. Some carried visible wounds. Others carried injuries no one could see.

For my generation, war is not abstract. It is the empty chair at Thanksgiving. It is the friend who never quite came back the same.

That is why it is troubling to watch the current trajectory of the Donald Trump administration’s foreign policy. The promise of “America First” was clear. No more endless wars. No more nation building. No more acting as the world’s police officer. Yet the posture we are seeing now feels familiar.

The United States military is the most capable fighting force in the world. But strength does not require constant deployment. Being the best does not mean inserting ourselves into every conflict. Capability is not obligation.

History has shown that regime change imposed by outside force rarely delivers stability. From Iraq to Afghanistan, toppling governments proved far easier than building lasting peace. Power vacuums create chaos. American service members and taxpayers pay the price.

If “America First” means anything, it should mean strategic restraint. It should mean exhausting diplomacy before deploying force. It should mean recognizing that not every global crisis demands an American invasion.

My grandfather, a war veteran, said it best. People are always willing to send others to war if they are not the ones fighting and dying. Too often, decisions about military action are made by those who will never bear the cost.

This is not isolationism. American leadership matters. But leadership is not synonymous with intervention. My generation came of age in the shadow of Iraq. We were told those wars would be quick and decisive. We are still living with the consequences.

Putting America first should mean putting American lives first. We cannot afford to relearn the same lesson.

— Joseph Harrod, Chicago

Outrage is no strategy

I’m a writer shaped by my Czech-Jewish father’s escape from Nazism and the final letter his father wrote before deportation to a death camp; I have spent years reflecting on war and its moral consequences. In that letter, my grandfather urged his son to practice medicine not for wealth but to relieve human suffering. My father lived by those words.

A president who calls himself a “peace president” should recognize the contradiction in suggesting that America can or should forcibly reshape every nation that mistreats its people. Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan offer sobering reminders that wars begun to “teach a lesson” rarely remain limited. They expand, invite retaliation and cost innocent lives — those nations’ and ours.

Moral outrage at oppression is understandable. But outrage is not a strategy. If the United States assumes the role of global enforcer, we risk perpetual conflict under the banner of righteousness.

Strength is not shown by how quickly we use force, but by how wisely we restrain it.

— Joanie Holzer Schirm, Orlando, Florida

Where the buck stops

Why can’t we elect a president who knows where the buck stops?

— Marlene Brandis, Suwanee, Georgia

Unchecked reign allowed

Operation Epic Fury should describe the feelings of every American toward this idiotic and illegal war that our president has declared. Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have offered different versions of why this attack was “necessary.” It was not.

This war is for the political purposes of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So many lives will be lost. And all the Republicans in power share the blame for it all, as they have allowed this president to reign unchecked.

— Gerry McGovern, Naperville

This will change world

The war in Iran is the world’s 9/11. Nothing will be the same.

— David C. Schueler, Columbia, Illinois

Not the way to safety

President Donald Trump’s war on Iran has not been justified to the nation or Congress, much less the United Nations.

There are inexcusable attacks on civilians — on hospitals and on a girls’ school in Minab, killing dozens of children — without regard to United Nations conventions and international law. Not to speak of misusing our soldiers and their consciences.

The status of the United States as the beacon of democracy and the leader of the free world is in jeopardy.

Americans who still believe in international cooperation, multilateralism and democracy must stand up and be heard; they must not cower before the “might makes right” display of power and threats against dissent such as the banning of the firm Anthropic.

Recall that Trump in his first term shredded the multilateral nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran. Now Trump threatens more destruction. This is not the way to safety and peace in the world. It’s the opposite.

— Tony Quintanilla, Chicago

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/letters-030426-iran-war/ 

End this war now.

I stand firmly on the side of the American people and our troops and against the war of aggression in Iran started by the Israeli government and the Donald Trump administration. This war of choice is in violation of both international law and the U.S. Constitution, which requires congressional authorization for war.

I expect our elected representatives to use all means at their disposal to end this war, whether they be our U.S. senators and representatives, governor or state lawmakers.

Furthermore, anyone who aspires to office, either in 2026 or 2028, needs to be clear now that they stand against this war. Retroactive protestation of regret, or of being misled, as some politicians did after the Iraq War, will carry no weight.

If you support the war at this moment, the American people will not vote for you. Period.

— Mohiuddin Ahmed, River Forest

We’ll know in 5 years

First, as to whether the attacks on Iran are a good idea, ask back in five years. Regardless of whether you are for or against the idea of the attacks, we’re really not going to know whether the attacks are a good idea until we see how they play out and things develop. Obviously, partisans (and there are plenty on both sides) think they already know what the answer is. As for me, I will wait and see.

Second, consider North Korea. I remember back in the 1990s and 2000s, American presidents said that North Korea must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. But, ultimately, just saying that, plus imposing sanctions and trying to negotiate with the North Koreans, didn’t work, and in 2006, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test, joining the nuclear club. It is my understanding that the George W. Bush administration just did not see a good way to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons at that point.

People survey the damage to surrounding buildings after a police station was destroyed in Tehran by U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, photographed during a government-led media tour on March 3, 2026. (Arash Khamooshi/The New York Times)

Which brings us to Iran. Once again, president after president has said that Iran must not get nuclear weapons. But nobody has really figured out how to stop Iran. President Barack Obama tried negotiations, but even the terms of the Iran nuclear agreement would only have delayed Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Sanctions have been tried, at varying levels of severity, but they weren’t going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, either. Iran has consistently refused to do what was necessary for the world to know it would never get nuclear weapons.

