Nov 10, 2020, 12:21 pm
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
Start of service has been delayed -- now 28 March 2021
In April 2021, single flight M,Th,F,Sa,Su
SFO UA520,UA523
LAX UA514, UA517
UA's 2021 Return to JFK - Inaugural Flights on 28 March thread
AS (and VX) Moved to T7 at JFK; New Alaska Lounge (April, 2018)
Earlier related threads
FlightGlobal: United seeks return to New York JFK
United Airlines President: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’ {2017}
p.s. Operations Transitioning to EWR on October 25, 2015
In April 2021, single flight M,Th,F,Sa,Su
SFO UA520,UA523
LAX UA514, UA517
UA's 2021 Return to JFK - Inaugural Flights on 28 March thread
AS (and VX) Moved to T7 at JFK; New Alaska Lounge (April, 2018)
We are Back! United Announces Return to New York's JFK Airport
Airline to offer new transcontinental service from JFK to the west coast starting February 1
November 10, 2020
-- United Airlines announced today that it will be returning service to New York City's John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) on February 1, 2021 with nonstop service to the west coast. The airline's entry back into JFK after five years reflects not only its strong commitment to the New York City area, but a continuation of aggressively and strategically managing the impact of COVID-19 by increasing service to and from the places where customers want to fly. The new United service will operate out of Terminal 7.
Effective February of next year, United will serve both JFK to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and JFK to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) with two round-trips for each west coast city. The flights will utilize the reconfigured Boeing 767-300ER aircraft on the routes offering customers an extended premium cabin featuring 16 additional United Business class seats –providing all-aisle-access seating – bringing the total premium cabin seat count to 46. The aircraft will also feature 22 United Premium Plus® seats, 47 Economy Plus® seats and 52 Economy seats. United offers the most premium seats between the New York City area and Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. Tickets are now available for purchase on United.com.
"I have been waiting a long time to say this - United Airlines is back at JFK," said United's Chief Executive Officer Scott Kirby. "Come early next year, we will be serving all three major New York City area airports with a best-in-class product to provide our customers unmatched transcontinental service from New York City and the west coast."
Airline to offer new transcontinental service from JFK to the west coast starting February 1
November 10, 2020
-- United Airlines announced today that it will be returning service to New York City's John F. Kennedy Airport (JFK) on February 1, 2021 with nonstop service to the west coast. The airline's entry back into JFK after five years reflects not only its strong commitment to the New York City area, but a continuation of aggressively and strategically managing the impact of COVID-19 by increasing service to and from the places where customers want to fly. The new United service will operate out of Terminal 7.
Effective February of next year, United will serve both JFK to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and JFK to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) with two round-trips for each west coast city. The flights will utilize the reconfigured Boeing 767-300ER aircraft on the routes offering customers an extended premium cabin featuring 16 additional United Business class seats –providing all-aisle-access seating – bringing the total premium cabin seat count to 46. The aircraft will also feature 22 United Premium Plus® seats, 47 Economy Plus® seats and 52 Economy seats. United offers the most premium seats between the New York City area and Los Angeles and San Francisco markets. Tickets are now available for purchase on United.com.
"I have been waiting a long time to say this - United Airlines is back at JFK," said United's Chief Executive Officer Scott Kirby. "Come early next year, we will be serving all three major New York City area airports with a best-in-class product to provide our customers unmatched transcontinental service from New York City and the west coast."
"The upcoming return of United to JFK while continuing service at Newark Liberty and LaGuardia Airports will offer more choices for transcontinental flights just as travelers return to the skies," said Kevin O'Toole, Chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. "As the recovery begins, we're pleased to see these increased options for those who choose to fly in and out of the Port Authority's airports."
"United Airlines' return to JFK Airport is a clear sign that air travel is returning in New York and across the region," said Rick Cotton, Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. "As numbers start to rise, the Port Authority is ready to welcome travelers back to JFK, Newark Liberty and LaGuardia Airports with increased cleaning and sanitizing in all terminals and touch-free options from curb to gate to ensure a world-class travel experience even in these unprecedented times."
United's premium cabin will feature flat-bed seats on all flights similar to the current Newark-Los Angeles and Newark-San Francisco offerings, providing a consistent and comprehensive NYC-west coast product. Additionally, United's wide-body service can participate in the robust cargo market between JFK and the west coast.
