qukslvr619

For years we heard that ps was profitable (heck wasn't CLE holding it's own?), only to hear after the fact that UA was losing $$$ and they were moving to EWR. The funny thing is I saw a lot of the employee comments when they announced it internally and they weren't pretty...the natives are getting restless.

Notwithstanding the argument of EWR is no JFK, etc, UA should look at this as an example where if they really did lose money on prime routes like JFK-LAX/SFO its because they drove away their customers due to shortsighted changes or half-assed improvements/efforts. DL/AA/B6 all stepped up their game and UA took a tired sCO product slapped ps branding over it and assumed it was enough. There was no innovation, there was no product differentiation, it was just a cheap fix to say "oh look we have flatbeds on all flights" but nothing else. You still got the subpar post merger UA airport experience with irrops, SHARES metldowns, etc. So if UA lost money on JFK its not because there is no money to be made its because they basically took the wrong approach and didn't do anything extra to ensure they could make money.

The other thing I think about is the shortsighted CO approach of "EWR is NYC and people will fly us because we offer a better product." That might have been true 15 years ago because they did offer a product at or above what AA/UA were offering, but I don't know if its going to work this time around. Operationally I see the benefit of potentially feeding premium traffic from the west coast onward to Europe, but I'm inclined to believe with all the increasing LAX/SFO nonstops to Europe with connections over there that EWR really doesn't hold the same weight that it did in the past (in the sense that you really had to go to EWR/JFK to get to smaller European cities).

Xyzzy

Sure - but my reply was a comparison with the presumed and seemingly desired JFK-SFO-TYO as that's what the OP was cmparing with when he wrote this:

fly18725

When, since the merger, did United say ps was profitable? I recall most of those comments were shortly after the switch to 757-200s, which was met with some skepticism by passengers and analysts.

Are you saying if they rolled out a new product they'd be profitable?

UA-NYC

Good analysis by Matthew: http://upgrd.com/matthew/united-airl...to-newark.html

My favorite part:

Here's what I do know -- Award Expert has hundreds of regular, wealthy clients in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York; the type that buy full-fare business class tickets or will give Delta 250K for a r/t coast-to-coast journey (yes, we do try to talk them out of it).

They all hate Newark.

I mention Newark and they almost always reply, "Uh...no New Jersey please." Now it could be that my sample size is just not big enough, but I doubt it. The premium crowd likes JFK, not EWR. I've seen it again and again.

SS255

Very interesting perspective from the locals -- getting to JFK vs. EWR from midtown. It reminds me of the "Lincoln Tunnel vs. George Washington Bridge" argument between people in my hometown in Northeastern PA.

I have been living in Los Angeles for over 2 decades, but spent my formative years making several drives per year to midtown Manhattan -- always via the Lincoln Tunnel, so I was brainwashed in favor of that route until I eventually learned the error of my ways.

I also work in the entertainment business, so I understand the flying patterns of the LAX-based crowd that flies mainly in J or F on OPM -- or with their own money if they're really rich. I would guess that 80% of my colleagues (and also friends with no ties to New York who are traveling for pleasure) would not even consider flying to EWR.

These people don't know from EWR. They have not experienced the 45-minute wait at baggage claim, the UC's with no seating capacity remaining at 4:30PM, the cluster-you-know-what that is the TSA checkpoint -- as I have. They simply cannot compute that there is another option to fly nonstop from LAX besides into JFK. They're going to choose "JFK" as their destination simply because "that's the airport you fly into if your destination is Manhattan." This is the business that UA will lose, as these "one-offs" who book paid J and have no loyalty to any particular airline tend to book pretty close-in, and are not booking the $1,200 P fares. Ditto the leisure flyers who filled up the Y cabin.

