p.s. Operations Transitioning to EWR on October 25, 2015
Jun 17, 2015, 3:20 pm
#481
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 573
I took public transit to EWR once. Sorry, but lugging my luggage through public transit is not worth the pain, aggravation, and sweat. And flying to EWR isn't worth United's crappy product. Then again, the only time I'd fly UA transcon is to be with my partner and he has to bribe me with Y to do it. Now maybe he'll fly VX more with me...
I was just pointing out a way you can save $40 -45 by taking a few minute path journey with elevators at both sides.
Jun 17, 2015, 3:23 pm
#482
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LAX
Programs: UA MM | BA Silver
Posts: 7,193
Jun 17, 2015, 3:23 pm
#483
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: DEN
Programs: Delta Silver. Former AA gold. UA MP and DL Plat AMEX cardholder
Posts: 1,254
JFK is more of a premier int'l airport as it has far more international carriers, domestic hubs & competition, a better overall on-time rate, newer terminals, more space.
EWR is crippled in comparison. High fares, less competition, inferior public transit options, more delays/diversions etc.
As I said before, I'm from NJ and it's hard to stand up for EWR at this point. It's just an aggravating experience start to finish. It's great for people from NJ to have access to a hub and contribute to UA's hub captive setup, but they are sheep and are ignorant to the fact that UA is hosing them.
Last edited by REPUBLIC757; Jun 17, 2015 at 3:32 pm
Jun 17, 2015, 3:30 pm
#484
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
Programs: UA Plat, Copa Pres. Plat, Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Diamond, SPG LT Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 769
Seen several posts lamenting the loss of CPU on this route. Has anyone actually been regularly clearing CPUs on SFO<>EWR recently? Even as a 1K, I feel somewhat lucky when I get it using instruments!
Jun 17, 2015, 3:33 pm
#485
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: Delta Platinum Medallion; IHG Platinum; Marriott Gold; Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,071
Getting to JFK was easy and reliable. Getting to EWR is a crapshoot.
Oh, and I fly ps about every 6 weeks and always sit in J with an upgrade or paid ticket.
Jun 17, 2015, 3:34 pm
#486
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 355
(or are they petroleum refineries?)
I pity the United employees who have to work at EWR instead of JFK.
JFK is no picnic area, but at least it smells better than the EWR area.
Having said that, I do like EWR as an airport because it's easy to
connect to Amtrak Acela and regional trains.
Jun 17, 2015, 3:34 pm
#487
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Gold (prev. Ex Plat for 10 years); DL Plat; UA Gold; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 2,339
I predict they'll drop the p.s. branding completely, not unlike when Singapore Airlines unceremoniously renamed Raffles to Business Class. Same product. Different plain name.
For competitive reasons, I'd be surprised if the flat-bed seats went away, but I also might not be shocked if they "right size" some off-peak flights to a 737 when premium equipment is not needed (like, Saturday night redeyes, for example). In sum, it'll look and act just like Continental.
Remember that p.s. was born in part out of United's desire to offload its 767-200 fleet after 2001, and was a gentle poke at AA's continued use of the aging 767 on transcon flights. It was seen as innovative at the time. It has barely evolved since it launched, except to reduce to a 2-cabin layout.
Innovation does not seem to be in United's DNA any more. From my perspective, DL leads the pack among the major carriers with product innovation. They were the first to proactively to go heavy on GoGo Wifi, heavy on 2-cabin regional jets and heavy on premium amenities (like free booze and snacks in Economy Comfort).
AA have been a fast follower. United seems to be on a completely different strategic tangent - "we'll give the customers what WE want, and they'll buy it because there is frequently no other option."
For competitive reasons, I'd be surprised if the flat-bed seats went away, but I also might not be shocked if they "right size" some off-peak flights to a 737 when premium equipment is not needed (like, Saturday night redeyes, for example). In sum, it'll look and act just like Continental.
Remember that p.s. was born in part out of United's desire to offload its 767-200 fleet after 2001, and was a gentle poke at AA's continued use of the aging 767 on transcon flights. It was seen as innovative at the time. It has barely evolved since it launched, except to reduce to a 2-cabin layout.
Innovation does not seem to be in United's DNA any more. From my perspective, DL leads the pack among the major carriers with product innovation. They were the first to proactively to go heavy on GoGo Wifi, heavy on 2-cabin regional jets and heavy on premium amenities (like free booze and snacks in Economy Comfort).
AA have been a fast follower. United seems to be on a completely different strategic tangent - "we'll give the customers what WE want, and they'll buy it because there is frequently no other option."