But maybe, because of everything that has happened since Oct. 7, 2023,  the situation in Iran has reached a point in which, unlike the situation the Bush administration faced with North Korea, there was a chance to take action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I don’t know whether what the Donald Trump administration has done, and is doing, will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but I do think that just negotiating would not have worked. It didn’t work with North Korea; it wouldn’t have worked with Iran.

Whether what the Trump administration has done will work? Well, check back in five years.

— Patrick J. Allen, River Forest

On dangerous ground

To learn that dozens of children were killed in the earliest hours of the United States-Israeli military assault on Iran should cause chills and gut-wrenching agony in all Americans of conscience.

President Donald Trump’s dismissive reaction was calling for retribution for the three U.S. soldiers killed on a military base, as if he were unaware of the consequences of his aggression. Shredding predecessor Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran became a clear indication of Trump’s desire for war.

Another thing should remain clear: China will not remain idle while the United States attempts to cut off its access to Iranian oil. Trump is treading on very dangerous ground potentially affecting our very existence.

— Sid Sussman, Hallandale Beach, Florida

Shareholders in war

Whaddya know! Manufacturing has returned to the U.S. We manufacture war. And we, fellow Americans, are the shareholders.

— Carey Payne, Elk Grove Village

When will Congress lead?

I am now sick to my stomach.

Here we go again being at war with no plan. What is the mission? Why are we doing this? What is the desired outcome? How many soldiers are we willing to lose? How many civilians will be killed? How much damage will be inflicted? How much will be spent, now and to rebuild? Why was Congress not involved? Will this war end or go on for 20 years with no resolution?

The amount of money that America chooses to spend on destruction, here or targeted at other countries, is appalling. Yet we can’t seem to figure out a way to pay for health care for all of us. We can spend money on guns and bullets to destroy our own citizens, and we can spend enormous amounts of money for missiles, bombs and military craft, but not for child care or elder care. It seems that our priorities are confused.

It appears that this president wants to remake our country and now the world in his image of carnage that he has proclaimed so often. When will Congress finally take back and use its constitutional power to rein in these dangerous and costly actions?

In this darkness, when will the Congress finally take the lead to stop these impetuous decisions and do what governments should do, which is to take care of their people?

— Laura Davis, Inverness

Put American lives first

I am an older millennial. When I graduated high school 20 years ago, the Iraq surge defined the backdrop of our lives. Some of my classmates enlisted straight out of graduation, drawn by service, duty and the promise of a college education. They came home changed. Some carried visible wounds. Others carried injuries no one could see.

For my generation, war is not abstract. It is the empty chair at Thanksgiving. It is the friend who never quite came back the same.

That is why it is troubling to watch the current trajectory of the Donald Trump administration’s foreign policy. The promise of “America First” was clear. No more endless wars. No more nation building. No more acting as the world’s police officer. Yet the posture we are seeing now feels familiar.

The United States military is the most capable fighting force in the world. But strength does not require constant deployment. Being the best does not mean inserting ourselves into every conflict. Capability is not obligation.

History has shown that regime change imposed by outside force rarely delivers stability. From Iraq to Afghanistan, toppling governments proved far easier than building lasting peace. Power vacuums create chaos. American service members and taxpayers pay the price.

If “America First” means anything, it should mean strategic restraint. It should mean exhausting diplomacy before deploying force. It should mean recognizing that not every global crisis demands an American invasion.

My grandfather, a war veteran, said it best. People are always willing to send others to war if they are not the ones fighting and dying. Too often, decisions about military action are made by those who will never bear the cost.

This is not isolationism. American leadership matters. But leadership is not synonymous with intervention. My generation came of age in the shadow of Iraq. We were told those wars would be quick and decisive. We are still living with the consequences.

Putting America first should mean putting American lives first. We cannot afford to relearn the same lesson.

— Joseph Harrod, Chicago

Outrage is no strategy

I’m a writer shaped by my Czech-Jewish father’s escape from Nazism and the final letter his father wrote before deportation to a death camp; I have spent years reflecting on war and its moral consequences. In that letter, my grandfather urged his son to practice medicine not for wealth but to relieve human suffering. My father lived by those words.

A president who calls himself a “peace president” should recognize the contradiction in suggesting that America can or should forcibly reshape every nation that mistreats its people. Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan offer sobering reminders that wars begun to “teach a lesson” rarely remain limited. They expand, invite retaliation and cost innocent lives — those nations’ and ours.

Moral outrage at oppression is understandable. But outrage is not a strategy. If the United States assumes the role of global enforcer, we risk perpetual conflict under the banner of righteousness.

Strength is not shown by how quickly we use force, but by how wisely we restrain it.

— Joanie Holzer Schirm, Orlando, Florida

Where the buck stops

Why can’t we elect a president who knows where the buck stops?

— Marlene Brandis, Suwanee, Georgia

Unchecked reign allowed

Operation Epic Fury should describe the feelings of every American toward this idiotic and illegal war that our president has declared. Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have offered different versions of why this attack was “necessary.” It was not.

This war is for the political purposes of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So many lives will be lost. And all the Republicans in power share the blame for it all, as they have allowed this president to reign unchecked.

— Gerry McGovern, Naperville

This will change world

The war in Iran is the world’s 9/11. Nothing will be the same.

— David C. Schueler, Columbia, Illinois

Not the way to safety

President Donald Trump’s war on Iran has not been justified to the nation or Congress, much less the United Nations.

There are inexcusable attacks on civilians — on hospitals and on a girls’ school in Minab, killing dozens of children — without regard to United Nations conventions and international law. Not to speak of misusing our soldiers and their consciences.

The status of the United States as the beacon of democracy and the leader of the free world is in jeopardy.