"United Airlines' return to JFK Airport is a clear sign that air travel is returning in New York and across the region," said Rick Cotton, Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. "As numbers start to rise, the Port Authority is ready to welcome travelers back to JFK, Newark Liberty and LaGuardia Airports with increased cleaning and sanitizing in all terminals and touch-free options from curb to gate to ensure a world-class travel experience even in these unprecedented times."
United's premium cabin will feature flat-bed seats on all flights similar to the current Newark-Los Angeles and Newark-San Francisco offerings, providing a consistent and comprehensive NYC-west coast product. Additionally, United's wide-body service can participate in the robust cargo market between JFK and the west coast.
FlightGlobal: United seeks return to New York JFK
United Airlines President: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’ {2017}
p.s. Operations Transitioning to EWR on October 25, 2015
UA service JFK<> SFO/LAX , experiences, lounge, ....
May 7, 2020, 6:11 am
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
It's amazing how such influential, allegedly smart executives can be so weak on dynamic analysis. Drop JFK, then lose tons of contract business signed in LA to DL, B6, and AA because people in the entertainment business refuse to transit Newark, and the next thing you know you've endangered your standing at LAX. Shrink LAX and now you're surrendering TPAC share. It's one of those for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost things.
May 7, 2020, 9:17 am
#32
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
Once the dust settles from COVID-19, there will be further consolidation in the industry (don't ask me who... yet) and there might well be an opportunity for United to re-enter JFK. Time will tell. Everyone's preference would, of course, be for perimeter restrictions to come down at LGA, but it seems that won't be happening any time soon. IMO, the window for that would have been in connection with the LGA redevelopment, and it didn't happen, so my guess is that effort has run cold.
I am pretty bearish on AA right now, although I am hardly alone in this regard. The company's debt load is crushing, and absent a Chapter 11 filing to restructure it, they are going to have to cut tremendous cost out of their operation, to a degree DL, WN and even UA will not. Despite the rosy outlook from the earnings call, things like the high-cost JFK operation may well be on the chopping block. No doubt AA's facilities and staff expense at JFK outweigh the benefits of what is essentially just JFK-LAX/LHR/GRU/EZE, especially in the face of a likely long-term decline in international premium demand. Those routes had long-term strategic value to the company and cannot be replicated at LGA. I even have my doubts about GRU with the LATAM exit and EZE with the Argentine economy, but AA is historically the most important US carrier in those markets.
Point is, I think COVID-19 pushes the long-term value proposition for JFK at AA even below the level where it makes sense to continue the investment in real estate for the long term. A few years from now, without consolidation, AA at JFK could look an awful lot like UA did at the end of its JFK run.
Prior to COVID-19, UA also had the most capacity in the NYC-LAX market (it still does at the moment), and possibly moved the most flow traffic, so I would anticipate lower yields and fares. You also can't correct for individual airline accounting practices for connecting revenue allocation when you apply your own calculation to publicly-available filings. When p.s. was a low-capacity, premium-oriented niche product from JFK, with as few as 5 daily LAX frequencies, average fares and yields were higher, as one might expect. But that's only telling part of the story.
Moving out of JFK hurt United at the California point of sale, and p.s. prior to the merger was heavily West Coast-oriented. Nevertheless, it would be a fallacy to claim - not that you are - that moving the operation from JFK was a net negative for the company. EWR-SFO became the highest-grossing market in the system by a considerable margin and premium traffic. Still, there is a premium niche of West Coast-originating traffic that prefers JFK as its destination airport in the New York area, and serving that cohort would not negate the EWR premium transcon operation. The two were never mutually-exclusive, and the point Kirby was making is that United probably did not have to completely exit JFK in order to bolster its EWR operation.
At the time of the move, United was still in a virtually no-net-growth, "capacity discipline" mode, and actively trying to reallocate equipment to pull down 50-seaters (perhaps the one "change I liked"). Had United retained a footprint at JFK, Kirby would have been able to do both high-volume premium at EWR, low-volume premium at JFK, but that ship sailed in the waning days of the Smisek regime.
I am pretty bearish on AA right now, although I am hardly alone in this regard. The company's debt load is crushing, and absent a Chapter 11 filing to restructure it, they are going to have to cut tremendous cost out of their operation, to a degree DL, WN and even UA will not. Despite the rosy outlook from the earnings call, things like the high-cost JFK operation may well be on the chopping block. No doubt AA's facilities and staff expense at JFK outweigh the benefits of what is essentially just JFK-LAX/LHR/GRU/EZE, especially in the face of a likely long-term decline in international premium demand. Those routes had long-term strategic value to the company and cannot be replicated at LGA. I even have my doubts about GRU with the LATAM exit and EZE with the Argentine economy, but AA is historically the most important US carrier in those markets.