Jun 17, 2015, 3:35 pm
#488
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 92
#1 Has been predicted for over 10 years and hasn't happened
#2 I don't think there is any way UA will ever give away meals for free in coach domestically, in the absence of competitive pressure forcing it. and since the move to EWR eliminates competitive pressure, it won't lead to meals in coach.
#3 Even if we forget the perimeter rule for the moment, the fact that UA shut down JFK's non-stops to SFO/LAX means it is virtually impossible that they would be interested in opening the same thing from LGA. it's contrary to the hub consolidation strategy the JFK shutdown clearly demonstrates. at least it won't happen under this management team.
Jun 17, 2015, 3:40 pm
#489
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Jun 17, 2015, 3:47 pm
#490
Join Date: May 2013
Location: DC
Posts: 255
This is definitely a negative if they keep the restrictive upgrade rules for PS service, as I assume they will (the current "window of opportunity" not withstanding). Although as others have said it's very rare to get an upgrade these days on any TCON route especially to SFO with so many 319/320s on the route.
I'll be curious to see what the east coast domestic connections price out at going forward. Currently it seems SHARES often drives you to EWR over IAD or ORD, but maybe they'll start driving some of that traffic away from EWR to hold the seats for these mysterious HVFs who are following UA to EWR...
Jun 17, 2015, 3:49 pm
#491
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,392
Or do you propose that UA can build up service with a bunch of redeye flights out of JFK, or times that no rational human being would fly at unless the prices were stupid cheap ("Now boarding our 3am service to...")? Because that's what exists at JFK, it's a slot-restricted airport during peak travel times. AA/B6/DL are surely not going to hand out slots to UA. So where does this expanded service come from? (AS added service by flying an overnight redeye out of SEA getting in at 5 am, 7 am service out of JFK, not a great flight time. AA doesn't even fly a lot of West Coast transcons compared to DL/B6... and recall that UA has ORD/IAH/DEN-LGA service that's arguably more convenient for business travel than JFK.)
Like it or lump it, UA decided over a decade ago that JFK wasn't a priority for them by dropping flights like JFK-NRT/LHR (and corresponding slots). They are quite rationally ditching a airport that three airlines service as a hub (B6, AA, DL) and two routes that four airlines fly with premium products (B6, VX, DL, AA), at a time where B6's entry into the market is depressing prices. It's not an important connecting hub in their system. Concentrating UA's NYC service at LGA and EWR makes sense.
Jun 17, 2015, 3:55 pm
#492
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
Even bag delivery takes longer at EWR than it does at JFK!
Jun 17, 2015, 3:57 pm
#493
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Suburban Philadelphia
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG Gold
Posts: 3,392
I honestly don't get why all of the Jersey folks love it (note: my office is in NJ), UNLESS they are buying paid J/F
- no more CPU I'm guessing nobody outside of GS and a few 1K's are clearing many trans-con CPU's anyway?
- back-breaking mile/$ co-pays if wanting to UG This is unchanged JFK vs. EWR
- not really any new frequency on the route (a couple more per route, a drop in the bucket)So there really is increased frequency, just as not as much as you'd like to see?
- if flying paid J/F, no free UC access on PS (don't believe this has been mentioned too much)If you afford paid J/F, you can afford $400 for a club membership.
- no more CPU I'm guessing nobody outside of GS and a few 1K's are clearing many trans-con CPU's anyway?
- back-breaking mile/$ co-pays if wanting to UG This is unchanged JFK vs. EWR
- not really any new frequency on the route (a couple more per route, a drop in the bucket)So there really is increased frequency, just as not as much as you'd like to see?
- if flying paid J/F, no free UC access on PS (don't believe this has been mentioned too much)If you afford paid J/F, you can afford $400 for a club membership.
Jun 17, 2015, 3:59 pm
#494
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
CT-JFK: Two or more trains
CT-EWR much easier.
Jun 17, 2015, 4:03 pm
#495
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: EWR, PHL
Programs: UA Silver, DL GM, Hertz 5*, Marriott Plat
Posts: 55
some data about the planned change...
Without rehashing the discussions that have been made so far... something didn't sit well with me with this announcement, as it seemed to me a "hidden" capacity cut (as some have surmised). So I took some time today to compare the schedules between Monday, October 19 (before the p.s. move to EWR) and Monday, October 26 (after the move) to find out what's going on with the transcon capacity to the NYC area. Not so much the frequencies, but the available seats, as I think that will make for interesting discussion.