Americans who still believe in international cooperation, multilateralism and democracy must stand up and be heard; they must not cower before the “might makes right” display of power and threats against dissent such as the banning of the firm Anthropic.

Recall that Trump in his first term shredded the multilateral nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran. Now Trump threatens more destruction. This is not the way to safety and peace in the world. It’s the opposite.

— Tony Quintanilla, Chicago

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/letters-030426-iran-war/ 

For those of us who keep a foot firmly in the past, how fortunate to find John Ballantyne and Gus Noble, a couple of guys from Scotland, who are in the buoyant business of traveling back more than 50 years to give us a time and place and three guys who changed the face of American music in profound, thrilling ways.

Those guys were Kris Kristofferson, Steve Goodman and John Prine. The time and place form the title of their musical-theatrical show, “Chicago 1971,” and the summer night that these three songwriters met.

Trying not to give up too many details, it was the third night of Kristofferson’s engagement at the Quiet Knight, Richard Harding’s extraordinary music club on Belmont Avenue. Goodman was the opening act and he was determined to get Kristofferson to go see Prine, who was at the Earl of Old Town, the equally extraordinary club on Wells Street. So, late on this Sunday night, Goodman calls and tells Prine not to leave, telling him, “I’m bringing Kris, Paul Anka and Angela Lansbury to see you.”

Singer-songwriter John Prine performs at the Earl of Old Town bar on May 7, 1971, in Chicago. (Charles Osgood/Chicago Tribune)

An odd gang to be sure. Anka had performed at a Chicago hotel. Lansbury (or, as some versions have it, actress Samantha Eggar) was in a play in town. The Earl was all but closed, but Prine sings for this audience of four, performing six or seven songs that would make it onto his first album.

As Prine would later recall, “The evening went into the wee hours, and Kris started quoting lyrics from my songs that night. I went home so excited about meeting him and his being so knocked out by my songs. I don’t know if I slept that night. And it was all because of Steve Goodman.”

Kristofferson would help bolster Prine and Goodman in many ways, primarily connecting them with record companies that put them on the road to stardom.

“That is one of the amazing things,” says Ballantyne. “You’d think that Steve would be pushing his own work, but instead, he was more concerned with promoting his pal John. The whole story is, like our show, about the power of kindness.”

Ballantyne then recalls his early introduction to music in his native Scotland.

“The pubs in our town closed at 9 p.m. and my parents used to bring half the crowd back to our house. I was 8 or 9 and sent to bed, but I could still hear. I could hear the music being played, vibrating through the house, and the fun people were having and I thought, ‘I’d like to do that.’”

And so he did, learning and playing guitar and playing in blues bands until the duties of family took over. He came to the United States in the mid-1990s and spent his career in the computer industry. Living in the northwest suburbs, he divorced, retired in 2014 and has three adult children and two grandchildren.

Musicians John Ballantyne, left, and Gus Noble under artwork featuring an image of John Prine and an honorary Steve Goodman Way street sign at the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago’s Lincoln Square neighborhood on Feb. 26, 2026. The duo will be playing two shows at Old Town titled “John Ballantyne’s Crazy Heart: Chicago 1971.” (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)

Noble and Ballantyne never met in their native land, though Noble attended university with Ballantyne’s younger brother. “We first met here, in the 1990s, when I came to Chicago to be the president of the Chicago Scots,” says Noble, who plays bass. He has two sons and lives in the Edgewater neighborhood. “We played golf and discovered quickly that we were both no good. But we did find that we shared a reverence for Prine.”

Having started the band Crazyheart in about 2010, they created “Chicago 1971” a few years before Prine’s death at 73 from cancer in 2020. “We had always loved his music and learning about that amazing Goodman, Kristofferson, Prine relationship, we knew we had a story to tell,” says Noble.

The show’s foundation is, of course, the music, a vast catalogue of hundreds of songs that these men wrote. On top of that bonanza, the show incorporates video, photography and many stories told by Ballantyne.

Crazyheart’s slogan is “Honky Tonkin’ wherever they’ll have us!” and it has played local clubs such as Martyrs’, Hey Nonny and FitzGerald’s, and such distant spots as festivals in Scotland. The band recently revisited the charming Mexican town of San Miguel de Allende. At one of their performances, there were two Chicagoans.

An image of the class registration card of a young John Prine on a wall at the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago’s Lincoln Square neighborhood, Feb. 26, 2026. (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)

“It was a great night. The Rain Dog saloon is a bit of a dive, and in every way perfect for Crazyheart,” says Steve Coates, a corporate finance consultant. “Dim lights, thick smoke and loud music, as John’s band treated us to classics by Prine and Goodman, and other country and folk classics.”

His wife, writer and TV producer Sharon Barrett, says, “The Rain Dog was packed with some old Crazyheart pals, and a standing-room-only crowd of new fans. I wasn’t sure what to expect. I’m not a huge fan of either folk or country music, but I have to say this is a good band. John is a joyous and charismatic showman. He has the gift of patter and energy that just draws a crowd in. Gus, with his cool black and white shoes, is so much fun to watch. They, and the rest of the band, put on a great show. Here’s the kicker, these are good people. They invited two aspiring musicians to perform with them.”

Ballantyne enjoyed the visit. And in saying, “We came close to breaking even,” he captured the lack of commercial aspirations. These are mature musicians, their primary aim is to enrich themselves, the audience and not simply inflate their bank accounts. They did cut an album a decade ago but, Ballantyne says, “It wasn’t exactly released. It kind of escaped. It wasn’t the greatest thing.”

