anc-ord772

It continues to be annoying that this thread turned into EWR v JFK ex Manhattan. Seriously Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Long Island, anybody heard of those places?

Anyway, before moving to LA we were in Brooklyn and the LIRR Jamaica -> Atlantic Terminal was heaven. Walked home from AT. No traffic I could be at LGA in 15 minutes by cab via the BQE. Memories.

Remember this is about west coast originating passengers and the network effect on lost business by axing JFK.

764toHI

Amtrak has a lot of problems unfortunately, including capacity issues on the Northeast Corridor, aging infrastructure, and the inconvenience for the majority of its passengers by adding a stop at EWR. Not to mention the Airtrain is at the end of its useful life as well. Hopefully the PANYNJ gets its act together and replaces the Airtrain with a new one that extends to Newark Penn Station.

Ber2dca

I assume the discussion focuses on Manhattan because West Coast high yield customers' main point of interest in NY would probably be in Manhattan either for business or leisure.

I think there's gotta be a psychological element to it to be honest, like landing "in" NYC feels closer/better/more premium than landing in New Jersey even if objectively speaking there's not much of a practical difference. But perception is reality, so if customers *feel* it's better to land in New York than in New Jersey, then that's just the way it is.

fly18725

I think these arguments are a stretch in an attempt to find additional reasons to disparage a decision you disagreed with and a management team that is disliked. There is no requirement to serve certain domestic airports in order to receive an arbitrary marketing label just as there is no requirement to fly to an airport in the same state/county/city as a metropolitan area to qualify as serving said metropolitan area.

United may have hard data today that says they should have maintained service to JFK. Since we don't see the same data, it is acceptable to approach that conclusion skeptically, just as the decision to end service to JFK was received with skepticism.

halls120

15 years ago I dreaded passing through JFK inbound from overseas, so I avoided it whenever I could. Last year we went through JFK on TATLs several times, and I was pleasantly surprised with the experiences. Much easier to get around than I had remembered, and nicer employees. I was stranded in NYC during last year's snowmageddon, and had to trek to midtown for a room. I hadn't done that in over 20 years. As I headed for the train, whenever I looked the least bit lost, someone came over to assist. Something that never IME happens over at EWR.

channa

Nonsense. Staples has to sell paper to be taken seriously as an office supply store. Likewise, Safeway must sell bananas, Home Depot must stock paint, Kohl's must sell jeans, and so on.

These are not optional items. When that corporate customer places his office supply order and finds out that Staples no longer carries paper, Staples is no longer a serious office supply supplier and they look for someone else. It's that simple. SFO JFK and LAX JFK are must have routes to be a comprehensive business carrier.

That's what happened here. You don't carry the basic necessities, people are forced to shop around, and that's precisely what they did. Some stayed for the parts of the business UA still offered, some moved everything, and some shopped around on each transaction, meaning UA did not win as much as they used to.

HoyaSFOIAD

The two things I miss the most about JFK were T7 and the ps crews.

Even when it didn't have full blown pre check, I never waited more than 10 minutes in security and usually it was shorter. Once through, being right at the gate was fantastic.
It was perhaps the crews on those flights that I miss the most. Got to know them very well and they had a tremendous amount of pride in what they did.

Since the move to EWR I have generally taken B6 Mint to NYC for a number of reasons, all of which I think have been covered here.

All that being said: I have to admit that I don't hate EWR as much as I once did. I used to rant and rave about OTR, but it's actually grown on me. Sure the lounges are bad, but I generally avoid them. Depending on the time of day, I'll jump in an uber which actually works pretty well, and I finally broke down and used the train, which I found very easy and very efficient. Now, being GS is a huge help with the lobby. When I'm inevitably back to being a 1K or less one of these days I'm sure I'll be singing a different tune, but for now? I think there's plenty of worse experiences out there (looks sideways at IAD, checks heart monitor).

fly18725

Clearly, you are passionate about having SFO/LAX-JFK for your corporate travel. If you are able to adopt a broader perspective, consider that most of corporate America doesn't live in SFO or LAX. For those that do, EWR, LGA, and JFK are most analogous to different brands of the same product at the store. Some people may prefer or be loyal to a specific brand even if it is not carried at every store.