Point is, I think COVID-19 pushes the long-term value proposition for JFK at AA even below the level where it makes sense to continue the investment in real estate for the long term. A few years from now, without consolidation, AA at JFK could look an awful lot like UA did at the end of its JFK run.
Moving out of JFK hurt United at the California point of sale, and p.s. prior to the merger was heavily West Coast-oriented. Nevertheless, it would be a fallacy to claim - not that you are - that moving the operation from JFK was a net negative for the company. EWR-SFO became the highest-grossing market in the system by a considerable margin and premium traffic. Still, there is a premium niche of West Coast-originating traffic that prefers JFK as its destination airport in the New York area, and serving that cohort would not negate the EWR premium transcon operation. The two were never mutually-exclusive, and the point Kirby was making is that United probably did not have to completely exit JFK in order to bolster its EWR operation.
At the time of the move, United was still in a virtually no-net-growth, "capacity discipline" mode, and actively trying to reallocate equipment to pull down 50-seaters (perhaps the one "change I liked"). Had United retained a footprint at JFK, Kirby would have been able to do both high-volume premium at EWR, low-volume premium at JFK, but that ship sailed in the waning days of the Smisek regime.
Last edited by EWR764; May 7, 2020 at 9:37 am
May 7, 2020, 11:01 am
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,332
As a frequent PS flyer for past decade, I must admit I had a negative reaction when UA moved all the PS flight out of JFK. I was fond of JFK and had a mental block of thinking going to EWR was too far.
Now, I prefer EWR. It is easier to get to pending on traffic of course, but all things being equal, I am happy with the decision made. This is not too say I am not supportive of UA going back to JFK. Post Covid-19, if there is an opportunity and within UA's liquidity and capital commitments capacity, there should be some considerations given.
Now, I prefer EWR. It is easier to get to pending on traffic of course, but all things being equal, I am happy with the decision made. This is not too say I am not supportive of UA going back to JFK. Post Covid-19, if there is an opportunity and within UA's liquidity and capital commitments capacity, there should be some considerations given.
May 7, 2020, 2:55 pm
#34
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,125
As a frequent PS flyer for past decade, I must admit I had a negative reaction when UA moved all the PS flight out of JFK. I was fond of JFK and had a mental block of thinking going to EWR was too far.
Now, I prefer EWR. It is easier to get to pending on traffic of course, but all things being equal, I am happy with the decision made. This is not too say I am not supportive of UA going back to JFK. Post Covid-19, if there is an opportunity and within UA's liquidity and capital commitments capacity, there should be some considerations given.
Now, I prefer EWR. It is easier to get to pending on traffic of course, but all things being equal, I am happy with the decision made. This is not too say I am not supportive of UA going back to JFK. Post Covid-19, if there is an opportunity and within UA's liquidity and capital commitments capacity, there should be some considerations given.
May 7, 2020, 3:59 pm
#35
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,485
Once the dust settles from COVID-19, there will be further consolidation in the industry (don't ask me who... yet) and there might well be an opportunity for United to re-enter JFK. Time will tell. Everyone's preference would, of course, be for perimeter restrictions to come down at LGA, but it seems that won't be happening any time soon. IMO, the window for that would have been in connection with the LGA redevelopment, and it didn't happen, so my guess is that effort has run cold.
I am pretty bearish on AA right now, although I am hardly alone in this regard. The company's debt load is crushing, and absent a Chapter 11 filing to restructure it, they are going to have to cut tremendous cost out of their operation, to a degree DL, WN and even UA will not. Despite the rosy outlook from the earnings call, things like the high-cost JFK operation may well be on the chopping block. No doubt AA's facilities and staff expense at JFK outweigh the benefits of what is essentially just JFK-LAX/LHR/GRU/EZE, especially in the face of a likely long-term decline in international premium demand. Those routes had long-term strategic value to the company and cannot be replicated at LGA. I even have my doubts about GRU with the LATAM exit and EZE with the Argentine economy, but AA is historically the most important US carrier in those markets.
Point is, I think COVID-19 pushes the long-term value proposition for JFK at AA even below the level where it makes sense to continue the investment in real estate for the long term. A few years from now, without consolidation, AA at JFK could look an awful lot like UA did at the end of its JFK run.