(I know, I know... schedules and equipment may not be confirmed until a few weeks before the flight, etc etc... but at least this info gives us an idea of the general numbers behind the change)
tl;dr - overall transcon (LAX/SFO) capacity to the NYC area is cut by ~30%; additionally, EWR-LAX/SFO capacity remains more-or-less flat (with an increase in premium seats and decrease in economy seats)
Key:
All = total seats available between the city pairs
Premium = total premium (BusinessFirst + Domestic First) seats available
Economy = total economy (E+ and E-) seats available
BF = Lie-Flat BusinessFirst seats
First = Domestic First seats
E+/E- = Economy Plus / regular economy
Now, on to the data...
Available seats between EWR+JFK and SFO
Available seats between EWR+JFK and LAX
As some correctly guessed, there is indeed a sizable capacity cut across the board for transcon flights. Approximately 30% reduction in available seats for both cabins on NYC-LAX. The economy cabin on NYC-SFO sees a similar reduction, but the premium cabin sees a smaller reduction of 15%. I can expect higher fares as a result.
The only advantage I see is for p.s. flyers that (a) always sit in the BF cabin and (b) don't care about flying out of EWR. Their options for BF seats goes up by 10x NYC-SFO and 7x NYC-LAX.
What's more interesting is if you take out the JFK flights and solely compare the schedules ex-EWR before and after the change:
Available seats between EWR and SFO
Available seats between EWR and LAX
There isn't a huge change in overall capacity (in fact, in LAX, capacity is trimmed by about 2%). What's more, total economy seats out of EWR will be reduced by 5% with this change.
This indicates to me that they anticipate not many JFK flyers switching airport allegiances - and, as many have guessed, that this is a way to pull seats out of a highly competitive transcontinental route in order to reduce capacity (and theoretically increase profits).
Methodology: I took the 10/19 and 10/26 schedules from united.com, along with the planned equipment for each flight and the types+counts of each seat available (thanks United Fleet Website!), as the basis for the information.
(I know, I know... schedules and equipment may not be confirmed until a few weeks before the flight, etc etc... but at least this info gives us an idea of the general numbers behind the change)
tl;dr - overall transcon (LAX/SFO) capacity to the NYC area is cut by ~30%; additionally, EWR-LAX/SFO capacity remains more-or-less flat (with an increase in premium seats and decrease in economy seats)
Key:
All = total seats available between the city pairs
Premium = total premium (BusinessFirst + Domestic First) seats available
Economy = total economy (E+ and E-) seats available
BF = Lie-Flat BusinessFirst seats
First = Domestic First seats
E+/E- = Economy Plus / regular economy
Now, on to the data...
Available seats between EWR+JFK and SFO
Code:
NYC-SFO Market All Premium Economy BF First E+ E- Seats Before 3410 440 2970 228 212 1041 1929 Seats After 2434 376 2058 376 0 750 1308 Difference -976 -64 -912 148 -212 -291 -621 Percent Change -29% -15% -31% 65% -100% -28% -32%
Code:
NYC-LAX Market All Premium Economy BF First E+ E- Seats Before 2962 388 2574 200 188 861 1713 Seats After 2062 268 1794 268 0 600 1194 Difference -900 -120 -780 68 -188 -261 -519 Percent Change -30% -31% -30% 34% -100% -30% -30%
The only advantage I see is for p.s. flyers that (a) always sit in the BF cabin and (b) don't care about flying out of EWR. Their options for BF seats goes up by 10x NYC-SFO and 7x NYC-LAX.
What's more interesting is if you take out the JFK flights and solely compare the schedules ex-EWR before and after the change:
Available seats between EWR and SFO
Code:
EWR-SFO Market All Premium Economy BF First E+ E- Seats Before 2416 244 2172 32 212 705 1467 Seats After 2434 376 2058 376 0 750 1308 Difference 18 132 -114 344 -212 45 -159 Percent Change 1% 54% -5% 1075% -100% 6% -11%
Code:
EWR-LAX Market All Premium Economy BF First E+ E- Seats Before 2110 220 1890 32 188 573 1317 Seats After 2062 268 1794 268 0 600 1194 Difference -48 48 -96 236 -188 27 -123 Percent Change -2% 22% -5% 738% -100% 5% -9%
This indicates to me that they anticipate not many JFK flyers switching airport allegiances - and, as many have guessed, that this is a way to pull seats out of a highly competitive transcontinental route in order to reduce capacity (and theoretically increase profits).
Methodology: I took the 10/19 and 10/26 schedules from united.com, along with the planned equipment for each flight and the types+counts of each seat available (thanks United Fleet Website!), as the basis for the information.