elitetraveler

What doesn't add up?

LAX/SFO-JFK has a portion of premium O&D traffic that won't fly out EWR - If they were Long Island-based, they may have flown UA connections using LGA for other travel. Without a JFK-LAX/SFO nonstop they probably defected to DL, AA or B6 taking their other business with them. With SFO/LAX based fliers who travel to New York but EWR doesn't work, same thing -- if they moved their NYC flying to AA, VX or DL, they may have taken other flying away from UA also. I imagine UA took a hit on some Long Island based corporate accounts.

Seeksreal

File this one under "Duh!"

sinoflyer

Those 200 daily J seats are in a high profile market frequented by tech, finance, and other price-insensitive travelers. They are not the same 200 J/F seats for, say, SFO-ORD or even SFO-DCA. The same can be said for LAX-JFK. I won't get into the tired argument whether EWR is or isn't a NYC airport, but some travelers do insist on JFK when traveling to NYC. UA had arguably the most attractive portfolio over AA, B6, and DL with competitive schedules between LAX/SFO and JFK/EWR. The decision to leave JFK was boneheaded not only because it pushed away existing customers, but it also made UA less attractive to new clients, of any size and spend, who frequently travel to New York, Tokyo, London, and other high profile destinations. SFO might have been less impacted because of UA's relative strength there, but LAX certainly could have lost many lucrative traffic because of that one route.

I am not one who criticized everything UA did pre-September 2015, but UA well deserved criticism for its lack of vision and poor execution of the "global network" strategy. Tangentially touching upon "natural share," UA ceded markets like DEN-MCI by replacing mainline with Q400. While the routes individually might have seemed to be of little consequence, they added up to make UA's portfolio far less competitive than UA+CO was on the day of the merger announcement. To those of us who saw this all along, Kirby was merely stating the obvious instead of throwing shade at the previous regime.

deskover54

I still don't get the hoopla over losing JFK. But to me, the worst part was when they moved to EWR, the RPUs are sooooo hard to clear. I rarely fly that route anymore, although I used to all the time. Now my RPUs just go to waste because I don't know what to do with them and they expire. So if bringing back JFK helps make RPUs clear, then I suppose that's a good thing.

minnyfly

Can't remember how many times I've read the article already.

You clearly didn't closely read the totality of my post. It says network this and network that. We can take an extreme example like losing every SFO-JFK passenger from the network and be unsure if it "badly" hurt SFO.

Just because a market is "big" doesn't mean an airline will fly it. I'd say CHI-LAX is a big market, yet DL isn't there. Same story with SFO-CHI.

Your overstating of JFK is easily exposed. On paper ORD-JFK is a big market, yet AA only has a single hub-to-hub flight. DFW-JFK should be large, but there's only one flight from AA and a single RJ from DL. IAH-JFK? nothing. Even DCA-JFK is lightly flown. The prime demand for JFK is limited to beyond the LGA perimeter. EWR is right there with JFK for domestic O&D. I don't see anyone complaining that all airlines besides UA hardly touch it. It's clearly a "large market" too.

FWAAA

This is unprecedented. I do not recall another instance where airline management made a decision that was derided by so many knowledgeable frequent flyers and then, within two years, new management validates their criticism of the earlier decision.

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I carry no water for Scott Kirby. He and Parker at AA had a limited playbook: taking full-service carriers like AA and US and taking them in the direction of America West.

Smisek made a lot of decisions with which I disagreed and with which many others around here found fault. Kirby confirms what many of us suspected - that abandoning JFK might cost UA more in other parts of its ever-so-important network than the amount lost at JFK.

Smisek himself probably thinks he did the right thing and he is probably swearing at Kirby over this revelation, but I'm confused why so many Flyertalkers were convinced two years ago that Smisek was right when he moved ps transcons to EWR and why so many of them think Kirby is now lying about Smisek's decision being wrong.

tphuang

T7 has since continued to look like a 3rd world terminal, whereas T4 and T5 are new and actually places you want to spend time at. T8 on the other hand, that's a different story. So unless UA want to be stuck in that dump, it's going to have to spend money to make its portion look better or see if they can get gate space at the nicer terminals

This is the part that I have an issue with. Out of the 3 airlines that have the slots necessary, AA is definitely not selling or trading with UA. DL and B6 are not selling to UA either. Not when they are trying to battle for greater market share in New York. They would be willing to trade for UA slots or gates in other airlines. The assumption that they are willing to sell slots at a valuation that B6 paid when it was exchanging for DCA slots is rather unfounded.

If UA wants to get 15 to 20 slots with DL or B6, it would probably have to give up slots at LGA or DCA + gate space at EWR or LAX.

Would UA trade 10 LGA slots + 2 gates at EWR to B6 for 20 JFK slots or trade 15 LGA slots to DL for 20 JFK slots?

The only other possible partner is AS/VX if they decide to get out of the premium transcon market, but they don't have enough slots that UA needs.

Austin787

AA might be a potential slot partner in the future, starting with those JFK-SJU flights AA is cancelling later this year and the other slots AA is squatting on. Maybe AA trades some JFK slots to UA for additional gates at LAX or PHL.

channa

Southwest does not position itself as a global airline. A global airline is expected to fly major routes such as these. You have a hub in SFO and LAX and you don't fly to the largest city in the country from there. It's simply inexcusable. Kirby acknowledged this. Most on this board knew this.

And frankly, it's practically unprecedented. Tough to think of an airline pulling out of such a prominent city relative to its market space.
​​

5khours

Now all they need to do is make the same admission about BKK.... and SEA.

channa

Different order of magnitude with those. BKK is a spoke, and SEA isn't nearly as sizeable as New York.

Toshbaf

Midtown East can be very easy from JFK. The subway is cheap. E train with only a few stops and then you can be at Lexington and E. 53rd.

If you're really on a budget, you can take the Q6 or is it Q10 bus from JFK to the subway.

Alaska entered JFK with merely one flight a day. UA can re-enter JFK, maybe getting a gate with *A LH in terminal 1?

They could start out simple, like SFO-JFK only. Or JFK to LAX or SFO. They don't need to add all the hubs.

deskover54

Doesn't Air Train to E train take over an hour to get to Manhattan versus 30 mins on NJT?

channa

What's this 30 minutes you're referring to? Sometimes there's more than 40 minutes between trains for NJ Transit EWR Airport to NY Penn. That's the worst thing about that link.

As for the E train, it's about 40-45 minutes from the Sutphin Blvd/JFK station to Penn. But if you're going from there to Penn, the LIRR takes 21 minutes and would be the most practical option (shorter than the NJT train portion). Subway would be easiest if you're in Midtown East for example.

deskover54

I'm not an expert so I'll defer to you and others. I don't recall waiting 40 mins for a train ever. I feel like you get there and get on and it's 30 mins to Penn.

For JFK, I feel like you walk forever to get to an airtrain, then take the airtrain for 20 mins. Then get on the subway and it's another 45 mins, for a total of well over an hour. I guess different people have different experiences depending exactly where you're going, and I'm not smart enough to know exactly where I'm going each time.