EWR764

I agree the corner gates are an awkward design, a pretty strange shape brought about by the boundaries of the entire terminal area. I don't think there was ever an intention for C-3 to handle all of CO (now UA's) arriving international flights, as there simply was never going to be enough space to do it. TLV flights require a secondary screening (comprised of movable partitions) and the gate 138 area works well for it, since there are restrooms within the security cordon and gate 139 is blocked when a 777 parks at 138. The split operation at B/C is adequate even as compared to other hubs, for example, all UAL international arrivals at ORD/DEN require train rides to reach connecting flights.

Just about every EWR gate has GDS displays now, too... but they're mostly useless to me as I can usually pull my phone out, fire up the app, and obtain the same information in less time than waiting for the screens to cycle through.

Not anymore... replaced by OTG "Nonna's Meatball Shop" or something to that effect!

Air Houston

Many of the world's most successful airlines benefit greatly from captive hubs.

Cargojon

See Delta and ATL.

^

kirkwoodj

Oh noes!

Xyzzy

Stay away frm the meatball place. It serves dry tasteless institutional food. Slow service and way overpriced, too.

LukeDaniell

My concern with the move to EWR is upgrades, and not just the fact that CPUs will no longer be allowed on LAX/SFO-EWR flights.

Passengers on LAX/SFO-EWR flights who want to upgrade will have to use a confirmable upgrade instrument (RPU/GPU) or miles. That's how it is now on p.s. flights to/from JFK. But after the move to EWR, domestic passengers on LAX/SFO-EWR flights will have to compete for upgrades against international passengers, for whom the LAX/SFO-EWR flight is one leg of their itinerary. This wasn't typically the case with JFK, since JFK wasn't a connection point to international United flights...

It seems to me that having to compete against international passengers for upgrades will leave domestic passengers flying just the LAX/SFO-EWR route at a significant disadvantage. Upgrading an international flight, by rule, requires a confirmable instrument that's higher in the pecking order and a relatively expensive fare -- certainly, a fare that's higher than any discounted p.s. fare.

In light of this, I don't see how anyone flying just the LAX/SFO-EWR route can reasonably expect to be upgraded after the move; especially on an RPU and/or anything less than an M-fare.

Always Flyin

As United says, "If you want an upgrade, pay for it. Preferably in cash."

JVPhoto

Why did SQ fly SIN-EWR and not SIN-JFK w/ the all J class plane?

WineCountryUA

not quite, Asia-SFO/LAX-JFK was a common routing. And some *A flight-JFK-SFO/LAX (these was paid premium cabin -- but that still reduces seats for upgrading).
However, EWR will still be a bit worse with both Asia-SFO/LAX-EWR and Europe-EWR-SFO/LAX.

FWAAA

On the AA forum, someone posted January fare data for SFO-JFK, and it appears that B6 isn't selling very many MINT seats on that route, even at a bargain-basement average fare of $633 each way:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/24988033-post572.html

AA and UA continue to attract high average premium cabin fares and high average overall fares, despite DL and B6 selling seats cheap.

I suspect that UA will do OK even after moving the JFK operation to EWR.

uanj

Let's not forget travelers to/from Oz. I would never fly EWR-LAX/SFO-SYD, always used JFK.

My preference has long been JFK for p.s. to Asia. Even when travel time to JFK was slightly longer, the shorter check-in and security lines meant I could be in the lounge 10-15 minutes after arriving. EWR processes far too many people and is nowhere near as efficient. This and lack of a GFL is more of a challenge for the relocation, not so much the JFK vs EWR question. Most of the premium cabin arrives by car service or taxi and either EWR or JFK has its issues based on time of day and where you are starting out from.

UA will lose the LI residents for sure but the advantage or proving flat bed service now from LAX and SFO to the smaller cities in Europe like MAN and TXL will be a great benefit. I would rather transfer in EWR than FRA or LHR for flights like that. I basically doubt that UA will have a substantial increase in EWR flights to LAX and SFO in the long term. Just less CPUs as more BF p.s. seats go to people on international business class tickets.

cerealmarketer

Wow Delta is really underperforming on premium fares on the route.

And JetBlue is only getting the discount fliers in premium.

Not enough corp contracts for either as new entrants.

Look forward to more from this source. Not good news for those of us who like the premium products though.

TennisNoob

Seems more like UA did this on purpose so it's competitors like OS cannot get any connections to the west coast from JFK.

IMO it's harder to find award space going from Europe to SFO vs Europe to New York though they cost the same.

But afterall the %'s are so slim.

mecabq

Agreed, though I share the experience of many others here in virtually never being able to upgrade EWR-SFO and v.v. with RPUs, much less CPUs, as 1K. I can't remember the last time this cleared; I am usually on mid-level economy fares at relatively peak times.

Count this as a feature, not a bug, in the change. I suppose that UA is banking on people paying for C; we'll see if they're right.

Also the impact on Star Alliance connections from SFO/LAX to Europe via JFK, even though it's relatively small, is also a feature and not a bug. This change eliminates many options to get from SFO/LAX to Europe with a flat-bed the entire way and using partner airlines, especially on awards.

You can fly LH/LX/TK/SK direct from the west coast, with scanty premium-class award availability. (I have never seen a C/F award on LX out of LAX or SFO or C award on SK out of SFO; add that to the recent effective ban on LH F awards.)

Gone are offbeat routings, such as SFO-JFK-VIE or SFO-JFK-IST (TK has more seats out of JFK than SFO+LAX combined), which I have enjoyed from time to time to try different Star Alliance airlines while leveraging the benefits of p.s. instead of a run-of-the-mill UA F to ORD or IAD. I don't originate from the east coast too often, but I have flown things like JFK-SFO-PEK on CA or JFK-SFO-ICN on OZ; of course both of these airlines fly from JFK, and there are non-stop UA options from EWR, but again it just slightly reduces the universe of fully-flat award options that many of us value to get the most out of our hard-earned miles.

A minor loss in the grand scheme of things, but it's one more intentional cut to the value of Star Alliance as a UA flyer.

Too much travel

It's irrelevant where UA flies to in this case. Far more premium international flyers are coming in on proper premium airlines - BA, ANA, SQ, CX, EK etc - not on a third-rate airline.

You can see the difference in international arrivals at JFK vs EWR - it's a huge differential. You can also see it in the relative frequencies of airlines who do fly into both airports: BA probably has 3x as many JFK flights than EWR (even without the AAJV); VS is pulling out of EWR altogether; CX has 4x the number of JFK flights than EWR.