Originally Posted by
kop84
It wouldn't be easy or cheap...those slots the gave up at JFK are long gone, and not may airlines are interested in selling them.
They can request a waitlist for that, just like the rest of us waitlisting for upgrades. The chance of it to clear is probably similar to us competing for TODers.
Originally Posted by
EWR764
I still think this was, in the scheme of things, a pretty minor consideration. UA wasn't co-located with any reasonable connecting partners at JFK and didn't even codeshare with all of the Star carriers there. If anything, *A connections are easier at EWR given the behind-security transfers available to LH/OS/SK/LX/TP/AI/ET.
Definitely right, but imagine a passenger would like go with UA in SFO/LAX(might be SAN/SEA-JFK) and go to a non-JV partner to EU/MidEast, when you need one more connections at FRA/MUC in their JV agreement anyway. Not all the EU carriers fly direct to SFO/LAX or other West Coasts. LO is one of those, of course you can make an argument people can go through ORD or even YYZ to WAW.
Originally Posted by
EWR764
The NYC transcons are about O&D first, and for UA, secondarily feeding the Pacific network.
Originally Posted by
laxmillenial
You underestimate the Flyertalk community
I, for one, would. LOL.
Oh don't get it wrong, if it's easily accessible to JFK, definitely. But I certainly get what the West Coasters think. Who in the right mind would like to go from Newark to Manhattan with two bridges/one tunnel at any hour after landing? I certainly wouldn't. From any Northeastern states and DC/NC area, going to LGA/JFK kills EWR any time, unless their final destination is Jersey area