DA201

This fall, UA closed its operation at JFK and moved all of its p.s. flights to EWR. The reason these flights had been at JFK in the first place was because most of the Star Alliance carriers that fly to NYC fly to JFK, and those passengers going to SFO or LAX would be able to connect to a UA flight with a lie flat bed seat. Now that UA is out of JFK, should the Star Alliance carriers who fly to JFK but not EWR (so that excludes Lufthansa, Austrian, Air Canada) move their flights to EWR or add a flight to EWR to enable connections to hundreds of destinations?

All Nippon Airways - Doesn't really matter. ANA codeshares on UA's flight from NRT-EWR, so any connecting passengers can take that flight.

Asiana Airlines - Leaning towards yes... Asiana wants to create a JV with UA (and maybe AC and/or NH), so strengthening its UA relationship by flying to one of its hubs wouldn't hurt. UA also doesn't fly nonstop EWR-ICN, so UA could feed the route as well. On the other hand, Asiana already codeshares with JetBlue for connecting passengers at JFK, but still...

Avianca - Doesn't really matter. UA currently flies from EWR to all of the places they fly from JFK, but moving to EWR would mean connecting passengers can take their flight.

Brussels Airlines - Doesn't really matter. They already codeshare on the EWR-BRU flight, but moving to EWR would mean connecting passengers can take their flight.

Copa Airlines - Doesn't really matter. They already codeshare on the EWR-PCY flight, but moving to EWR would mean connecting passengers can take their flight.

EgyptAir - Yes, they should. JFK is the final destination for all their passengers, and flying to EWR would enable connecting to all the major cities in the US.

EVA Air - Yes, they should. JFK is the final destination for all their passengers, and flying to EWR would enable better connections to the east coast.

LOT Polish Airlines - Not really beneficial for them, but beneficial for UA. LOT codeshares with JetBlue to connect passengers at JFK, but UA does not fly to Poland. So if they moved to EWR, UA would be able to offer connections to Poland.

Singapore Airlines - Doesn't really matter. UA flies one-stop to SIN from EWR, so they wouldn't really be benefitting UA. And they codeshare with JetBlue, so no need for connecting flights. However, if they start a nonstop to SIN, flying to EWR would be beneficial for UA.

South African Airways - Not really beneficial for them, but beneficial for UA. SAA codeshares with JetBlue at JFK, but flying to EWR would let UA be able to offer nonstop service to JNB (which they really should be able to do themselves honestly), as SAA's flight from IAD has one stop.

Turkish Airlines - Not really beneficial for them, but beneficial for UA. LOT codeshares with JetBlue to connect passengers at JFK, but UA does not fly to Istanbul. So a flight to EWR would enable UA to connect passengers to IST.

skidooman

EWR is a bad airport as it is. I understand this is overall not that many extra flights, but I wonder if this clunker can take the extra load.

I am not saying JFK is an excellent airport. Just that EWR sucks.

This may play well for United in most cases. But for its partners, as you said, not so sure. I wouldn't budge. New York is a big city, I would imagine lots of people flying these airlines to NYC end in NYC, and not transfer. Other, perhaps more logical/somewhat easier transfer points such as Chicago and Washington Dulles already exist.

My two cent.

mahasamatman

They can try as much as they want. No self-respecting international airline would give up JFK for EWR.

glx

Should UA collude to limit competition at JFK and align their competitors with their interests at EWR?

Probably not, if we want this CEO to last.

LXFlyer

Well they do have antitrust immunity with some of those carriers -- https://www.transportation.gov/sites...0Alliances.pdf

catocony

The PS flights weren't at JFK to make UA-*A connections. They were there because there's a large market for paid F between NYC and SFO/LAX, especially LAX.

That said, as already mentioned, JFK is far, far superior to EWR for international flights if you're going into NYC.

mahasamatman

Make that "there was a large market".

CaptainMiles

To add to the list: TAP Portugal. Currently only serving EWR, just announced that starting June 2016 will serve JFK too. If anything this is going against UA's wishes.

Shareholder

And where would these airlines park their airplanes? There aren't enough gates at EWR to handle a bank of arrivals and departures from mid-afternoon to late-evening if another dozen flights moved over from JFK. Some STAR airlines operate from both airports but others feel the majority of their passengers originate in the NYC area and JFK is more convenient. Many fly to other US gateways where they can hand off passengers to UA (or AC). A few now have codeshares with JetBlue at JFK. Not to mention the Port Authority wants to keep balance at all three of its major airports.

zebranz

I have not used UA via EWR since the move and only when I had to prior. I will either transit another hub or fly another carrier. UA and EWR are a marriage made for each other. Why drag other carriers down?

emcampbe

Is this the true reason? Seems like a false premise to me.

Might have been one reason UA flew out of JFK, but certainly not the only reason. If it was, why would they have moved everything to EWR.

char777

I was always skeptical of the belief that p.s. was full of connecting Star passengers. If you're based in LAX or SFO, you have much, much better options to get to Asia than to try to connect in JFK (or now EWR). If you are trying to do west coast-Europe on a Star carrier, it is true that you can't do it through JFK or EWR anymore, but a lot of those carriers also serve IAD and ORD. I think your best options now are to connect at IAD, or, regrettably, use UA metal at EWR. I don't think Star carriers are going to ever move en masse from JFK to EWR.

sbm12

When you start with a false premise it is very easy to get mired in incorrect outcomes. This is not why the JFK service existed. For the carriers where UA has JV immunity they also either served SFO/LAX directly (e.g. LH) or would route onward connections over other connecting points. JFK traffic for the foreign carriers are most O/D at the NYC end, not onward connecting.

Beyond that, *A is not really an alliance deigned to coordinate all operations at all hubs. It is about marketing but not really about putting all connecting opportunities at the same place. Even if Avianca wants to allow onward connections on UA metal the two would have to agree on terms for splitting fares on interline itineraries or just sell the end-on-end. The former has economic costs to the carriers and the latter is usually too expensive for the passenger.

ETA: Remember that UA wants you to fly on UA or its JV partner, not OALs. Even *A members.

royng

This. Since 2014 under $misek regime I refused to fly UA at all as I believed UA would not send me to destination on time and/or treat me reasonably in IRROPS. While I tried to accumulate miles within *A as much as possible, B6/VX had my domestic flights. So to me there is no use if UA pressure *A partners moving to EWR.

Not that I object to EWR, but any UA's plan forcing me to use UA to connect domestically simply means switching to another *A TPAC flight which goes to JFK.

bmwe92fan

Mostly agree with the other posters. Putting aside the physical & slot limitations (which are significant) UA has very little leverage with the other carriers in *A, and I also believe that the charged fees at EWR are substantially higher than JFK. UA made its decision - I see little likelihood that anyone will move from JFK to EWR.