Long term plan for EWR PS lounge?
 

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.

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.

supposedly another lounge will be opening up on the second levels in the international arrivals area. Although to me a UC there does little help as its mostly International and most fliers with lounge access on that side would be flying Polaris.

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.

UA seems content to offer an inferior premium t-con product. It's the old "network" theory - our network is better, so we can offer a crap product and still charge top dollar for it, because our customers don't really have a choice.

Meh. I think UA is very much middle-of-the-road in the TCON game. United has the best schedule, the same seat as AA/DL (757), a solid inflight service (comparatively better now that DL is starting to cut theirs), an improving lounge situation (as compared to B6 with no lounges) and the most capacity in the market. I think calling it inferior is a bit of a stretch, considering the fact that the competition has warts, too. I fly them all and cannot objectively say United's product is markedly worse than the competition, taken as a whole.

When I think of "inferior" TCON product, Alaska (both old VX and even more so with their forthcoming product) immediately comes to mind. In just about all respects, their product is qualitatively worse than the competition.

I think it depends what you value. I really care about the lounges (particularly showers, since I almost always fly the redeye to NYC). I also like clean aircraft that don't have interior parts falling off. DL has UA beat badly on those points. DL's food now sucks but I've also had completely inedible meals on UA ps last few times, so consider that a wash. And I think "frequency" goes right along with "network" as one of UA's justifications for not spending on the product itself.

That's fair, and the lack of showers in the standard United Club is one product aspect UA has badly miscalculated, IMO. I'd love to see that walked back, but it doesn't look realistic.

Frequency/network matter, though. Ideally, I want flights at the time of day I want to travel. AA/B6/AS have several 3-4 hour gaps in their schedules to SFO, and AS the same to LAX. That's not good enough when competitors are essentially operating a shuttle service.

Yet something is making you continue to choose UA...?

Not only "this" but I'd challenge some of those statements. Yes, UA went through a rough spot, but I cannot remember the last time I boarded a plane what wasn't clean, much less that had parts "falling off."

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 :rolleyes:

I take it you don't fly the sCO 752s often then. (And the sUA 752s are getting nearly as bad.)

Almost without fail, it's the foam spacers between the various cabin monuments and the sidewalls. It just looks sloppy. There are also lots of scuffs and marks that are the result of normal wear-and-tear. I've also had outright broken seats, loose headrests and armrests, things of that nature.

The seats are approaching 10 years old, in many cases, and I mentioned this to Andrew Nocella in a recent conversation. He's aware of it, and supposedly, the company is looking into ways to refresh the 757 cabins to bring them closer to the Polaris branding. He admits the seats themselves are not going to change, but seat fabric, cushions, carpets, bulkheads, seat shells, etc. could be updated.

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