Prior to COVID-19, UA also had the most capacity in the NYC-LAX market (it still does at the moment), and possibly moved the most flow traffic, so I would anticipate lower yields and fares. You also can't correct for individual airline accounting practices for connecting revenue allocation when you apply your own calculation to publicly-available filings. When p.s. was a low-capacity, premium-oriented niche product from JFK, with as few as 5 daily LAX frequencies, average fares and yields were higher, as one might expect. But that's only telling part of the story.
Moving out of JFK hurt United at the California point of sale, and p.s. prior to the merger was heavily West Coast-oriented. Nevertheless, it would be a fallacy to claim - not that you are - that moving the operation from JFK was a net negative for the company. EWR-SFO became the highest-grossing market in the system by a considerable margin and premium traffic. Still, there is a premium niche of West Coast-originating traffic that prefers JFK as its destination airport in the New York area, and serving that cohort would not negate the EWR premium transcon operation. The two were never mutually-exclusive, and the point Kirby was making is that United probably did not have to completely exit JFK in order to bolster its EWR operation.
At the time of the move, United was still in a virtually no-net-growth, "capacity discipline" mode, and actively trying to reallocate equipment to pull down 50-seaters (perhaps the one "change I liked"). Had United retained a footprint at JFK, Kirby would have been able to do both high-volume premium at EWR, low-volume premium at JFK, but that ship sailed in the waning days of the Smisek regime.
I am pretty bearish on AA right now, although I am hardly alone in this regard. The company's debt load is crushing, and absent a Chapter 11 filing to restructure it, they are going to have to cut tremendous cost out of their operation, to a degree DL, WN and even UA will not. Despite the rosy outlook from the earnings call, things like the high-cost JFK operation may well be on the chopping block. No doubt AA's facilities and staff expense at JFK outweigh the benefits of what is essentially just JFK-LAX/LHR/GRU/EZE, especially in the face of a likely long-term decline in international premium demand. Those routes had long-term strategic value to the company and cannot be replicated at LGA. I even have my doubts about GRU with the LATAM exit and EZE with the Argentine economy, but AA is historically the most important US carrier in those markets.
Point is, I think COVID-19 pushes the long-term value proposition for JFK at AA even below the level where it makes sense to continue the investment in real estate for the long term. A few years from now, without consolidation, AA at JFK could look an awful lot like UA did at the end of its JFK run.
Prior to COVID-19, UA also had the most capacity in the NYC-LAX market (it still does at the moment), and possibly moved the most flow traffic, so I would anticipate lower yields and fares. You also can't correct for individual airline accounting practices for connecting revenue allocation when you apply your own calculation to publicly-available filings. When p.s. was a low-capacity, premium-oriented niche product from JFK, with as few as 5 daily LAX frequencies, average fares and yields were higher, as one might expect. But that's only telling part of the story.
Moving out of JFK hurt United at the California point of sale, and p.s. prior to the merger was heavily West Coast-oriented. Nevertheless, it would be a fallacy to claim - not that you are - that moving the operation from JFK was a net negative for the company. EWR-SFO became the highest-grossing market in the system by a considerable margin and premium traffic. Still, there is a premium niche of West Coast-originating traffic that prefers JFK as its destination airport in the New York area, and serving that cohort would not negate the EWR premium transcon operation. The two were never mutually-exclusive, and the point Kirby was making is that United probably did not have to completely exit JFK in order to bolster its EWR operation.
At the time of the move, United was still in a virtually no-net-growth, "capacity discipline" mode, and actively trying to reallocate equipment to pull down 50-seaters (perhaps the one "change I liked"). Had United retained a footprint at JFK, Kirby would have been able to do both high-volume premium at EWR, low-volume premium at JFK, but that ship sailed in the waning days of the Smisek regime.
As for the UA and JFK part, it's Scott Kirby that said getting out of JFK is a mistake, not me. And looking at data in recent years, the average fare gap that DL has over UA is increasing over time. Which is an indictment on UA's declining POS at LAX as well as DL's growing strength on both end. Either way, UA is quite clearly behind AA/DL at LAX. Coming out of this, LAX is most likely going to be a focus city. The reality is that UA started this with the second worst debt load after AA and the most affected network (due to TPAC/TATL demand collapse). They will be in survival mode for a few years and LAX is most likely going to be the victim of that.
