Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2936901/

Topic: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: UA933
Posted 2006-08-14 20:14:50 and read 5802 times.

I know this had been discussed before and I looked for the thread but couldn't find it.

Well my question is why UA will drop the JFK-LHR and JFK-NRT route?
Will they completely drop out of the NY long haul market?
Will the LHR flight be moved to IAD or will it be drooped? If that is the case where will we use the available A/C?
Will the NRT flight be the only one out of IAD or is there one already.

I have also wondered about UA future plans for Europe. Any insider info?

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2006-08-14 20:20:02 and read 5788 times.

Because they were losing a S**T load of money. The rumors about the poor performance of these two markets have been around for years. It appears that the newer management is finally deciding that retaining a couple of nostalgic, crown-jewel routes isn't worth the red-ink anymore, and I, for one, am glad to see them shift the assets to places where they can do better. This wasn't a surprise - the surprise was it took them so long to finally make the move.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Kanebear
Posted 2006-08-14 20:27:11 and read 5738 times.

I simply fail to understand how AA (which doesn't operate a hub at JFK either) can do well on those routes and UA can't make a go of it? AA was even a late entrant on JFK-NRT and was expected to fail rather spectacularly! Yet after they entered, NW and now UA have left the route??? I'm astonished.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: AlitaliaMD11
Posted 2006-08-14 20:41:15 and read 5703 times.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 2):
which doesn't operate a hub at JFK either
American Airlines has a much larger presence at JFK and has many connecting routes which could explain why they have been more successful then UA or NW.

United has been doing pretty good on their Premium Service routes which was good investment for the airline. I am surprised that LHR failed but with Virgin, British, Air India, Kuwait, and American there is a lot of competition on the route.

[Edited 2006-08-14 20:46:27]

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2006-08-14 20:45:40 and read 5685 times.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 2):
I simply fail to understand how AA (which doesn't operate a hub at JFK either) can do well on those routes and UA can't make a go of it?

AA has traditionally been stronger than UA at JFK and NY, in general since the 1960s. They have a much larger presence at JFK and they operate FIVE daily flights to LHR. UA operated one. When was the last time you saw an airline operate one vs. five (by its competitor) and compete effectively. UA only has 12 daily flights to LHR, and their flights from ORD, SFO, and IAD (LAX is debatable) are more important than trying to compete against AA, BA, and VS at JFK. They should have gotten rid of the rights years ago from JFK.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2006-08-14 20:47:43 and read 5685 times.

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 3):
American Airlines has a much larger presence at JFK and has many connecting routes which could explain why they have been more successful then UA or NW.

You got there before I did.....UA, are moving the flights "down the road" to IAD to make some money. As SeeTheWorld said, why it was not done earlier is really the only issue here!

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: DeltAirlines
Posted 2006-08-14 21:01:59 and read 5633 times.

Quoting UA933 (Thread starter):

Well my question is why UA will drop the JFK-LHR and JFK-NRT route?
Will they completely drop out of the NY long haul market?
Will the LHR flight be moved to IAD or will it be drooped? If that is the case where will we use the available A/C?
Will the NRT flight be the only one out of IAD or is there one already.

The NRT will be transferred from JFK to IAD. Currently, the only NRT-IAD service is All Nippon 1/2, which is codeshared on by UA.

The JFK flight isn't being transferred anywhere. The slot at LHR that UA is not using has been leased to AC for a period of 3-4 years I believe. The JFK-LON route authority has been sold to Delta, which is doing 1x LGW-JFK this winter and will become twice daily for next summer.

The extra 777 that UA has from JFK-LHR might be going to the new IAD-KWI service, or maybe to upgrade a 767-300 to a 777...not really sure here.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2006-08-14 21:23:10 and read 5584 times.

Quoting UA933 (Thread starter):
Will they completely drop out of the NY long haul market?

Yes they will. United has been dropping out of long haul markets outside of their hubs for years. They have dropped SEA-LHR, BOS-LHR, EWR-LHR and now JFK-LHR and JFK-NRT. The only non hub international route that has been added in the last 10 years and been kept that I know if is SEA-NRT.