I'm going to miss having the option to fly into or out of JFK, as on many of my trips to Manhattan I fly into one airport and out of another. But most of my touch-downs in the NY area involve connections at EWR. These CPU's (and even RPU's) have been notoriously difficult to clear, so I'm actually looking forward to a better clearance rate with op-ups if UA keeps selling J at fares north of $4K.

cestmoi123

I hear you, but he was complaining that he could no longer do JFK-SFO-TYO with an early AM departure. So, sounds like NYC-SFO-TYO is off the table. If he's going to shift to a nonstop, no reason to go all the way to EWR for a nonstop, he's got a better selection much closer to home.

minnyfly

JFK is no picnic either for RJ delays. If you want P.S. service, you're going to have to suck it up and use one of JFK or EWR. But now with near hourly service with UA, if you do have a problem at EWR you're more likely to be rebooked to a flight leaving soon. BDL, ALB, and MHT don't even have JFK service. Is P.S. service through EWR worse than none at all? Of course not. You can see why having a full hub with P.S. service is a big advantage.

Airlines say what they need to say when it comes to profit/losses. Who knows what the truth is exactly. What we can do is look at the big picture. With so much competition on JFK-LAX/SFO, it's likely that no carrier is making much profit, if any at all. Most employees I've run into know little to nothing about how to run a company, so if they're getting restless it's their own fault. Just do your job. If more of them did that at UA, I bet we'd see a better airline.

This is a move that should pay off very well for UA. Flying out of JFK for prestige is foolish. It's best to make the gutsy call and move to an airport where you have advantages over the competition.

califcoast

While I appreciate P.S. coming to EWR (I often booked away from it when lie-flats weren't available), I am also surprised they are giving up on JFK - unless LGA transcons ARE in the future.

I agree - my biggest concern is the lack of flights to/from CA! There are schedules running the following (+/-2):

6 LAX-JFK
14 LAX-EWR
20 total LAX-NYC

7 SFO-JFK
16 SFO-EWR
23 total SFO-NYC

By consolidating and only promising UP TO 15 LAX-EWR and UP TO 17 SFO-EWR (I have only seen 13 LAX and 16 SFO on several random days) they are drastically reducing capacity - making IRROPS, SDC's, upgrades and awards far more difficult to acquire - though P/R/I/X show avail at moment, just wait until everyone is rebooked this weekend!

Management obviously expects the loss of a number of pax with the decrease (not just seasonal), and after decimating their feeder flights and connectivity within CA (OT), and much of the west coast...ok, the carnage is systemwide - United seems to have become the most consistently shrinking airline...

Xyzzy

Abslutely! If I lived next to JFK there is no way I'd have ever done JFK-SFO-TYO. I'd have driven to EWR or taken another carrier.

Xyzzy

Yes - and the current crop of EWR-SFO flights (I don't fly EWR-LAX so I have no data) always seem to go out full.

Austin787

UA already had flat beds on their PS flights before AA, DL, and B6 joined, so I'd say it was DL/AA/B6 simply catching up to UA. Plus, DL and AA have the exact same business class seat as the "tired sCO product".

uastarflyer

Premium and New Jersey just don't go together.

RooseveltL

After reading this - I think you folks are missing the point.

Ignore difficulty of one airport vs. another via train or black car.
Ignore Jetblue & Virgin footprint in the market at JFK.
Ignore delays at one airport vs. another but I agree EWR is the worst of the three!
Pay Attention - there are only THREE major airlines for contract corporate business. If your company uses *A - you are going to whatever airport is in your contract or connecting. So the choice will be - direct from EWR requiring longer/expensive commute time OR connection via LGA which nets higher travel time & risk of misconnect via ORD, IAH or DEN.
If you have choices you will choose the program you are loyal to because your $$ spend is as important and miles collected.

Finally, Delta is also giving up slots at EWR (if this passes) so curious which routes are they abandoning which allows UA to dominate a route and skyrocket prices for those connecting via EWR from *A partners.

It is possible the slot exchange is more valuable vs. business at JFK in the long run.

mh3265a

The feds would only start if they were prompted to start by local leaders (Gov etc... or Port Authority) or if one of the discount carriers threw a fit. I'm surprised (not really) that one of the discount carriers isn't apart of the deal.

A brake could be applied now because this action has a more direct link/impact on competition where other changes have been more impactful to the customer experience vice competition per se.

transportprof

If all EWR flights to LAX and SFO get upgauged to 757 (or larger) aircraft, then there could be no net loss of capacity. Didn't UA recently place an order for 777s with the intent of up-gauging domestic flights on trunk routes? EWR to LAX/SFO flights would seem like a prime candidate, esp. SFO.