They understand and appreciate that interest in Prine remains stronger than ever. “You Got Gold: A Celebration of John Prine,” a tribute film focused on an October 2022 concert at Nashville’s Ryman Auditorium, is currently screening around the country. And there are plans afoot for a large October celebration here marking what would have been Prine’s 80th birthday.

There’s a “Chicago 1971” show at 7:30 p.m. March 13 at Moonlight Theater (moonlighttheatre.com) in St. Charles and an April 26 performance at the Woodstock Opera House (www.woodstockoperahouse.com) in Woodstock. Next weekend is special, with “Chicago 1971” being staged at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. March 15 at the Old Town School of Folk Music (www.oldtownschool.org), a place that greatly influenced and nurtured Prine and Goodman. Ballantyne and Noble will be joined by Heather Kollmer and Karen Samata (vocals), Leslie Walle-Santos (drums), Mike Fleming (guitar) and Gabriel Stutz (pedal steel).

“We are all so proud to play there,” says Noble.

“This is not some sort of nostalgia trip. We are not a cover band,” says Ballantyne. “These men wrote the best poetry in the world and they connect us to the audience. This is a chance for us to share our love. It’s just the greatest thing. Sometimes I have to pinch myself.”

rkogan@chicagotribune.com

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/chicago-1971-show/ 

For those of us who keep a foot firmly in the past, how fortunate to find John Ballantyne and Gus Noble, a couple of guys from Scotland, who are in the buoyant business of traveling back more than 50 years to give us a time and place and three guys who changed the face of American music in profound, thrilling ways.

Those guys were Kris Kristofferson, Steve Goodman and John Prine. The time and place form the title of their musical-theatrical show, “Chicago 1971,” and the summer night that these three songwriters met.

Trying not to give up too many details, it was the third night of Kristofferson’s engagement at the Quiet Knight, Richard Harding’s extraordinary music club on Belmont Avenue. Goodman was the opening act and he was determined to get Kristofferson to go see Prine, who was at the Earl of Old Town, the equally extraordinary club on Wells Street. So, late on this Sunday night, Goodman calls and tells Prine not to leave, telling him, “I’m bringing Kris, Paul Anka and Angela Lansbury to see you.”

Singer-songwriter John Prine performs at the Earl of Old Town bar on May 7, 1971, in Chicago. (Charles Osgood/Chicago Tribune)

An odd gang to be sure. Anka had performed at a Chicago hotel. Lansbury (or, as some versions have it, actress Samantha Eggar) was in a play in town. The Earl was all but closed, but Prine sings for this audience of four, performing six or seven songs that would make it onto his first album.

As Prine would later recall, “The evening went into the wee hours, and Kris started quoting lyrics from my songs that night. I went home so excited about meeting him and his being so knocked out by my songs. I don’t know if I slept that night. And it was all because of Steve Goodman.”

Kristofferson would help bolster Prine and Goodman in many ways, primarily connecting them with record companies that put them on the road to stardom.

“That is one of the amazing things,” says Ballantyne. “You’d think that Steve would be pushing his own work, but instead, he was more concerned with promoting his pal John. The whole story is, like our show, about the power of kindness.”

Ballantyne then recalls his early introduction to music in his native Scotland.

“The pubs in our town closed at 9 p.m. and my parents used to bring half the crowd back to our house. I was 8 or 9 and sent to bed, but I could still hear. I could hear the music being played, vibrating through the house, and the fun people were having and I thought, ‘I’d like to do that.’”

And so he did, learning and playing guitar and playing in blues bands until the duties of family took over. He came to the United States in the mid-1990s and spent his career in the computer industry. Living in the northwest suburbs, he divorced, retired in 2014 and has three adult children and two grandchildren.

Musicians John Ballantyne, left, and Gus Noble under artwork featuring an image of John Prine and an honorary Steve Goodman Way street sign at the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago’s Lincoln Square neighborhood on Feb. 26, 2026. The duo will be playing two shows at Old Town titled “John Ballantyne’s Crazy Heart: Chicago 1971.” (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)

Noble and Ballantyne never met in their native land, though Noble attended university with Ballantyne’s younger brother. “We first met here, in the 1990s, when I came to Chicago to be the president of the Chicago Scots,” says Noble, who plays bass. He has two sons and lives in the Edgewater neighborhood. “We played golf and discovered quickly that we were both no good. But we did find that we shared a reverence for Prine.”

Having started the band Crazyheart in about 2010, they created “Chicago 1971” a few years before Prine’s death at 73 from cancer in 2020. “We had always loved his music and learning about that amazing Goodman, Kristofferson, Prine relationship, we knew we had a story to tell,” says Noble.

The show’s foundation is, of course, the music, a vast catalogue of hundreds of songs that these men wrote. On top of that bonanza, the show incorporates video, photography and many stories told by Ballantyne.

Crazyheart’s slogan is “Honky Tonkin’ wherever they’ll have us!” and it has played local clubs such as Martyrs’, Hey Nonny and FitzGerald’s, and such distant spots as festivals in Scotland. The band recently revisited the charming Mexican town of San Miguel de Allende. At one of their performances, there were two Chicagoans.

An image of the class registration card of a young John Prine on a wall at the Old Town School of Folk Music in Chicago’s Lincoln Square neighborhood, Feb. 26, 2026. (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune)

“It was a great night. The Rain Dog saloon is a bit of a dive, and in every way perfect for Crazyheart,” says Steve Coates, a corporate finance consultant. “Dim lights, thick smoke and loud music, as John’s band treated us to classics by Prine and Goodman, and other country and folk classics.”