UA is down to serving just LAX, SFO and IAD from JFK. They serve IAD, ORD and DEN from LGA however. United serves New York as a pure destination now with passengers originating in other parts of the country and doesn't seem to try and get passengers originating in the New York area like they use to. New York is just so competitive with CO, AA, DL, B6 and US all vying for parts of the market. New York is big, but there isn't enough room for UA too if they want to earn money. United's dominance domestically is the midwest and west coast. UA still is a player in the northeast with IAD though.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2006-08-14 22:16:36 and read 5472 times.

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 6):
The extra 777 that UA has from JFK-LHR might be going to the new IAD-KWI service, or maybe to upgrade a 767-300 to a 777...not really sure here.

I thinks its going to be used on the daily San Fran/ Tapei route.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Antonovman
Posted 2006-08-14 22:27:31 and read 5437 times.

If they cant make money on JFK - LHR they are doing something seriously wrong, other airlines are clammering to get in and operate that route

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2006-08-14 22:34:42 and read 5409 times.

Quoting Antonovman (Reply 9):
If they cant make money on JFK - LHR they are doing something seriously wrong, other airlines are clammering to get in and operate that route

That's not true. Read the posts above and you will understand. Of course, the other U.S. carriers want into LHR, but with the exception of DL (who would like LHR to JFK as well as ATL), none of those carriers would fly to LHR from JFK. CO would prefer EWR and IAH (maybe CLE), and US would prefer PHL and CLT (maybe PHX). The NYC-LON market is saturated and one flight per day on UA was not competitive. UA makes money flying four flights per day from IAD, so they weren't doing anything wrong except staying in the market. UA is just not competitive in NYC anymore and one flight doesn't change that.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: ElmoTheHobo
Posted 2006-08-14 22:38:45 and read 5398 times.

United's JFK-LHR wasn't competitve with other BA, CO, AA, and VS because these carriers offered multiple frequencies. United, OTOH, only offered a daily flight from JFK.

This was a good move on United's part. Dismantling JFK's longhaul netowrk and moving most of them to IAD has boosted their network by opening these flights to more passengers through their network.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Bobnwa
Posted 2006-08-14 22:39:40 and read 5388 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 10):
That's not true. Read the posts above and you will understand. Of course, the other U.S. carriers want into LHR, but with the exception of DL (who would like LHR to JFK as well as ATL), none of those carriers would fly to LHR from JFK. CO would prefer EWR and IAH (maybe CLE), and US would prefer PHL and CLT (maybe PHX). The NYC-LON market is saturated and one flight per day on UA was not competitive. UA makes money flying four flights per day from IAD, so they weren't doing anything wrong except staying in the market. UA is just not competitive in NYC anymore and one flight doesn't change that.

Very true, each carrier has to place its resources where they will do the most good to the bottom line. No U.S. carrier can be dominant in every market.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: STT757
Posted 2006-08-14 22:41:40 and read 5388 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
Yes they will. United has been dropping out of long haul markets outside of their hubs for years. They have dropped SEA-LHR, BOS-LHR, EWR-LHR and now JFK-LHR and JFK-NRT. The only non hub international route that has been added in the last 10 years and been kept that I know if is SEA-NRT.

UAL in the last 10 years also flew EWR-NRT ('89-'98), EWR-BOS ('98), EWR-SAN ('98), EWR-MCO ('98), EWR-SEA('98), EWR-MIA ('92-'99), JFK-CCS, JFK-POS, JFK-GIG, JFK-EZE, JFK-GRU.

JFK is/was a niche market for UAL, they are a predomiantly West Coast centric airline.

This is what fuels CO/UAL merger news, CO brings NYC area dominance and UAL brings Chicago and the West Coast.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: ChicagoFlyer
Posted 2006-08-14 23:06:33 and read 5324 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 1):
Because they were losing a S**T load of money. The rumors about the poor performance of these two markets have been around for years. It appears that the newer management is finally deciding that retaining a couple of nostalgic, crown-jewel routes isn't worth the red-ink anymore, and I, for one, am glad to see them shift the assets to places where they can do better. This wasn't a surprise - the surprise was it took them so long to finally make the move.

