zrs70

DL often fares, for example, LAX-JFK-XXX at the same rate in business as they would LAX-ATL-XXX.

United doesn't seem to do this with flights via EWR. Have others had better luck?

Kacee

UA affirmatively builds restrictions into its fare rules to prevent ps routings on the deepest discount t-con fares. That said, I have purchased some nicely priced P fares ($1100-1200) for SFO-BOS and SFO-RDU via EWR.

lhrsfo

I've certainly seen ps come as an option when pricing discount international itineraries, and it's usually not more expensive.

findark

Generally, no. Sometimes they make mistakes. The intent, though, is that any discount (domestic) premium fare to another city cannot be routed on a p.s. flight.

CIT85

SFO-EWR on the 757-200 were the options shown on TPE-RIC in P, in addition to the 777 flight. Same P fare vs SFO-ORD-RIC.

PV_Premier

This. And yes, it happens. For instance there was a widely discussed option from EWR to EUG as recently as late last year and one to YYZ fairly recently too. I think it was about $395 one way IIRC. About 3 years ago I got JFK-LAX-SMF for around $500 each way. Also got that route on AA F (not J) for roughly the same price 2 years ago.

SFO_Runner

Doesn't this type of talk belong in the trick-it thread? Or at least have the 3X coded?

doggz

Right at the end of the March I flew SFO-EWR-YYZ for only $416 one way on a P fare; I bought it in early February.

Kacee

That was definitely a mistake. UA has been slow adding the "no ps" restrictions on some city pairs. Despite having many months to implement the ps switch to EWR, they clearly had not thought through all the implications w.r.t. overall fare structure.

They've made similar mistakes when they add regularly scheduled widebodies on certain domestic routes (e.g., SFO-ORD).

boat9781

What you mention is part of my concern with the new PS. The decision to move to EWR was the right one (accounting for the cost of an entire operation to serve two destinations), but PS is now a 'connecting' product. I don't work in the airline industry, but I have to imagine that the 'new UA' is is struggling with how to best optimize revenues given that people are now using PS as a traditional A-B-C method of travel.

The largest revenues in the network have to come from SF & LA (you'd think), but what the old route had -- it was a unique ability to segment the market. Obviously the costs didn't work (though I think that's more of B6 entry issue).

With EWR, UA doesn't have that ability. They try to accomplish the same goals with fare rules; but it isn't the same. It's a real estate play vs. the costs of reaping the benefits of a fare rule play.

mozilla

Back in the day I purchased P transatlantic fares (EU)-EWR/ARNK/JFK-SFO which were cheaper than the cheapest business JFK-SFO tickets available. And they were priced the same vs (EU)-EWR-SFO on non-PS (maybe some additional JFK tax was tacked on but it was nothing substantial). The fare rules always allowed the "EWR/ARNK/JFK" part because the allowed routing for a EU-SFO fare was coded as "through NYC" and not "through EWR" (even .bomb had no problems understanding this, outsourced EU check-in agents however were often more challenged in grasping this concept).

Nowadays transatlantic P fares have gone up and PS flights, even far in the future, have much more "P0". But sometimes I can still find a P>0 PS flight and book (EU)-EWR-SFO for not much more than the cheapest business EWR-SFO. Since I often book early, most of the time I get rebooked due to schedule changes on a P0 PS flight with more attractive hours. Not sure if all transatlantic fares allow PS flights but the more expensive ones usually do.