PlainFlights

Chicago to Norfolk

Chicago, IL → Norfolk, VA

Total Flights

7,897

On-Time Rate

80.4%

Avg Delay

69.5 min

Distance

717 mi

Carriers

27

Monthly Performance

Recent 24 months of route data.

Period Flights Delayed Cancelled Diverted Carriers
Dec 2025 157 71 3 0 YX,OH,MQ,UA,OO
Nov 2025 144 42 3 0 OO,UA,MQ,OH,YX
Oct 2025 170 33 0 0 UA,YX,MQ
Sep 2025 143 27 0 0 MQ,UA,YX
Aug 2025 126 27 4 0 YX,MQ,UA
Jul 2025 152 52 3 1 UA,YX,MQ
Jun 2025 142 36 0 0 UA,YX,MQ
May 2025 96 16 1 0 UA,YX,MQ
Apr 2025 105 26 1 0 MQ,UA,YX
Mar 2025 93 24 0 0 UA,YX,MQ
Feb 2025 84 16 2 0 OO,UA,YX,MQ
Jan 2025 98 23 3 0 YX,OO,UA,MQ
Dec 2024 106 24 0 0 MQ,OO,UA,YX
Nov 2024 90 12 0 0 UA,MQ,YX,OO
Oct 2024 99 16 0 0 UA,MQ,YX
Sep 2024 134 26 0 0 YX,OO,UA,MQ
Aug 2024 105 38 1 0 MQ,YX,UA
Jul 2024 96 29 3 0 MQ,UA
Jun 2024 95 25 0 1 MQ,UA
May 2024 94 39 1 1 MQ,YX,UA
Apr 2024 91 18 0 0 MQ,UA,YX
Mar 2024 93 23 0 0 UA,YX
Feb 2024 83 15 0 1 UA,YX
Jan 2024 86 25 2 0 YX,UA

Cancellation Rate

1.0%

27 of 2,682 flights

Diversion Rate

0.1%

4 of 2,682 flights

What the Data Says About ORD to ORF

The Chicago to Norfolk corridor (ORD → ORF) covers roughly 717 miles and is served by 27 carriers, based on Bureau of Transportation Statistics reporting. Across 7,897 flights in the dataset, this route posts a 80.4% on-time rate with an average delay of 69.5 minutes when flights run late. Over the most recent 24 months of BTS data, 2,682 flights were recorded on this pairing — 27 cancelled (1.0%) and 4 diverted (0.1%). Those baseline metrics tell you what to expect before you book.

Having 27 carriers on the route matters: more carriers generally means more daily schedule options, competitive pricing, and redundancy when flights are cancelled. With 7,897 total flights analyzed, the 80.4% on-time figure is statistically meaningful rather than a small-sample fluke. The 69.5-minute average delay applies only to flights that actually ran late, so it is not the average wait across all departures — the majority of flights on this route depart on time under the BTS definition of a delay (15+ minutes past schedule).

Looking at recent months, Nov 2024 posted the best performance on this corridor at 87% on-time, while Dec 2025 came in at 55% on-time — a 32-point gap between best and worst recent month. For travelers evaluating the ORD to ORF route, the combination of a 80.4% on-time rate, 69.5-minute average delay, 1.0% recent cancellation rate, and 27 available carriers is the concrete summary of what BTS data shows about reliability on this pairing.

Frequently Asked Questions

How often are flights delayed from ORD to ORF?
Flights from Chicago to Norfolk have a 80.4% on-time rate based on 7,897 flights. The average delay is 69.5 minutes. The best recent month was Nov 2024 with 87% on-time.
What is the cancellation rate for ORD to ORF?
Over the last 24 months, 1.0% of flights on this route were cancelled (27 of 2,682 flights) and 0.1% were diverted.
How far is the flight from ORD to ORF?
The flight distance from Chicago (ORD) to Norfolk (ORF) is approximately 717 miles. This route is served by 27 carriers.
When is the best time to fly from ORD to ORF?
The best recent month for on-time performance was Nov 2024 (87% on-time). The worst was Dec 2025 (55% on-time). Consider booking during months with historically better performance.
How many airlines fly from ORD to ORF?
The Chicago to Norfolk route is served by 27 carriers. More carriers generally means more schedule options and competitive pricing.
What is the average delay on flights from ORD to ORF?
Flights from Chicago to Norfolk experience an average delay of 69.5 minutes when delayed. The overall on-time rate is 80.4% based on 7,897 flights analyzed.

Explore PlainFlights

Data Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), On-Time Performance Data. Statistics reflect cumulative performance across all available reporting periods.

Related

Data sourced from Bureau of Transportation Statistics, FAA, NHTSA, DOT, and CPSC public datasets. See our methodology for details. Retrieved and formatted by PlainFlights Editorial