I think retaining losing routes is something to do with the corporate sales organization in any major airline. The sales people want to sign up big, global, corporate clients. Many of these clients are in NYC. Many supposedly 'require' the nonstops to other 2 financial centers of the world. Ergo, no matter if the route is losing $$$, it must be flown for the "strategic" reasons. A more interesting question is if you think you have to fly the route no matter what, why fly a 777 on such a losing market as JFK-LHR? Could the plane could be utilized much better elsewhere? I guess those same corporate clients will not travel on a 767.

So, I heard that in the management staff reductions (1000 or so jobs) announced by UA, the sales and marketing bunch were the first to go. And with them out went the rationale to maintain the losers out of NYC. And funnily enough, from the point of view of United's corporate client, this should not be a big deal! They simply give the London business to any other airline, and fly ANA to Tokyo. United still has p.s., and US Air codeshare on the shuttle and other flights to be a player in New York market, even with limited number of nonstops.

Quoting Antonovman (Reply 9):
If they cant make money on JFK - LHR they are doing something seriously wrong, other airlines are clammering to get in and operate that route

London-NYC is one of the most competitive routes in the world. If you want to operate the route, you have to have something at least on one end. United does not have strength in NYC or London and so cannot get high enough yields. The route makes the most sense for AA/BA since they are well connected on either end. The second tier is DL/CO who do not have access to LHR or make many connections at LGW but have strength in NYC to gather the pax. And thirdly, VS does well in all likelyhood less due to connections and more to the fact that they can gobble up enough O&D traffic at superior fares (since their service surely beats United's!).

So I am not sure airlines are clamoring to get into JFK-LHR market. Slots at LHR, yes, this hypercompetitive loser, no. If, hypothetically speaking, Lufthansa started flying LON-NYC, it would be great news for Star Alliance passengers, but likely a money loser for the airline.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Planecrazy2
Posted 2006-08-14 23:11:06 and read 5312 times.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 4):
UA only has 12 daily flights to LHR, and their flights from ORD, SFO, and IAD (LAX is debatable) are more important than trying to compete against AA, BA, and VS at JFK.

Why is LAX debatable? If it was such a weak market why did they add another flight using a 763?

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2006-08-14 23:16:26 and read 5294 times.

Quoting Planecrazy2 (Reply 15):
Why is LAX debatable? If it was such a weak market why did they add another flight using a 763?

And lets not forget, they are showing great loads on it!!

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Aloha73G
Posted 2006-08-14 23:45:16 and read 5235 times.

Quoting Planecrazy2 (Reply 15):
Why is LAX debatable? If it was such a weak market why did they add another flight using a 763?

I think he was trying to say that LAX is less important (strategically) because it has far fewer connecting opportunities than SFO has.

-Aloha!

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2006-08-14 23:53:06 and read 5204 times.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 2):
I simply fail to understand how AA (which doesn't operate a hub at JFK either) can do well on those routes and UA can't make a go of it? AA was even a late entrant on JFK-NRT and was expected to fail rather spectacularly! Yet after they entered, NW and now UA have left the route??? I'm astonished.



Quoting STT757 (Reply 13):
JFK is/was a niche market for UAL, they are a predomiantly West Coast centric airline.

add ORD (midwest)...granted they don't have as many asian flights (as well as no SYD flights) out of ORD, it is their base of operations...and easily their largest hub....

..add "the house Michael (Jordan)built"-United Centre....... Wink

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2006-08-15 00:01:04 and read 5174 times.

UA has long been a Chicago based airline and has usually left NYC to its compeditors. They tried to beef up NYC flights, particularly at EWR and LGA back when UA was trying to be all things to all people. The main reason for the JFK flights was to market to NYC based businesses so they at least had flights to key destinations - their other domestic hubs, LHR and NRT. They were getting beaten up but it was thought that they needed them for business contracts.

They have obviously decided that it is not worth it so they dropped LHR and moved NRT to IAD, gutted EWR and sharply reduced capacity on flights to SFO and LAX.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Laxintl
Posted 2006-08-15 00:13:27 and read 5145 times.

Quoting Aloha73G (Reply 17):
I think he was trying to say that LAX is less important (strategically) because it has far fewer connecting opportunities than SFO has.

Indeed UA uses LAX much more as a O&D market versus SFO.

