p.s. Operations Transitioning to EWR on October 25, 2015
#631
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York, NY
Programs: Delta Platinum Medallion; IHG Platinum; Marriott Gold; Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,069
I think CO marketed EWR-LAX as a BF route in the early nineties on the DC-10's (I can sort of remember the ads for it, and flew it a few times), but once they dropped that, they ran a domestic first class service in the face of 3-class service on UA and AA, and BE service on DL, all the way until the merger. So clearly they were not worried about providing a product at EWR that was totally uncompetitive with what others offered at JFK. That mentality is what concerns me.
#632
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 8,953
I would say that one downside, based on the conversation I had with the hotline lady earlier today, is that all EWR-SFO/LAX flights will be branded as p.s. Not that domestic F in a 738 or 739 is anything great, but basically means no CPUs on any of these flights, if I am interpreting it correctly.
#633
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NYC/WAS
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, DL '90s PM, now FK (Flying Kettle)
Posts: 541
I would say that one downside, based on the conversation I had with the hotline lady earlier today, is that all EWR-SFO/LAX flights will be branded as p.s. Not that domestic F in a 738 or 739 is anything great, but basically means no CPUs on any of these flights, if I am interpreting it correctly.
#634
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NYC, LON
Programs: *
Posts: 2,754
It doesn't matter what flights between EWR and SFO are called but it is no longer the p.s. that existed prior. Simply put, there can be nothing premium or exclusive about a service that leaves EWR for SFO almost every hour. It will be little different in perception from the hourly shuttles between LGA and BOS, for example.
This move is the death of p.s.. It may well be that UA continues to name flights between EWR and SFO/LAX as p.s. but we should not be fooled - it will be no more than a marketing thing, even if all have flat beds. Reality is regardless of the move out of JFK all those flatbeds being brought back from Europe would probably have ended up on EWR transcons anyway. The soft product and rest of the experience will likely align with the current EWR-SFO service.
As some have said before if UA wants to convince us that the new p.s. is indeed premium then let them enhance the entire experience - Y and C. Provide international service (including meals in Y and club access for *Gold) for entire plane and then we might take this serious. IIRC old UA p.s. at least had E plus in entire Y (please correct if this is wrong) so even Y pax experienced something different.
#635
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA *G 1MM LT United Club & Global Entry
Posts: 2,756
SunLover
#636
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: BDL/NYC/BOS
Programs: UA/*A Gold, Global Entry, Marriott Plat, Hilton+IHG Gold, Hertz PC, DL
Posts: 1,751
has anyone who is traveling after the move tried to book OAL into (or out of) JFK?
#637
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: UA MileagePlus 2MM
Posts: 1,567
In my mind the move alone is the outright ditching of p.s..
It doesn't matter what flights between EWR and SFO are called but it is no longer the p.s. that existed prior. Simply put, there can be nothing premium or exclusive about a service that leaves EWR for SFO almost every hour. It will be little different in perception from the hourly shuttles between LGA and BOS, for example.
This move is the death of p.s.. It may well be that UA continues to name flights between EWR and SFO/LAX as p.s. but we should not be fooled - it will be no more than a marketing thing, even if all have flat beds. Reality is regardless of the move out of JFK all those flatbeds being brought back from Europe would probably have ended up on EWR transcons anyway. The soft product and rest of the experience will likely align with the current EWR-SFO service.
As some have said before if UA wants to convince us that the new p.s. is indeed premium then let them enhance the entire experience - Y and C. Provide international service (including meals in Y and club access for *Gold) for entire plane and then we might take this serious. IIRC old UA p.s. at least had E plus in entire Y (please correct if this is wrong) so even Y pax experienced something different.
It doesn't matter what flights between EWR and SFO are called but it is no longer the p.s. that existed prior. Simply put, there can be nothing premium or exclusive about a service that leaves EWR for SFO almost every hour. It will be little different in perception from the hourly shuttles between LGA and BOS, for example.
