BearX220

Exactly, only in the NYC case UACO is now forced to pretend the opposite, that the also-ran airport is just as good as the primary, preferred O/D one. And they will have their work cut out for them, to wit:

I expect they are far from alone.

More like close to 30 years ago. PeoplExpress commissioned Terminal C in the early '80s but went bust before it was done; CO christened it and moved in in 1987, and that was the beginning of CO's evolution away from its DEN-IAH axis. But not much has been done to enhance the EWR experience ever since except the monorail.

Cargojon

Because Jamaica, NY is such a paradise.

entropy

they already call it that... BWI 4 miles further than IAD from central Washington DC, and its still considered a low-cost airport..

EWR764

For what it's worth, the 1999-2002 expansion that built C-3 at EWR cost about $1 billion, roughly $800m of which was paid by CO alone. So certainly a significant investment, regardless of whether you consider it something that 'enhanced' the EWR experience.

transportprof

I would not consider that monorail to be an enhancement.

When it was shut down for emergency maintenance last year, I found it easier to move between terminals and rental car on the substitute shuttle buses. And if the weather's pleasant, I prefer to walk between the terminals than take the monorail.

cerealmarketer

By cutting total NYC to LA/SF capacity by 30% United is expecting a good chunk of this.

Question is how much - and none of us knows - though they do know the mix of passengers who have flown into both airports to at least get some sense of who has shown willingness to use both.

The adjustment valve they have is 1) reducing the number of 28 J seat aircraft and 2) reducing frequency if the forecast is grossly off.

Last step would be not promising premium transcon on all flights as noted above.

But with the 16 seaters they have a good amount of flexibility the way Delta does with its transcon operation.

And I wouldn't be surprised if a few of their bigger corporate contracts stipulate having a premium transcon service.

The one I wonder is long for this world is the 3 cabin setup on AA. They are selling those seats for $1597 roundtrip - a grand $300 premium over Business with half the density.

FWAAA

People, people, people: All three NYC-area airports suck. A lot. There's a grand plan to spend billions of dollars renovating LGA, and maybe it won't suck quite as much once that's completed. Most of the JFK terminals have been renovated, but it still resembles a dump overall, and getting to JFK is no picnic. Newark is a complete dump, but it's somewhat convenient for the northern NJ suburbs. And it's a pain to get to from no matter where you originate.

Eventually, the government approved the DL-US slot swap, but it required some divestitures, and that was not a merger.

Ideally, the government will deny this slot swap and UA and DL will not be permitted to enhance their already-dominant positions at EWR and JFK, respectively.

ThanksForAllTheFish

The real underlying problem is the inability, due to poor political policy or lack of investment, of ATC and airport infrastructure to keep up with growth. There are too many planes in the skies around NYC and in the northeast corridor.

Its a simple fact that the job of ATC is to ensure the safety of all flights under their control. They do not care if you have to circle, divert, sit on the ramp for hours, or have your flight canceled. They and the rules they follow have limited bandwidth and few on the Hill care to spend the money to increase that bandwidth.


Disclosure: Airline Employee, this post is my own opinion.

sfozrhfco

The airports as a whole may suck but Terminal 5 at JFK is actually quite nice. They have lots of security lines and the restaurants are quite good. Wifi doesn't work all that well all the time but aside from that Terminal 5 is quite a pleasant experience compared to LGA, EWR, or Terminal 4 at JFK.

Always Flyin

Terminal 8 at JFK (AA) is new and perfectly fine as well.

As was F on the A321 from JFK to LAX yesterday, which I commuted to from our offices in midtown. No one in our offices voluntarily uses EWR.

SJC AA

Much more than half the density. While the configuration is 1+1, the angled nature of the seat means that the seat pitch between rows is also much lower in F than in J. I would estimate that AA's A321T F density is closer to 75% of its J density.

Also, those roundtrip prices require 30-day advance purchase. Tickets for next week are more like $4500.

UA-NYC

Agreed - DL made C/D at LGA shockingly nice. AA's D concourse at LGA is amazingly far nicer than UA's C concourse 100 feet away.

I still don't get the JFK hate, T4/5/8 are all quite good, and T7 is a nice little haven. UC reps were incredulous today when I was talking to them.

The high-C gates at EWR-C were a nice experience (about the only one at EWR IMO) but they just butchered that by putting in yet more retail in the middle of the nice open space.

LAXIAD8

Both B6 and AA fly A321 on their transcons so let's look at that. Between doors 1 and 2, it's 10F on AA or 16J on B6, which equates to 63% density

The 4 suite seats on B6 have aisle access, so one can say they *nearly* rival that of AA F. Available for as low as $599 apiece one-way.

cerealmarketer

First award space at the Saver level is wide open on those flights next week.

They are charging $4500 in Business on those flights. DL and UA are also charging $4500.

Hard to find a meaningful premium for First on AA.

UA-NYC

No - AA would have half the density if B6 had 20 seats...since AA actually has 10 seats.