His wife, writer and TV producer Sharon Barrett, says, “The Rain Dog was packed with some old Crazyheart pals, and a standing-room-only crowd of new fans. I wasn’t sure what to expect. I’m not a huge fan of either folk or country music, but I have to say this is a good band. John is a joyous and charismatic showman. He has the gift of patter and energy that just draws a crowd in. Gus, with his cool black and white shoes, is so much fun to watch. They, and the rest of the band, put on a great show. Here’s the kicker, these are good people. They invited two aspiring musicians to perform with them.”

Ballantyne enjoyed the visit. And in saying, “We came close to breaking even,” he captured the lack of commercial aspirations. These are mature musicians, their primary aim is to enrich themselves, the audience and not simply inflate their bank accounts. They did cut an album a decade ago but, Ballantyne says, “It wasn’t exactly released. It kind of escaped. It wasn’t the greatest thing.”

They understand and appreciate that interest in Prine remains stronger than ever. “You Got Gold: A Celebration of John Prine,” a tribute film focused on an October 2022 concert at Nashville’s Ryman Auditorium, is currently screening around the country. And there are plans afoot for a large October celebration here marking what would have been Prine’s 80th birthday.

There’s a “Chicago 1971” show at 7:30 p.m. March 13 at Moonlight Theater (moonlighttheatre.com) in St. Charles and an April 26 performance at the Woodstock Opera House (www.woodstockoperahouse.com) in Woodstock. Next weekend is special, with “Chicago 1971” being staged at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. March 15 at the Old Town School of Folk Music (www.oldtownschool.org), a place that greatly influenced and nurtured Prine and Goodman. Ballantyne and Noble will be joined by Heather Kollmer and Karen Samata (vocals), Leslie Walle-Santos (drums), Mike Fleming (guitar) and Gabriel Stutz (pedal steel).

“We are all so proud to play there,” says Noble.

“This is not some sort of nostalgia trip. We are not a cover band,” says Ballantyne. “These men wrote the best poetry in the world and they connect us to the audience. This is a chance for us to share our love. It’s just the greatest thing. Sometimes I have to pinch myself.”

rkogan@chicagotribune.com

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/chicago-1971-show/ 

On United Airlines’ commuter affiliates this summer, you will be able to fly 10 times a day from Chicago to South Bend, 11 times a day to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and seven times a day to Peoria, a greater number of flights to Central Illinois than at any point in the last 20 years.

So what’s going on, exactly? Does this reflect a sudden massive increase in the number of Central Michiganders or Peorians wanting to fly in and out of Chicago, as distinct from taking the relatively short trip by road or rail? Does it reflect a surge in the number of flyers wanting to play in Peoria?

Absolutely not, said the clutch of highly prepared and riled up American Airlines executives who marched into our editorial board room last week, charging that Chicago’s hometown airline was, in essence, engaged in a predatory action that was designed to overwhelm its chief competitor with flights that existed for no other reason than to secure more gates at O’Hare International Airport with the long-term goal of making American’s O’Hare hub no longer viable, ensuring United’s future domination.

As our visitors told it, replete with charts, specifics and a very good case, this was morphing from a desirable competitive battle with Chicago flyers as the big winners, thanks to increased flight options and lower fares, into an unfair and anti-competitive action likely to kick American to the curb in Chicago and stifle competition here in the long run.

The airline industry is a complex beast, and O’Hare is byzantine itself. So let’s pause to explain.

Whereas most U.S. cities fight for more air service and some, such as Pittsburgh and St. Louis, lament the debilitating loss of historical hubs, Chicago is in the fabulous position of having two of America’s three biggest airlines running hub and spoke systems at O’Hare (not to mention Southwest’s heavy flight menu at Chicago Midway). As we’ve previously noted, the battle between American and United might not be ideal for either airline’s shareholders, but it serves the interests of this city because it avoids monopoly-driven fares (in the airline industry, fares have far more to do with market share than actual costs) and means that the plethora of connecting passengers at ORD increases the options for us locals who wouldn’t otherwise fill those planes on our own. There are knock-on advantages too: everything from more local flight-attendant hires to the money flowing to the companies who put up the billboards wherein United tweaks American.

But we sense two festering problems here.

One is that the battle to add flights is driven by a problematic city of Chicago gate-allocation system that divvies up those all-important gates based on the number of departures, not the quality thereof or the number of passengers therein. Ergo, a trio of flights to Grand Rapids gets United far more future benefit than a wide-body 787 departure to Paris, even though the latter benefits the city far more when it comes to tourism, local spending and global standing. That archaic system badly needs updating, both of these airlines have told us. You can’t take a train from here to London or Rome.

The second is that the airport is now undergoing major construction with a huge new terminal being built slap in the middle of the airfield.

The new runways put in place over several years by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel are generally seen as a roaring success, making arrival delays at ORD now very rare (not the case before). But the taxiways are another matter now. As Omar Idris, United’s vice president in charge of O’Hare, told us, there is no way to complete the airport reconstruction without some pain, but pain is not pleasant. The American executives noted that it was vital that the airlines were given accurate construction timing details in order to plan, which has not always been the case.

We regular O’Hare flyers are becoming familiar with lengthy taxi times, which costs the airlines money and prompts gags from the cockpit about landing in Wisconsin. Which is how it sometimes feels.

All of this has led the Federal Aviation Administration to begin in-person meetings with both airlines Wednesday in Washington, D.C., with a view to reducing the planned flights at O’Hare this summer, thus pre-empting what could be a summer of pain, especially in the likely event of bad weather. You can expect American and United, who operate the vast majority of those flights, to fight tooth and nail over who loses and keeps what. Clearly, American is happy that the FAA is stepping in to intervene.

