spin88

I think it helps to separate out three groups of passangers:

(1) existing CO passengers ex-EWR, this is a plus. That is you. And I agree, people who live AND work on the West Side of Lower Midtown, EWR is same/better than JFK provided you take the train (I would avoid the Lincoln tunnel at any cost).

(2) existing PS passengers who live/work outside of this area. And its not just work, its also live. Someone who works in lower Manhattan who lives in Brooklyn or LI, no way they will transition to EWR, even if they can get there from work. This is a far greater number of potential passengers, and any of them who are currently taking PS, EWR? well fuhgeddaboudit.

(3) But given PMUA's smaller market share in NYC, I expect the largest slice of PS business is people who spend time in both NYC and SFO/LAX, and commute, or who are coming for business in NYC. Commuters, only those few where EWR works as well might switch. The biggest issue though is business travelers from elsewhere.

People here can debate about the path or LIRR or Amtrack or NJ Transit, but I think the chances that ANY business traveler will fly into EWR and then take airtrain to the train, to PENN/Path, and then hop a cab is practically zero. And cab (or black car) to/from EWR is a pain in the .... Its expensive, cabs don't want to go there, and the Lincoln tunnel is always an issue. When I used to fly CO (c2002-2006) I would fly into EWR and take the train, but I like trains, and know my way around NYC. Hell I take the E or A trains if I'm close to them when I leave NYC.

But most business travelers are not going to do this, they want a cab/car. After a few efforts I gave up on cabs/towncars to EWR, it is not functional, and most business travelers going to NYC (especially those buying high value tickets) are not going to put up with the crap of a car/cab ride to EWR or the airport in general with its long lines and surly staff.

United is basically writing off most of its current PS traffic, and this is made clear by it substantially cutting capacity ex-NYC with this move.

augias84

Reaching lower Manhattan or midtown from Newark is faster than from JFK. JFK takes me between 45-100 minutes (a few times up to 150 minutes when traffic was crazy); I have never taken more than 50 minutes to Newark, and usually make it in 25 (granted, I live right on riverside). The only traffic is right at the tunnel, as soon as you're in NJ it's smooth sailing. Going from Newark to Manhattan the traffic is worse, but it is still faster than from JFK.
Car services are only slightly more expensive, like $10 which shouldn't be a problem for business travelers (yes, cab service is really bad to/from EWR because it's two different taxi commissions). I don't take the train - but JFK also has such a poor connection to the subway and rail system, so that's a tie.

I suspect that the biggest issue is that many travelers from out of town believe that EWR is not really New York and have an aversion to flying there because it's in New Jersey and feels far away. UA will have to work hard to fight these NJ stereotypes and somehow convince travelers that EWR is a good choice. Hopefully they'll do some renovations etc as EWR could use a makeover and better clubs. JFK has improved so much in recent years so EWR has some catching up to do.

njcommodore

Plenty of business travelers (myself included now that I've moved out of NJ) fly into EWR and then cab into Manhattan. With EWR, you've got two major options to get into and out of Manhattan (Lincoln and Holland tunnels). Three if you could the GWB for Upper Manhattan and Bronx. With JFK you pretty much have one (LIE). While there is a bottleneck at the tunnel during rush hour, it is far preferable to the much more significant traffic issues on the LIE and Belt.

I agree most Long Islanders won't pass by JFK to get to EWR, but if we're strictly talking about Manhattan I think people who aren't taking the train are going to prefer EWR.

BearX220

The same way most business travelers to London insist in landing at LHR although Gatwick is only a few minutes further away from town when you compare train times. Gatwick is seen as impossibly remote in spite of the transport realities.

Does Virgin Atlantic pull out of Heathrow, consolidate at LGW, and try to convince its business travelers their preconceptions are wrong? They do not.

tuolumne

Yeah, except that those aren't even remotely comparable situations.

ylord789

You and many people don't remember Queens Blvd and the Queensboro Bridge? It should not take more than 40 minutes from Columbus Circle to JFK on Queens Blvd. And, it is all free. Yes, free.

BearX220

Enlighten me.

LAXIAD8

1. EWR is *closer* to Manhattan. LGW is much further than LHR. From Times Square, during off-peak hours, it's 30 mins on the road to EWR or 40-45 mins to JFK.
   
2. Tons of international service at EWR by foreign airlines, some even with 3-class F, even though JFK access is not an issue for most foreign airlines. LGW only get the leftovers who cannot purchase a LHR slot at the price they can afford.
   
3. No airline ever had a hub at LGW with substantial global service. CO back then and UA today continues to have the single largest unified hub in the Tri-state area.
   
4. LGW specialize in lower-yielding beach markets. EWR gets you to global business centers such as PVG or BOM that isn't flown by DL or AA.

The better analogy is SVO vs. DME.

neuron

Jetblue will be increasing their service on this route.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...ited/28930155/

LASUA1K

What I wish they would do is just drop the PS name. This group has wanted to drop PS from the minute they walked in. Just drop the name already.

It's a sad day, and I still can't believe it, but it was expected. I expect the 757's to stay for about a year, then we will see the 737's take over eventually, when the paid First Class market is no longer there.

Adelphos

I live in Lower Manhattan and use all three airports for different kinds of travel. Some people will prefer EWR, some JFK. There is no blanket rule, so the hundreds of posts debating the point may be a bit useless (without hard polling data on which customers prefer which airport). What I do like is choice between the airports for arrival and departures at different times of the day. For example I generally dislike traveling from Newark but I don't mind flying into Newark. This move simply limits customer choice.

Too much travel

I know you're trying to make an effort to defend EWR, but don't go around badmouthing LGW while you're at it. British Caledonian used to hub at LGW before being acquired by BA, and had flights to five continents. If having flights to places like Accra, Buenos Aires, Cape Town etc don't count as being global, then EWR isn't very global either.

LAXIAD8

Alright, we can amend to "LGW hasn't had a global hub in the past 27 years". Not trying to offend anyone with that statement.

And we can debate about how "substantial" the British Caledonian network was. It was just over 40 destinations right up to the point of merger, and that includes ~11 inside Europe. Outside of ME, the only destinations in Asia I could locate were Tokyo and Hong Kong.

And was EZE / CPT served nonstop or as a tag ?

BearX220

And besides the BCal network, remember than when PA and TW were the only US carriers allowed into LHR, all the others, from National to Piedmont to PeoplExpress, flew into Gatwick. Substantial TATL trade before LHR was liberalized.

Too much travel

Comparing nonstops vs tags on aircraft that are three decades apart in terms of range and technology is irrelevant.

And whilst we're at it, as a putative premium international traveller, JFK is by far and away regarded as the 'right' gateway into New York.