Long term plan for EWR PS lounge?

Old Jun 28, 2018, 10:24 am
  #16  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS, Marriott Plat, National Executive Elite
Posts: 115
Showers is what kills it for me. Who doesn’t want to take a shower when coming off a red eye to EWR? Now I’m forced to book a room at the airport marriott and waste an hour or two on that, along with a few hundred bucks.
caiken is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 10:46 am
  #17  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,300
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
Hawaii? Delta doesn't even even fly HNL-SFO nonstop, do they? What is appealing about Delta to Hawaii - you've got high frequency non-stop lie-flat on UA - I couldn't imagine flying Delta to the Bay Area from HNL
I can fly OAK-LAX-HNL on DL. It's cheaper than UA ex-SFO, and I get all-aisle access on a DL widebody, instead of the 2-4-2 772G. On the return, I can route HNL-SLC-OAK, which is actually preferable for a red-eye due to the longer flight time HNL-SLC.

OAK is 15 minutes from both home and office. SFO is 2-8x that, depending on time and mode of travel.

And DL is overall just a better experience.
MatthewLAX likes this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 10:57 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Kacee
Check my profile - I have status on both carriers. I fly DL t-con (and to Hawaii) if the price is anywhere close. Thus DL has gotten my last three NYC trips. UA will get my next one because the price was $1k less.

But thanks for your valuable and constructive comment



I take it you don't fly the sCO 752s often then. (And the sUA 752s are getting nearly as bad.)
Actually, I think you made the point. Adding construction for better clubs, showers, better food, cleaner planes or whatever it is that you love about DL doesn't get them a $1,000 price premium. UA knows that and will continue to not offer those things and win customers on price. And their strategy seems to be working. If it wasn't, then none of us would be flying UA.
flyerbaby19 is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 2:21 pm
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tel Aviv
Programs: United 1K, 1.9MM
Posts: 60
The reality is that United just doesn't care about its FFs unless they are paying for Polaris. Its not just the lack of decent UCs, but the 10 across in Y, even in E+ on the new 77W up"upgraded" 772. Every Polaris upgrade brings a downgrade in Y.
acr113 is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 3:31 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: UA -GS 4.5 MM, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by EWR764
There's plenty of domestic on C-3, though, as not every gate is for WB. Plus, *G on international flights get lounge access, so this would mean a closer lounge to their departure gate. The bigger issue, to me, is C-2, where it is at least a 7-10 minute walk to either lounge (with backtracking), and perhaps longer from a more distant gate or with a slower pace. I think UA should probably open a lounge on this concourse, too.

Supposedly, a full-gut renovation is coming to the C-1 club (about 10 years overdue), along with the new lounge on C-3. This will substantially improve the situation at EWR, which has been abysmal for over a year, but we aren't there yet. The PL is fantastic, though.
But how many years will we have to suffer with the over crowded UA Clubs at EWR? The opening of the PL has done nothing to reduce the over crowding as now people with the one visit passes are back. UA has totally destroyed their Clubs.
feobrien is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 3:43 pm
  #21  
Moderator: United MileagePlus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Clinging to the edifices of a decadent past from the biggest city in America nobody really cares about.
Programs: (ಠ_ಠ)
Posts: 9,077
Originally Posted by Often1
I don't see UA offering Polaris to TCON J anytime in the near future as that dilutes the entire branding and would either cause instant overcrowding or the need for an expansion right away.
Makes sense.

I'd wager UA, all else equal, would opt to open up Polaris lounges to PS J customers BUT not at the material degradation (e.g. crowding) of the product.

The only exception I'd encourage UA to consider is for "sleeper" PS service ex. SFO/LAX.

So for example, UA declares any post-3pm PS flight as a "sleeper" flight and offers access in SFO/LAX when their usage would otherwise be light (e.g. after the SFO lounge clears out the mid-day Asia bank).

Rational being a PS J customer can dine on the ground and then go straight to sleep on the red-eye. In the case of SFO based on today's schedule, this would be 6 flights (3 EWR + 3 BOS) and the exposure would be any J customer who did not already have access by virtue of a Polaris connection.

UA's exposure is contained to SFO/LAX - ideally when the lounge would not otherwise be busy - and EWR is completely excluded from access.
J.Edward is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 3:57 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,425
Originally Posted by feobrien
But how many years will we have to suffer with the over crowded UA Clubs at EWR? The opening of the PL has done nothing to reduce the over crowding as now people with the one visit passes are back. UA has totally destroyed their Clubs.
I'd expect the work to be done in less than a year. The Polaris lounge took just short of 8 months, and that was a bigger undertaking. I'd say +/- 6 months from the time the C-1 lounge closes, and based on the construction I can see underway, I would hope the new C-3 club is even sooner.
EWR764 is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 4:12 pm
  #23  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,124
Originally Posted by gradsflyer
There are no special lounges for Premium Transcon flyers in LAX or SFO, just UCs, so not sure what you are referring to other than that the UCs are perhaps larger than in EWR, other than that no real difference. I'll admit though that rotunda and pop-up lounges in SFO are pretty bad compared to the new LAX UC.
The rotunda UC (and the actual rotunda and museum hallway with bouncy bouncy travellator) in SFO is my happy comfort place. Don’t touch it I say. Just upkeep it.