This move is the death of p.s.. It may well be that UA continues to name flights between EWR and SFO/LAX as p.s. but we should not be fooled - it will be no more than a marketing thing, even if all have flat beds. Reality is regardless of the move out of JFK all those flatbeds being brought back from Europe would probably have ended up on EWR transcons anyway. The soft product and rest of the experience will likely align with the current EWR-SFO service.
As some have said before if UA wants to convince us that the new p.s. is indeed premium then let them enhance the entire experience - Y and C. Provide international service (including meals in Y and club access for *Gold) for entire plane and then we might take this serious. IIRC old UA p.s. at least had E plus in entire Y (please correct if this is wrong) so even Y pax experienced something different.
PS was pretty revolutionary when it began - but the soft product steadily deteriorated. It was probably one of the most innovative products UA brought to market in the last 10 or so years it has been operating.
Having said that, UA forced everyone else on these routes to offer a lay flat seat (except VX which still has a decent product). And it is the lay flat seat that I value above all else - because if I want the flight to go by fast I can sleep. In seat power and wifi are awesome too and came early to the UA fleet as a whole. Flight attendants are for the most part pretty accommodating especially if you are GS. Soft product rates low as why I choose a flight - the seat is EVERYTHING. UA (for a change in recent years) was a leader and took a risk. And it paid off. But now it does't with AA DL and JetBlue offering the same. Smart not sexy to move to Newark. Actually a sign that management does get it despite the various other things they seem to fumble. But it indicates to me that, apologies or not for past missteps, they are laying the grounds for UA to be the formidable carrier it should be. IMHO
#639
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York City
Programs: Amex Centurion; SPG Plat
Posts: 20
The hard product (seat) is the single biggest consideration for a long flight, and the ps seats -- at least in J -- are very good. They're not SQ or CX good, but they're good enough to allow virtually anyone to nap for an hour or two and to find a very comfortable reading/working/watching position for the remaining 4-5 hours of a transcon flight. That's why they commanded premium prices for so long, as much as $4k RT until the last year or so after competition moved in with comparable seats for less money.
I'm guessing UA will dramatically increase its ps fares after the EWR move, exploiting its fortress-hub advantage, and that that is the primary driver for the move. Most bankers/lawyers/industry people etc flying J don't care that much whether they're flying from JFK or EWR -- it's more important to be able to comfortably work/rest on the plane.
And all of the chatter regarding how much more difficult it is to get to EWR from midtown than to JFK is simply incorrect: I've lived in Manhattan for 25 years, and JFK consistently takes longer to reach from midtown than EWR. The Van Wyck has traffic nearly 24/7, and it often is at a standstill for no apparent reason. Earlier this week it took me 1.5 hours at 5:30am to travel midtown to JFK. The Lincoln Tunnel of course has bad traffic too, but unless you're departing NYC at late afternoon rush hour (in which case JFK also could take 1.5-2 hours), EWR is quicker to reach.
I'm guessing UA will dramatically increase its ps fares after the EWR move, exploiting its fortress-hub advantage, and that that is the primary driver for the move. Most bankers/lawyers/industry people etc flying J don't care that much whether they're flying from JFK or EWR -- it's more important to be able to comfortably work/rest on the plane.
And all of the chatter regarding how much more difficult it is to get to EWR from midtown than to JFK is simply incorrect: I've lived in Manhattan for 25 years, and JFK consistently takes longer to reach from midtown than EWR. The Van Wyck has traffic nearly 24/7, and it often is at a standstill for no apparent reason. Earlier this week it took me 1.5 hours at 5:30am to travel midtown to JFK. The Lincoln Tunnel of course has bad traffic too, but unless you're departing NYC at late afternoon rush hour (in which case JFK also could take 1.5-2 hours), EWR is quicker to reach.
