PsiFighter37

I know...I did that specifically to beat the automatic reassignment of itineraries that would take up a lot of space.

As a bonus, I also got my R upgrade on LAX-JFK rebooked onto LAX-EWR, same lie-flat, but it's showing Z fare now...hello 1.5x PQM bonus! (hopefully)

BearX220

Aren't those contradictory thoughts?

And if the second thought is correct, why isn't Allegiant the biggest airline in the country?

Purchase decisions are based not only on price but schedule, convenience, service / brand reputation, reliability, and status / miles considerations.

Houstonflyer2139

Though this isn't a very common route for me, it's still really disappointing. EWR is a dump and I try to avoid it as much as possible (and have been able to for a long time).
Looks like I might just end up flying through IAH or ORD or maybe even fly JetBlue mint which is a very nice product, in the case that I need to go to from east/west coast, anything to avoid EWR and the struggle of getting from there to the city and Long Island. To me, flat beds aren't worth EWR ( which is just my opinion).

JVPhoto

I too was able to call yesterday morning and get my November Y to J confirmed RPU flight changed to the same day (much earlier as a bonus) on a SFO-EWR flight that was showing R space. She put me on hold for about 2 minutes because she "had just read about the changes" and wanted to "check what they were supposed to do". I think she thought I was asking for them to open space but when she got back I said I already see the 7am has R space open and I just want to switch to that. Wasn't a problem. It is showing the p.s. config but I put myself in the front rows just in case there was/is a swap to INTL 757.

Dieuwer

Imagine B6 joining *A....will be the end of UA.

CO_Nonrev_elite

If they actually flew anywhere you'd be right, but their network is tiny by comparison.

eponymous_coward

This is just LOL and -worthy.

There's likely almost zero connecting traffic of significance XXX-JFK-LAX/SFO for UA, given that almost every airline of significance when it comes to *A service to the USA flies nonstop into one or both of LAX and SFO (and some of the ones who don't fly into IAD). LH, LH, SQ, NH, OZ, and so on. Really, come on now.

JFK is an O/D airport for *A for NYC (given that LGA isn't capable of handling the kind of heavies and passenger capacity it would need to handle to be one). Has been for over a decade now, since UA wound down service from there (and you can't blame Smisek and the merger for that). UA doesn't have the slots to make JFK scale reasonably as a hub. They've chosen EWR and LGA. It's not an unreasonable decision given slot restrictions and being in a dogfight at JFK like AA, B6 and DL are. Really, where are the slots for a UA hub at JFK going to come from?

The TATL revenue-sharing JV that *A has isn't going to include B6. There's really no reason for LH/LX/etc. to steer connecting traffic to JFK over a UA hub. The JV also allows for price and schedule coordination. Can't do that with B6.

So, no, JFK isn't going to suddenly turn into a *A connecting hub because of B6 Mint and UA withdrawing.

1Konsultant

Hmm, I agree SFO/LAX-EWR-(EU) is a more attractive connection with flatbed seats all the way, but I would NEVER voluntarily take that over SFO/LAX-FRA/MUC/LHR-(intra EU). The red eyes from the East Coast to EU are too short to get a proper night's sleep.

eponymous_coward

Which is why I have a hard time buying the "OH NOES WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HIGH VALUE TRAFFIC CONNECTING AT JFK FROM INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS?!?!?!". You, High Powered Executive Buying C are going to add a couple of hours to your flights and making it harder to sleep because... T7 at JFK is awesome? Riiiiiight.

First off, nobody going TPAC who isn't a "maximize my time in C/F" FTer is flying TPAC-JFK-LAX/SFO. So we can safely say it's TATL traffic.

Secondly, XXX-FRA/ZRH/MUC-SFO/LAX instead of XXX-FRA/ZRH/MUC-JFK-SFO/LAX. Hmm, this isn't exactly rocket science to figure out which itinerary's preferable. Unless you really dig ice cream sundaes.

milesmuncher

FYI Nate Silver just updated his numbers, and JFK is now rated as slower than EWR (both are terrible of course, as is LGA): http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/flights/

Actually J capacity looks to be going up pretty substantially, as noted upthread.