We should note that United rejects American’s core argument and says it was forced into adding these flights because American had itself added flights in December to similarly close-in destinations: Erie, Pennsylvania; Lincoln, Nebraska; and the obscure Tri-Cities airport in Eastern Tennessee, among others. United says that American did this at short notice merely as an aggressive “gate play” and not because it expected those flights to be full or economically viable, otherwise it would have planned further ahead in order to secure advance bookings. Ergo, United had no choice but to respond to keep its leading market position and protect its own gate allocation.

Meanwhile, American’s executives say that all they wanted to do was maintain the kind of pre-existing detente that existed at O’Hare prior to the pandemic, with American operating about 80% of the departures as its somewhat bigger rival. As they describe it, that percentage is enough for American still to have a viable hub (and keep its many loyal Chicago business travelers from defecting to United for more choices), but that if it fell meaningfully below that scale of operation due to the loss of gates, that would no longer be the case. They describe it this way: once that domino falls, it won’t easily be stood up again. They note too that United executives have been reported by airline bloggers as openly discussing their desire to chase AA out of ORD (we’ve seen that too). The American executives claimed they did not want passengers to be used as a political football but merely wanted fair competition.

We’re the Tribune editorial board and our client is our readers, very many of whom use O’Hare. To our minds, it is in the city’s interests to have both these fine U.S. airlines operating viable hubs here, competing with the force and vitality you can discern from the above. Indeed, it’s vital to our city. But you can’t expect United to care about American’s fortunes, or vice versa, and that is where the city and the federal government have to come in.

The city needs to come up with a more sophisticated gate-allocation process that doesn’t favor all these low-distance flights (which have disproportionate environmental costs) and does favor the kind of long-range international flying that asserts this city’s identity. And the FAA has to ensure the airlines can actually operate the flights they are selling both safely and on time (both airlines discussed in detail here say they never will allow competitive juices to compromise their focus on safety).

It seems to us that whatever reduction in flying is deemed necessary and put in place by the FAA for this summer should be proportionately allocated between American and United based on their levels of flying before both airlines suddenly added flights purely for gate-allocation purposes (one viable option would be to base things on the pre-pandemic scenario). That way, both airlines are encouraged to maintain the hubs we badly need, especially for a city where the meeting business, such as political conventions, is so vital. And we hope that O’Hare’s crucial international offerings are protected.

Lastly, while there is doubtless a tradeoff between construction costs and operations, a smooth operation at the big airport this coming summer — the busiest travel season — sure as heck needs to be a priority.

All of this short-term competition is great. But Chicago needs American and United to thrive here in the long term. They’re both essential to our city’s future.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/editorial-united-american-airlines-ohare-airport-faa-summer-travel/ 

On United Airlines’ commuter affiliates this summer, you will be able to fly 10 times a day from Chicago to South Bend, 11 times a day to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and seven times a day to Peoria, a greater number of flights to Central Illinois than at any point in the last 20 years.

So what’s going on, exactly? Does this reflect a sudden massive increase in the number of Central Michiganders or Peorians wanting to fly in and out of Chicago, as distinct from taking the relatively short trip by road or rail? Does it reflect a surge in the number of flyers wanting to play in Peoria?

Absolutely not, said the clutch of highly prepared and riled up American Airlines executives who marched into our editorial board room last week, charging that Chicago’s hometown airline was, in essence, engaged in a predatory action that was designed to overwhelm its chief competitor with flights that existed for no other reason than to secure more gates at O’Hare International Airport with the long-term goal of making American’s O’Hare hub no longer viable, ensuring United’s future domination.

As our visitors told it, replete with charts, specifics and a very good case, this was morphing from a desirable competitive battle with Chicago flyers as the big winners, thanks to increased flight options and lower fares, into an unfair and anti-competitive action likely to kick American to the curb in Chicago and stifle competition here in the long run.

The airline industry is a complex beast, and O’Hare is byzantine itself. So let’s pause to explain.

Whereas most U.S. cities fight for more air service and some, such as Pittsburgh and St. Louis, lament the debilitating loss of historical hubs, Chicago is in the fabulous position of having two of America’s three biggest airlines running hub and spoke systems at O’Hare (not to mention Southwest’s heavy flight menu at Chicago Midway). As we’ve previously noted, the battle between American and United might not be ideal for either airline’s shareholders, but it serves the interests of this city because it avoids monopoly-driven fares (in the airline industry, fares have far more to do with market share than actual costs) and means that the plethora of connecting passengers at ORD increases the options for us locals who wouldn’t otherwise fill those planes on our own. There are knock-on advantages too: everything from more local flight-attendant hires to the money flowing to the companies who put up the billboards wherein United tweaks American.

But we sense two festering problems here.

One is that the battle to add flights is driven by a problematic city of Chicago gate-allocation system that divvies up those all-important gates based on the number of departures, not the quality thereof or the number of passengers therein. Ergo, a trio of flights to Grand Rapids gets United far more future benefit than a wide-body 787 departure to Paris, even though the latter benefits the city far more when it comes to tourism, local spending and global standing. That archaic system badly needs updating, both of these airlines have told us. You can’t take a train from here to London or Rome.

The second is that the airport is now undergoing major construction with a huge new terminal being built slap in the middle of the airfield.

The new runways put in place over several years by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel are generally seen as a roaring success, making arrival delays at ORD now very rare (not the case before). But the taxiways are another matter now. As Omar Idris, United’s vice president in charge of O’Hare, told us, there is no way to complete the airport reconstruction without some pain, but pain is not pleasant. The American executives noted that it was vital that the airlines were given accurate construction timing details in order to plan, which has not always been the case.