May 7, 2020, 4:05 pm
#36
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
Good points... my impression is that his words should not be interpreted to mean "the company is in worse shape for having left JFK" because, by all means, the move to premium service on EWR-LAX/SFO routes has been a net positive. AA and DL had been pouring resources into LAX and eroding UA market share long before the move. I think, given the choice, Kirby thinks it would have made sense to do both, especially to appeal to LAX-originating travelers who prefer JFK.
Talking about all this in a post-COVID environment seems rather futile, though, since we have no idea how, when or if that market is going to return.
Talking about all this in a post-COVID environment seems rather futile, though, since we have no idea how, when or if that market is going to return.
Sep 29, 2020, 11:34 am
#37
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 674
OP gets the star
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/29/unit...r-absence.html
United eyes return to JFK next year after a more than 5-year absence
United Airlines is planning to resume service at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2021, possibly early in the year, according to people familiar with the matter.
The early plans are a bet that the pandemic’s lull in air travel could help United end its five-year absence from what is normally one of the country’s most congested airports. Service could start early next year but a firm timeline hasn’t been finalized. It isn’t yet clear whether regulators will grant United space at the tightly controlled airport.
United Airlines is planning to resume service at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2021, possibly early in the year, according to people familiar with the matter.
The early plans are a bet that the pandemic’s lull in air travel could help United end its five-year absence from what is normally one of the country’s most congested airports. Service could start early next year but a firm timeline hasn’t been finalized. It isn’t yet clear whether regulators will grant United space at the tightly controlled airport.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Sep 29, 2020 at 12:05 pm Reason: adjusted formating
Sep 29, 2020, 12:16 pm
#38
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brooklyn
Programs: Bolt Bus Rewards
Posts: 1,283
With T7 slated for demolition, I'll be fascinated to see which terminal they use.
Sep 29, 2020, 12:21 pm
#39
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
Maybe they can regain their old space in T7?? 
TBH it’s nice but does not seem terribly necessary given the dearth of business travel at the moment. Perhaps securing the slots but no actually starting / announcing any flights is the way to start.
TBH it’s nice but does not seem terribly necessary given the dearth of business travel at the moment. Perhaps securing the slots but no actually starting / announcing any flights is the way to start.
Sep 29, 2020, 12:24 pm
#40
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,125
The CNBC article lists Key Point #1 as:
"United ended service at New York’s JFK in October 2015 after losing money there."
What situation has changed or what could UA do differently that would allow them to make money this time?
"United ended service at New York’s JFK in October 2015 after losing money there."
What situation has changed or what could UA do differently that would allow them to make money this time?
Sep 29, 2020, 12:29 pm
#41
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
The CNBC article lists Key Point #1 as:
"United ended service at New York’s JFK in October 2015 after losing money there."
What situation has changed or what could UA do differently that would allow them to make money this time?
"United ended service at New York’s JFK in October 2015 after losing money there."
What situation has changed or what could UA do differently that would allow them to make money this time?
Given the greatly-decreased amount of international flying at present, perhaps UA feels they can swing offering decent frequency out of both EWR and JFK for premium TCON flights given the excess of widebodies they currently have?
Sep 29, 2020, 12:31 pm
#42
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
The CNBC article lists Key Point #1 as:
"United ended service at New York’s JFK in October 2015 after losing money there."
What situation has changed or what could UA do differently that would allow them to make money this time?
"United ended service at New York’s JFK in October 2015 after losing money there."
What situation has changed or what could UA do differently that would allow them to make money this time?
UA's reentry to JFK would be a smaller footprint, fewer flights, likely supported by contract staffing, and light on real estate.
Sep 29, 2020, 12:35 pm
#43
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 674
Under that plan, EWR would be 26 minutes from Wall Street and the best choice for business flyers, hands down.
Remember, all that happened at the same time as the various corruption scandals involving United and PANY/NJ, including the flights from Atlantic City, the "chairman's special flight" and other shady/illegal deals. The PATH extension makes little sense to taxplayers, and even less sense to Newark residents; it only benefits United. The plan backfired and since it wont be built until 2024 (if ever), United needs a Plan B, which is back to JFK.
Sep 29, 2020, 12:47 pm
#44
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: UA GS, AA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 444
https://viewfromthewing.com/united-a...jfk-next-year/
- But the bean counters looked only at revenue and expense for the those particular flights and missed the bigger picture — they lost lucrative corporate contracts that made other routes profitable when they dropped service to the airport.
Sep 29, 2020, 12:52 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809