EWR was a dump with zero nostalgic value. Of course it needed a complete demo.
JHake10 likes this.
uastarflyer is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 8:35 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LA
Programs: UA MM | BA Ag
Posts: 7,189
I think (hope?) that UA will continue to renovate the UC's in the system. I do understand the fear that Polaris will/is sucking all the capex for lounges, but UA knows many of the UC's need to be updated. We will have to wait and see what happens, or how long it takes.

On transcons I mainly fly LAX-BOS/DCA, LAX-JFK/EWR-[insert connecting city] and I choose flatbed aircraft (or VX if a day flight, but that's over after this summer). Time permitting, I'll fly out of the way to cross the country on a flatbed aircraft. I want the most convenient routing, within the time window at the cheapest fare, so for each flight they all have a chance at my money.

And you know what, it's still complicated. I have lower tier elite status across the board because I'm a free agent. I am preferential towards UA due to my 1.1 million miles worth of history with them. All else being equal, I will still choose DL over UA because I bought into the DL marketing machine and they are consistent. B6 has great food and FA's but the seat is hard. Really hard. But I can't say no to the throne seat. If I know I'll want a shower at some point in the journey, that also impacts my decision.

Whats my point? I like how some of y'all are real clear cut with hard lines and set patterns, but that's not me. I consider different factors when making a decision. I'm a human not a robot and for any given trip I consider my needs.

p.s. My last DL flatbed flight the aircraft and my seating area were filthy and my seat was broken. My last UA flatbed flight was delayed because the aircraft was broken, and my last B6 flatbed flight was delayed 4+ hours and as we all know their IRROPS recovery is poor. I have a hard time at this point calling any airline queen of the transcons.

p.p.s I fly fewer AA flatbed transcons because I'm trying to connect through JFK, not end there. Also their pricing is a bit wonky.









Last edited by anc-ord772; Jun 28, 2018 at 8:47 pm
anc-ord772 is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 10:14 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, Mlife NOIR
Posts: 320
Originally Posted by Often1
Hard to understand what OP is talking about.

UA offers p.s. premium, e.g. TCON J passengers access to the UC. DL does this with its SC and AA with its AC. Neither UA nor DL offer F. AA offers F and thus access to Flagship Lounges. So it is exactly the same on all three carriers for TCON J.

I don't see UA offering Polaris to TCON J anytime in the near future as that dilutes the entire branding and would either cause instant overcrowding or the need for an expansion right away.

One consideration might be to offer a smallish lounge area near departures for dedicated TCON gates and make that available only to J passengers. O&D HVC passengers are not going to arrive at EWR anytime further in advance than necessary, but might find grabbing a drink and something simple before boarding. Domestic connecting passengers are not the bread & butter of those routes and international connections in J have Polaris access.
Hmm... AA offers Flagship Access not just to those in F, but to those in transcon J.

DL does offer SC access but SC is significantly better than UC since DL uses it as a premium International lounge as well. SC has showers, a real buffet (and the option to buy Dom with Skypesos &#128539 when UA clubs have cheese cubes.

At this point, UA transcon are very uncompetitive except for those connecting onwards to Polaris. Who doesn’t want to shower after a redeye?
UAflyer93 is offline  
Old Jun 28, 2018, 10:55 pm
  #26  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: BOS/SIN
Programs: DL PM, OZ Diamond Plus, BA Silver
Posts: 1,797
Originally Posted by Often1
Hard to understand what OP is talking about.

UA offers p.s. premium, e.g. TCON J passengers access to the UC. DL does this with its SC and AA with its AC. Neither UA nor DL offer F. AA offers F and thus access to Flagship Lounges. So it is exactly the same on all three carriers for TCON J.
I'd like to see someone say with a straight face that the C74 UC at EWR is exactly the same as the DL JFK T4 SC or the AA flagship lounge...
truncated is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2018, 6:38 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: UA -GS 4.5 MM, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by EWR764
I'd expect the work to be done in less than a year. The Polaris lounge took just short of 8 months, and that was a bigger undertaking. I'd say +/- 6 months from the time the C-1 lounge closes, and based on the construction I can see underway, I would hope the new C-3 club is even sooner.
I hope you are right
feobrien is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2018, 6:02 pm
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, MR LTT, HH Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 31,840
UCs are perfectly fine for transcon C IMO. Nice of UA to see this included at departure and arrival airports. There won't be anything nicer than that ... next step could be ... taking it all away or just at departure airport.
cfischer is offline  
Old Jun 29, 2018, 6:16 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: LA
Programs: UA MM | BA Ag
Posts: 7,189
Originally Posted by cfischer
UCs are perfectly fine for transcon C IMO. Nice of UA to see this included at departure and arrival airports. There won't be anything nicer than that ... next step could be ... taking it all away or just at departure airport.
Doubtful unless DL does it first.
anc-ord772 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.