We regular O’Hare flyers are becoming familiar with lengthy taxi times, which costs the airlines money and prompts gags from the cockpit about landing in Wisconsin. Which is how it sometimes feels.

All of this has led the Federal Aviation Administration to begin in-person meetings with both airlines Wednesday in Washington, D.C., with a view to reducing the planned flights at O’Hare this summer, thus pre-empting what could be a summer of pain, especially in the likely event of bad weather. You can expect American and United, who operate the vast majority of those flights, to fight tooth and nail over who loses and keeps what. Clearly, American is happy that the FAA is stepping in to intervene.

We should note that United rejects American’s core argument and says it was forced into adding these flights because American had itself added flights in December to similarly close-in destinations: Erie, Pennsylvania; Lincoln, Nebraska; and the obscure Tri-Cities airport in Eastern Tennessee, among others. United says that American did this at short notice merely as an aggressive “gate play” and not because it expected those flights to be full or economically viable, otherwise it would have planned further ahead in order to secure advance bookings. Ergo, United had no choice but to respond to keep its leading market position and protect its own gate allocation.

Meanwhile, American’s executives say that all they wanted to do was maintain the kind of pre-existing detente that existed at O’Hare prior to the pandemic, with American operating about 80% of the departures as its somewhat bigger rival. As they describe it, that percentage is enough for American still to have a viable hub (and keep its many loyal Chicago business travelers from defecting to United for more choices), but that if it fell meaningfully below that scale of operation due to the loss of gates, that would no longer be the case. They describe it this way: once that domino falls, it won’t easily be stood up again. They note too that United executives have been reported by airline bloggers as openly discussing their desire to chase AA out of ORD (we’ve seen that too). The American executives claimed they did not want passengers to be used as a political football but merely wanted fair competition.

We’re the Tribune editorial board and our client is our readers, very many of whom use O’Hare. To our minds, it is in the city’s interests to have both these fine U.S. airlines operating viable hubs here, competing with the force and vitality you can discern from the above. Indeed, it’s vital to our city. But you can’t expect United to care about American’s fortunes, or vice versa, and that is where the city and the federal government have to come in.

The city needs to come up with a more sophisticated gate-allocation process that doesn’t favor all these low-distance flights (which have disproportionate environmental costs) and does favor the kind of long-range international flying that asserts this city’s identity. And the FAA has to ensure the airlines can actually operate the flights they are selling both safely and on time (both airlines discussed in detail here say they never will allow competitive juices to compromise their focus on safety).

It seems to us that whatever reduction in flying is deemed necessary and put in place by the FAA for this summer should be proportionately allocated between American and United based on their levels of flying before both airlines suddenly added flights purely for gate-allocation purposes (one viable option would be to base things on the pre-pandemic scenario). That way, both airlines are encouraged to maintain the hubs we badly need, especially for a city where the meeting business, such as political conventions, is so vital. And we hope that O’Hare’s crucial international offerings are protected.

Lastly, while there is doubtless a tradeoff between construction costs and operations, a smooth operation at the big airport this coming summer — the busiest travel season — sure as heck needs to be a priority.

All of this short-term competition is great. But Chicago needs American and United to thrive here in the long term. They’re both essential to our city’s future.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/editorial-united-american-airlines-ohare-airport-faa-summer-travel/ 

When Jim MacRunnels passed away on Nov. 18, the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association lost more than a generous donor.

Over the years the late Sugar Grove man and his wife Colleen have helped raise nearly $2 million as members of Maple Park Supports Special Olympics Athletes, with the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association this year alone receiving $100,000. But Jim MacRunnels, a financial advisor who died at age 68 from cancer, had far more to give than money.

Jim “embodied the spirit” of those who are involved in special recreation, said Marcie Lucas, Fox Valley Special Recreation Association development coordinator. And never was that more evident than in a corner of Bootleggers Bar, Grill and Pizza in Maple Park, where he and Colleen faithfully joined dozens of special rec athletes and their families nearly every Wednesday evening.

There, “Jimmy not only showed up,” he “laughed loudly. He welcomed others in. He reminded us, sometimes without even trying, that being together is what matters most,” Lucas said to the crowd of 60 people who gathered recently to remember the man many regarded as “our fearless leader.”

They also met on this special Wednesday to dedicate that corner of the restaurant to their beloved friend and benefactor. The evening included Fox Valley Special Rec unveiling a purple neon sign that read “Jimmy’s Crew,” which Lucas described as the “perfect message” because “Jimmy always had a crew – he brought people together and made you feel like you belonged just by sitting next to him.”

As a special needs parent and former volunteer with Fox Valley Special Recreation Association who, for the past three years has been on staff as a grant writer and fundraiser, Lucas is well aware of how important MacRunnels was to this organization, which serves about 40 group homes across the Fox Valley.

With SNAP benefits altered, “the little money” many of these residents get in state funding – about $100 – has to cover personal needs as well as activities, she told me. And that “does not leave them with enough to keep active” without scholarships.

“Special Olympics sports are not cheap,” Lucas said, noting the tax dollars from more than a half dozen park districts that go directly to FVSRA is “still not enough” to cover the costs.

As an example, she pointed to the $248 fee for the track and field program, which can be “unaffordable when living in a group home.”

The MacRunnels Foundation provided 91 scholarships this year, which in addition to sports, also includes activities such as strength and conditioning, walking and nature hikes, Lucas told me.

“If we did not have this fund, I’d be on the corner (begging) with a cup,” she admitted.

“He loved these athletes,” said Colleen MacRunnels, “and would do anything for them.”