#640
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco
Programs: 1K 2.2MM
Posts: 2,352
The hard product (seat) is the single biggest consideration for a long flight, and the ps seats -- at least in J -- are very good. They're not SQ or CX good, but they're good enough to allow virtually anyone to nap for an hour or two and to find a very comfortable reading/working/watching position for the remaining 4-5 hours of a transcon flight. That's why they commanded premium prices for so long, as much as $4k RT until the last year or so after competition moved in with comparable seats for less money.
I'm guessing UA will dramatically increase its ps fares after the EWR move, exploiting its fortress-hub advantage, and that that is the primary driver for the move. Most bankers/lawyers/industry people etc flying J don't care that much whether they're flying from JFK or EWR -- it's more important to be able to comfortably work/rest on the plane.
And all of the chatter regarding how much more difficult it is to get to EWR from midtown than to JFK is simply incorrect: I've lived in Manhattan for 25 years, and JFK consistently takes longer to reach from midtown than EWR. The Van Wyck has traffic nearly 24/7, and it often is at a standstill for no apparent reason. Earlier this week it took me 1.5 hours at 5:30am to travel midtown to JFK. The Lincoln Tunnel of course has bad traffic too, but unless you're departing NYC at late afternoon rush hour (in which case JFK also could take 1.5-2 hours), EWR is quicker to reach.
I'm guessing UA will dramatically increase its ps fares after the EWR move, exploiting its fortress-hub advantage, and that that is the primary driver for the move. Most bankers/lawyers/industry people etc flying J don't care that much whether they're flying from JFK or EWR -- it's more important to be able to comfortably work/rest on the plane.
And all of the chatter regarding how much more difficult it is to get to EWR from midtown than to JFK is simply incorrect: I've lived in Manhattan for 25 years, and JFK consistently takes longer to reach from midtown than EWR. The Van Wyck has traffic nearly 24/7, and it often is at a standstill for no apparent reason. Earlier this week it took me 1.5 hours at 5:30am to travel midtown to JFK. The Lincoln Tunnel of course has bad traffic too, but unless you're departing NYC at late afternoon rush hour (in which case JFK also could take 1.5-2 hours), EWR is quicker to reach.
#641
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,120
I think that UA getting any more slots at EWR (where express jet and UA have a 60% share, and the actual is higher due to other RJ partners) would be anti-competitive. DOT may ignore it, but there is already a lot of concern about EWR fares/consolidation, and DOT may say no.
My assumption is UA would still leave JFK nonetheless, and those UA held slots at JFK are either sold or leased to DL (or maybe another carrier) as a different transaction.
#642
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I don't think that a similar situation has arisen, but if you know of one, I would be curious to know what it is. UA's share at EWR is far higher than any airline I can think of that has taken slots in a slot exchange (which have involved DCA and LGA and LHR and NRT before as far as I know). And at DAL (airport, not airline) DOT made clear that WN would not get the gates due to already having such a high share. I am assuming something similar might happen here, where they have a say in slots.
Well, if something is wrong in what I said, I look forward to your posting some contrary information. No offense, but I'm not going to take your assertion that UAL has not underperformed at face value, given the extensive numbers I have been posting for the last three years. Likewise, if UA has claimed a growing corporate share, post away, ditto if AA has not done so.
#643
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: BDL/NYC/BOS
Programs: UA/*A Gold, Global Entry, Marriott Plat, Hilton+IHG Gold, Hertz PC, DL
Posts: 1,751
law: posts 220, 258
finance: 138
industry/others: 128, 167, 274, 281, 295....
#644
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
My wife works on wall street, absolutely prefers EWR. I work in entertainment, absolutely prefer EWR. Most people that live and work below midtown can get to EWR quicker than JFK at most times of the day.
#645
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
you're somewhat correct. all of Y was marketed as economy plus, but the seat pitch wasn't true economy plus. the current p.s. birds have 36" E+ and 31" E-. i can't find the exact pitch, but the all "E+" equipment probably had a 32-33" pitch.
has anyone who is traveling after the move tried to book OAL into (or out of) JFK?
has anyone who is traveling after the move tried to book OAL into (or out of) JFK?