threeoh

And do those flights bring in 2x the revenue?

zymm

I would love OAK so much for all the short-haul coastal flights. I have something dismal like a 90% delay rate SFO-SEA.

PsiFighter37

greg99

On a 1-10 scale of "hard hitting" frequent flyer journalism, if 1 is The Points Guy, I'd give this article at least a 7.

HNLbasedFlyer

I thought it was a good interview - sure a question on Polaris might be interesting but he's got to balance his questions as to not get on a banned list - I get that.

Besides, he simply say something like - we believe it is in the best interest of customers to balance our costs with a superior on-board seat and our MileagePlus program that allows upgrade opportunities not only for our frequent fliers but also other fliers as well. We've made a significant investment in Polaris Lounges and we feel this is the best balance for our customers - blah blah blah......

Infinite1K

And even the scaled back flights are going out with NonRevs.

MysteryTour

"So are people willing to pay an extra $110 on a $1000 transatlantic fare to sit in a row with one less seat?"

Yes.

To be more specific, I will not fly transatlantic on the 10 across 777 at any price. Give me back the original 2-5-2 on the 777 and charge more. Make the pairs of seats premium seating and charge for it if you must.

jsloan

The problem is, there are empirically not enough people like you to fill the planes, whereas there are plenty of people who will not.

P+ is intended to try to bridge the gap. How well it will do that remains to be seen, but the relative size of the cabin should tell you a lot about the population of the various groups of people. (PE cabins are similarly sized throughout the industry, so this isn't just UA not understanding its market or whatever).

worldtrav

The question isn't "Are people willing", the question is how many are willing.

uastarflyer

Nicoolio

Air Berlin had lie flat seats, probably better than UA's.

At the same time IAG just launched a long-haul LCC, Level. Icelandair might be in that category. I guess Condor is similar for LH - and I do think they have lie-flat seats. And what about Air Europa?

It sounds to me like he's trying to scare off potential investors since UA's strategy is to make the back of the plane an expensive LCC I guess.

UA couldn't make TED work, but look at Allegiant and Spirit. They just were doing it wrong.

FlyerTalker70

Given how much UA has dumped into Terminal C at EWR I doubt they'll be moving anytime soon. At this point they virtually own that airport occupying all of Terminal C and a good chunk of Terminal A. The remaining tenants have to scuffle over the remaining scraps. Consequently, I suppose UA has more bargaining power with the power authority than, say, DL and AA who have a major presence at JFK. It also doesn't hurt if you create a route for a Port Authority Executive apparently! Also, Newark is closer to NYC than the other NY area airports.

That being said the airport has a couple of disadvantages namely:

1. Terminals A and B are real dumps from slow security, limited facilities and a dated concourse to the fact that there is no airside connection between them all
2. Limited Amount of Connections with INTL * carriers (i.e. SN, NH and OZ only go to JFK whilst the LH Group of airlines have significantly larger presence out of JFK)
3. No subway connections to NYC (sure you can take NJ Transit trains but again hassle, slow and disgusting)
4. It's in NJ!

The fact that NYC has three airports is a real pain point for the city. Having to the airport shuffle is a real pain, especially in the horrendous traffic NY/NJ is known for is a real farce and is something most major cities in the world avoid!

If anything, I see UA dropping LGA and moving some of their domestic flights to JFK to support connections with the rest of the * network since I don't see those carriers moving to LGA or EWR given how stretched to the limits the latter's Terminal B is! UA's decision to have no presence in JFK is also hampering their JV partner AC since they can't dump flights into JFK to support international routings, no no no! Instead, they must sync up with UA's hubs to support onward connections on the network.

Safe Travels,

James

docbert

The key word there is "buy up", so it's people that in some form or other start with BE. Thus it excludes most corporate travelers (where BE isnt even offered), probably anyone that turns of "Show BE fares" on the app, and most likely also those that select the Economy fare to start with on the website.

ie, people who select "BE" at first, but then realize by the time they check the bag they now can't carry-on it's going to cost basically the same - and with other disadvantages like no seat selection.

dilanesp

I suspect even if they add OAK there won't be a convenient routimg to Seattle.

cerealmarketer

If you're willing to pay a premium for a pair of seats alone, premium economy is right up your alley. It's less than $300 more roundtrip than economy on EWR-FRA for example. I doubt that's what UA intended long term, but that's how the market is currently shaping up. And you get a whole lot more legroom than you ever did in economy, plus 50% more PQMs.

I only noticed it because I was returning a rental car to EWR, but they've already got the steel frame up for the new Terminal A (Terminal 'One'). Just took a flight from A today and they have the renderings up - looks outstanding and opens in a couple years.

Then they demolish the old A and I'm going to guess build another on top of that site down the line.

As for the "it's NJ"...

The most exclusive airport in the NY metro favored by people who value time the most by far is in NJ.

It's Teterboro.