The PS flights were O/D on the JFK side, I highly doubt a large number were using star connections onward to Europe.

You'd have to be a real glutton for punishment if you think flying an offline-connection via crowded and delay prone airspace is a good idea.

I suppose its one thing if you're flying from some po-dunk mid-american city via EWR, but we're talking about SFO/LAX which have plenty of nonstop options to Europe, and you don't have to worry about an otherwise absurdly long connection in NYC to keep it safe.

Sorry, but Kirby's statement fails a logic test. Failing at logic is the opposite of making sense. I think we're seeing another reason why AA let him go.

I'll go through the logic again for you. If leaving JFK was significantly a wrong move, they'd be planning to come back. If the only reason to not come back is the cost of lost physical and customer capital (customer capital can be recovered or increased in the long-run), then it proves it was a marginal operation at best, worthy of consideration to be cut. At worst it was a complete loser, and cutting it was the right move. So now calling it a "wrong decision" loses all basis in reason and indicates more of a personal statement against previous management. Kirby's statements conflict, no question.

And where are those fat corporate contracts for AA at SFO?

Ding! We have a winner!

UA was already only operating scraps of service when it pulled out.
UA killed that service more than a decade ago. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...nited-airlines

I'm pretty sure that's not what Kirby was talking about.

There is another thread about UA not having to compete in EWR. Well, this just proves it. This is an outrageous profit margin for an airline!! This can only happen if there is insufficient competition. Proof positive UA does not have to compete in EWR.

Bolding mine: All United had to do was ask us ;)

Taken in context with Kirby's past at AA (buildup at LAX), what he's said since arriving at United (wants to build LAX back up for UA) and other things he discussed during the Q&A (entertainment contracts), it's clear he was referring to UA losing LAX-originating business when it exited LAX-JFK.

Maybe in the past, today, no longer... from the earnings call:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/406...pt?part=single

UA had international service out of JFK within the FT era -- post-1998.

For years -- including in the 2000s -- UA had way more of an international long-haul network out of JFK than Delta. UA could have tried to be the Delta of JFK, but instead they were to be the Continental of Newark. Some may say this outcome is a product of corporate signaling (to limit competition) and of questionable, government-assisted industry support, and I wouldn't be disputing that.

I'm pretty sure Kirby is still American-focused and is indeed not complaining about the lack of UA international service at JFK in any way that will make UA be at JFK what it was within the past 20 years.

But international service at JFK from other carriers is eating into COdbaUA @EWR. EWR isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still my idea of the armpit of NYC-area airports.

Correct. Which is why it brings the motive and belief behind his statements into question. LAX-JFK is where UA had the most unique customers to lose by dropping JFK. We know there would be some losses there, offset by an unknown number of gains. But the elements of the decision go far beyond LAX. They go into EWR and SFO more. I question how UA can now have over double the number of PS flights on this day compared to 2 years ago and call it a "wrong decision". Clearly there have been major revenue gains in and beyond those routes.

At AA, LAX is everything to them. That's all they have on the West Coast, and Kirby will have that strategic perspective. His actions at AA and UA indicate he really cares about market share. That sounds like a poor reason to keep JFK.

Please stop. You're chasing a silly argument with facts that are completely wrong.

The only time United had way more of an international long-haul network out of JFK than Delta was prior to Delta's acquisition of PanAm's European routes. Yes, United flew to more continents but it had many, many fewer destinations, passengers, RPMs, etc.

Your "logic" assumes that time is static, and the same conditions exist now that existed at the time of the decision. It is not a valid comparison. The act of United abandoning JFK has altered the decision matrix.

Kirby has the benefit of hindsight, so it is not really a sign of brilliance now. But the biggest take-away from me is that United finally has an executive that can think beyond a spreadsheet.

The overall network, the frequent flier program, customer service, etc are all factors which drive revenue and yields. Decisions to cut any of these areas lead to further consequences where are not easily captured in forecasts.

Getting that is the difference between a leader and a data analyst.

Slimeball thought calling it "New York / Newark" would be same diff

as with 99% of things, PMUA had the business analysis correct. p.s.means SFO/LAX-JFK

Nothing p. about New Jersey

What I find funny, people are still defending the move today, even though the President of the actually airline said it was a bad move.

UA lost corporate contracts that are affecting some west coast operations. You can defend EWR vs JFK, but the PRESIDENT of UNITED said it was a bad move to pull out of JFK. How anyone can actually continue to try to defend the move is just amazing.

As hard as you try, EWR is not NY for people from across the country and world.

JFK-LHR/NRT were nice options.

PMUA dropped the NRT option (and LHR, though that one i can imagine was thin margin)

The UA President said it was bad because it was bad for business and the customer perception of people based elsewhere. The people defending it are defending it based upon their own personal set of logistics for travel to the particular parts of the NY Metro area that they personally travel - so there is no inherent contradiction here. Both perspectives can be and are entirely valid.