Dieuwer

Your words. No one said anything about "suddenly". Things take time. And no one said anything about connecting SFO/LAX-JFK-X. More like BOS-JFK-X, or PVD-JFK-X, or MNH-JFK-X, or BUF-JFK-X, or PHL-JFK-X, or ROC-JFK-X, or ...

jamesinclair

The worst part about this, for a NJ resident, is that EWR might eventually become a Untied Ghetto with everybody else at JFK.

I want more Jetblue options

ani90

I wouldn't advertise that on flyertalk, especially on a thread started by United. You may see it revert back to R in due course....

Tunapalooza

Thank you for your informative reply. The challenge here is getting to WDH in something close to the original travel time of 29 hours. That's already a long haul. Notwithstanding the option of using *A carriers across the Pond, UA metal actually offers the best connections and E+ will be nice. I may upgrade with miles outbound and seek an accommodation on the co-pay. (Not something to which I'm entitled, but worth the ask since J will likely be empty on Xmas evening flight).

spin88

First PS is dead, and someone will buy the JFK spots. But DOT has not generally approved swaps at capacity controlled airports (especially with slots, see NYC, DCA) when it pushed up concentration. AA/US had issues, as did WN at DAL.

For many folks JFK/LGA is not a realistic option, and no way that DOT should allow UA to further increase concentration at EWR, particularly when the market power is created by a federal rule (slots).

I had not thought about this but JFK must be very senior, with high wage rates. If these people simple go to EWR, it does not help to get rid of them, but I would not be surprised if United's management simply looked at what it cost to run JFK vs. closing it, and did not think beyond that.

Having pondered on this some, in the pmUA days, I recall many times UA execs said that PS was about corporate accounts, and while slightly profitably, was not about the profits on that route, but about getting/keeping the corporate accounts. Access to NYC (all of it), LI, and southern CN was needed to sell the network.

Fast forward, we know that DL has said that is has done very well with Corporate share in NYC and LAX, and AA has said they have held their own. United has as far as I know, never said that its LAX or NYC (or for that matter SFO) share has increased. With VX and B6 in the market, those flyers are coming from somewhere. United has lost its yield premium post 2012 and badly underperformed DAL, AA, and now VX.

My assumption is that there has been so much damage to the high end and corporate business over the last three years that PS has gone from being a necessary part of retaining the corporate business to a huge drain now that that traffic is gone. So they hope to get a little bump from this. This said, I would expect the knock on impacts of this to further hurt UA with corporate and business travelers (at SFO, and particularly at LAX) and have long term impacts. But we all know that long term thinking is not part of the current UA play book.

I think the staffing cost reductions will not be that great, particuarly if those folks just go to EWR. I don't think adding PS flights (and I expect that the PS flights will be gone in a year or so) can fix the "prestige" of EWR. Folks who are currently flying via EWR (with out PS) will probably like the upgrade, but they may not like the higher prices/lack of upgrades. I seriously question if United can get more for its flights ex-EWR as PS vs the existing service (i.e. I don't think it can sell anywhere this number of BF seats at a premium price) and I doubt even more that most of its existing JFK traffic will just move over to EWR. I think much of that traffic is will just go. And I might add that UA appears to agree with me, as this is a major NET cut in sets SFO/LAX-NYC on UA.

This is clearly DL's statagy, and everything they have done in the last three years is directed at this. West Coast Shuttles, LAX/NYC build out, reorienting Asia flights ex-SEA, VS purchase, leading OT percentage, better service in F and EC. Its all oriented to the business traveler.

+1. Exactly my view.

If United is expecting people to book paid J on UA SFO/LAX-EWR and then on to Europe, they ought to rethink. Y, yes, it will happen (and that may actually be hurt by the lack of domestic upgrades, I might have considered Domestic F to EWR, then E+, no way I would do it all in Y) but if someone is actually paying for F/J and not locked in to UA via a corporate deal, no way they would break up that fight with a stop in a world renowned armpit plagued by delay. Newark is widely recognized as the Calcutta of airline hubs. While the facilities at IAD are worse, IAD is at least on time. I bet if we took a poll, 95% of FTers would rather do a connection in IAD than EWR any day.