A new neon sign lights up a corner of Bootleggers Bar, Grill and Pizza in Maple Park in honor of the late Jim MacRunnels, who dedicated much of his life to Special Olympics and other inclusive athletic programs. (Colleen MacRunnels)

The feeling was mutual. After the unveiling of the neon sign, the families, who consider this weekly event a place to network and socialize, ate pizza and shared their many stories of her late husband, who graduated with a degree in parks and recreation but never lost sight of what these inclusive programs can mean for individuals and their loved ones.

In his obituary, it was noted that Jim “made sure no one ever felt left out,” and referred to the athletes as “his posse.” No one knows that more than Rick Dickens and his wife Patti, longtime members of this active Maple Park group which has been partnering with the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics for many years.

Their son Dusty, a decorated Special Olympics athlete, was close to MacRunnels, and in fact, considered him one of his “best buddies,” said Dickens. But that’s the impact Jimmy had on all the athletes and their families, he insisted. Plus, “he had so many connections and great ideas when it came to fundraising,” added wife Patti. “He was always thinking outside the box.”

Still, MacRunnels never failed to point out that the success of this Maple Park group, which not only donates to the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association but also to Opportunity House and Special Olympics, comes not from one or two individuals but from a strong team.

Or in this case, the crew.

For Lucas, the new neon sign is more than a light on the wall, “it is a promise that Jimmy’s spirit, friendship and joy will continue to shine here every single Wednesday,” she told those who had gathered at Bootleggers.

“He made our community stronger. He made our lives fuller. And he will always be part of this crew.”

dcrosby@tribpub.com

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/column-maple-park-pub-corner-a-sign-of-love-fox-valley-special-rec-has-for-its-late-fearless-leader/ 

When Jim MacRunnels passed away on Nov. 18, the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association lost more than a generous donor.

Over the years the late Sugar Grove man and his wife Colleen have helped raise nearly $2 million as members of Maple Park Supports Special Olympics Athletes, with the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association this year alone receiving $100,000. But Jim MacRunnels, a financial advisor who died at age 68 from cancer, had far more to give than money.

Jim “embodied the spirit” of those who are involved in special recreation, said Marcie Lucas, Fox Valley Special Recreation Association development coordinator. And never was that more evident than in a corner of Bootleggers Bar, Grill and Pizza in Maple Park, where he and Colleen faithfully joined dozens of special rec athletes and their families nearly every Wednesday evening.

There, “Jimmy not only showed up,” he “laughed loudly. He welcomed others in. He reminded us, sometimes without even trying, that being together is what matters most,” Lucas said to the crowd of 60 people who gathered recently to remember the man many regarded as “our fearless leader.”

They also met on this special Wednesday to dedicate that corner of the restaurant to their beloved friend and benefactor. The evening included Fox Valley Special Rec unveiling a purple neon sign that read “Jimmy’s Crew,” which Lucas described as the “perfect message” because “Jimmy always had a crew – he brought people together and made you feel like you belonged just by sitting next to him.”

As a special needs parent and former volunteer with Fox Valley Special Recreation Association who, for the past three years has been on staff as a grant writer and fundraiser, Lucas is well aware of how important MacRunnels was to this organization, which serves about 40 group homes across the Fox Valley.

With SNAP benefits altered, “the little money” many of these residents get in state funding – about $100 – has to cover personal needs as well as activities, she told me. And that “does not leave them with enough to keep active” without scholarships.

“Special Olympics sports are not cheap,” Lucas said, noting the tax dollars from more than a half dozen park districts that go directly to FVSRA is “still not enough” to cover the costs.

As an example, she pointed to the $248 fee for the track and field program, which can be “unaffordable when living in a group home.”

The MacRunnels Foundation provided 91 scholarships this year, which in addition to sports, also includes activities such as strength and conditioning, walking and nature hikes, Lucas told me.

“If we did not have this fund, I’d be on the corner (begging) with a cup,” she admitted.

“He loved these athletes,” said Colleen MacRunnels, “and would do anything for them.”

A new neon sign lights up a corner of Bootleggers Bar, Grill and Pizza in Maple Park in honor of the late Jim MacRunnels, who dedicated much of his life to Special Olympics and other inclusive athletic programs. (Colleen MacRunnels)

The feeling was mutual. After the unveiling of the neon sign, the families, who consider this weekly event a place to network and socialize, ate pizza and shared their many stories of her late husband, who graduated with a degree in parks and recreation but never lost sight of what these inclusive programs can mean for individuals and their loved ones.

In his obituary, it was noted that Jim “made sure no one ever felt left out,” and referred to the athletes as “his posse.” No one knows that more than Rick Dickens and his wife Patti, longtime members of this active Maple Park group which has been partnering with the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics for many years.

Their son Dusty, a decorated Special Olympics athlete, was close to MacRunnels, and in fact, considered him one of his “best buddies,” said Dickens. But that’s the impact Jimmy had on all the athletes and their families, he insisted. Plus, “he had so many connections and great ideas when it came to fundraising,” added wife Patti. “He was always thinking outside the box.”

Still, MacRunnels never failed to point out that the success of this Maple Park group, which not only donates to the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association but also to Opportunity House and Special Olympics, comes not from one or two individuals but from a strong team.

Or in this case, the crew.

For Lucas, the new neon sign is more than a light on the wall, “it is a promise that Jimmy’s spirit, friendship and joy will continue to shine here every single Wednesday,” she told those who had gathered at Bootleggers.

“He made our community stronger. He made our lives fuller. And he will always be part of this crew.”

dcrosby@tribpub.com

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/03/04/column-maple-park-pub-corner-a-sign-of-love-fox-valley-special-rec-has-for-its-late-fearless-leader/