I don't see this as a black and white issue.

HoyaSFOIAD

Not sure I understand. United flies to NYC via EWR. Is it the most convienent? For some yes, for some no. Just as for some JFK is easier, for some it's not. The Staples analogy works in UA's favor - United flies to NY. Actually has a huge hub there. Dogmatically saying they don't seems to be quite a stretch. The way people think of JFK kind of reminds me of when Amex used to market itself on "prestige" alone. Cute, but limiting.

smxflyer

If you live or work in Long Island and much of Queens and Brooklyn, is there any compelling reason to choose EWR over JFK for transcon?

truncated

Let's look at the quote from Kirby again:

So from the way I (and most other posters I think, except for the few who think Kirby's lying through his teeth) read it: some corporate customers (particularly in LAX) are indeed "passionate about having SFO/LAX-JFK for [their] corporate travel" and therefore dropped UA when p.s. moved, which although "cute, but limiting" still was a rather significant issue.

Therefore although yes many corporate customers don't care about the difference between JFK/EWR, what Kirby is highlighting is that UA lost those who did care when they quit JFK, and these contracts seemed to have been rather significant, which is what many of us had foreseen since the beginning when this was announced. And thus that explains channa's point:

Ber2dca

I think it might be kind of like New Jersey Devils vs New York Rangers. You can see Manhattan from the roof of the Prudential Center in downtown Newark and it's really not far or difficult to reach from NYC, but it does say "New Jersey" and thus isn't *really* New York. NYC prestige of course far exceeds that of New Jersey. So the Rangers were New York's team even when the Devils were winning championships.

Of course, most of the world's famous cities' airports aren't actually in the city that's on their signage but then they aren't typically competing vs a bigger airport that is.

ndhapple

Also, worth pointing out that while the people flying in J might have cars waiting for them when they landed at Newark or JFK (so who cares which airport), business travelers who live in Brooklyn or Queens (and yes, they really do exist) probably don't.

And I don't know about you guys, but I really don't enjoy having to schlep across two rivers or deal with a two-and-a-half hour NJ Transit sojourn just to catch an early morning transcontinental, when JFK was a half-hour away. It's why I switched to Delta when I lived in Brooklyn. Hopping on the A, or taking the 2/3 to Atlantic and switching to the LIRR was infinitely more convenient.

Karl-MDW

How can United tout its network and NOT serve one of the most important airports in the country!?

United should have been able to put enough resources into JFK to make it work. It was a very old station, and they inherited a Pan hub. Over the years, United chose to retreat rather than to compete. Now, United is a no-show in a world class airport.

nikolastojsin

+1
I cannot believe I am agreeing here with Kirby, but he is exactly right.
And that does not apply only to the ex-LAX market - here are two scenes from my recent BOM-EWR trip:

1) At UA BOM checkin line, I was asked by an Indian gentleman how far EWR was from New York. It transpired he was an elite Etihad flier, and apparently was persuaded by his agent to fly UA direct to EWR, instead of flying to JFK with EY via AUH. He had absolutely no idea where EWR was relative to New York, and was quite nervous about it.

2) At the same airport, a security guard that was checking boarding passes at the inter-terminal bus stop - a very lovely and courteous young woman in military uniform, incidentally - looked at my BP and asked: "What is this, EWR?" I explained it was New York's second busiest international airport, but she did not seem persuaded...

Bottom line: JFK is globally recognizable brand, New York's international gateway; EWR... not really.

Even domestically, I completely understand those CA HVFs that are hesitant to fly to EWR from SFO/LAX. When it comes to flying to CA, I know of - and fly into - SFO and LAX; if I had to fly into, say, OAK, I would probably need some re-assurance (from FT, probably!).

IMHO, UA would probably be wise to promote EWR brand more, but even if it occured to them to do so, they are in a bind. Promoting it as a New York City's gateway would upset NJ political class, and everything else would be counterproductive... And, given what happened to Smisek when he was lobbying for a PATH line extension... ah well.