But then again LA metro area population is some 3 times larger than that of the Bay Area and can support it. UA and its UAX partners are the #1 carriers at LAX, while the area is home to a huge pool of loyal UA frequent flyers.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Jetdeltamsy
Posted 2006-08-15 01:10:33 and read 5083 times.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 2):
I simply fail to understand how AA (which doesn't operate a hub at JFK either) can do well on those routes and UA can't make a go of it? AA was even a late entrant on JFK-NRT and was expected to fail rather spectacularly! Yet after they entered, NW and now UA have left the route??? I'm astonished

New York has long been an American Airlines city. I think there is brand loyalty there that UA and NW simply could not generate.

Much like New Orleans is (or was) a Delta city, New Yorker's identify AA as their preferred airline.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: ContinentalEWR
Posted 2006-08-15 03:47:32 and read 4968 times.

Sorry, but no. I am a New Yorker and we don't identify AA as our hometown airline. We don't have a true hometown airline but Continental and JetBlue come pretty close.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: JFKLGANYC
Posted 2006-08-15 06:07:27 and read 4847 times.

"Sorry, but no. I am a New Yorker and we don't identify AA as our hometown airline. We don't have a true hometown airline but Continental and JetBlue come pretty close."

Oh please, give me a break! I am a NYer and I do think AA a NY kinda airline.

But who cares what you or I think . . . let's look at facts.

Major Players in NY:

At LGA:

American
Delta
USAirways

At JFK:
American
Delta
jetBlue

At EWR:

Continental

Overall: American, Continental, Delta, and jetBlue. . . in no particular order expect alphabetical.  Smile

UA doesn't have the ability to be competitive in NY unless it is a flight to one of their hubs.

PJ

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: AlitaliaMD11
Posted 2006-08-15 06:14:11 and read 4841 times.

Speaking as another "New Yorker" I'd say that New York doesn't really have an airline to call its "main" airline. Just like the city many airlines from different places fly into JFK, LGA, and EWR to all over the world.

We do have American, Continental, Delta, and jet Blue as are main contendors in the market but when you look at JFK in terms of loads British Airways doesn't fall far behind Delta which shows what I'm sort of talking about as New York as a culture center.

Sorry if that sounds like a load of BS but it's just my opinion.

[Edited 2006-08-15 06:18:36]

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: SJUSXM
Posted 2006-08-15 17:14:39 and read 4551 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
The only non hub international route that has been added in the last 10 years and been kept that I know if is SEA-NRT.

Even that is debatable because UA considers NRT a hub.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: EXAAUADL
Posted 2006-08-15 18:15:30 and read 4176 times.

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 2):
I simply fail to understand how AA (which doesn't operate a hub at JFK either) can do well on those routes and UA can't make a go of it?

AA has much more feed and they have been in the market for much longer than UAL. Also you cant just look at JFK. AA has a much larger city presence in NYC than UA does.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2006-08-15 18:24:55 and read 4115 times.

Quoting Planecrazy2 (Reply 15):
Why is LAX debatable? If it was such a weak market why did they add another flight using a 763?

Actually, the LAX flights are the least profitable of the four gateways (not including JFK), and I've heard they sometimes are marginal. I suspect they added an additional flight to try and be more competitive in the market overall and possibly improve the P&Ls.

Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 22):
Sorry, but no. I am a New Yorker and we don't identify AA as our hometown airline. We don't have a true hometown airline but Continental and JetBlue come pretty close.

I really think the reference to AA being NY's hometown airline dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, and that still resonates in a large part of the metro area. Having said that, post-deregulation and CO's arrival into EWR and JetBlue into JFK have certainly altered the market.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: FlyDreamliner
Posted 2006-08-15 18:40:11 and read 4022 times.

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 21):
New Yorker's identify AA as their preferred airline.

Huh, now I would have thought continental myself.

JFK was never good for UA, too much competition, and they never really wanted to commit to a large presence there with their opperation out of IAD. Smart move, in my opinion, on their part. They are chicago's hometown airline, and they are by far the biggest presence out of IAD and SFO, and in those cities, they are the airline people identify with.

AA, DL, and CO are all fighting over the NY market (AA and DL fighting over JFK), that means tight competition on fares and the like. UA was smart to take advantage of the places they are strongest.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Tommy767
Posted 2006-08-15 18:53:02 and read 3948 times.

Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 22):
Sorry, but no. I am a New Yorker and we don't identify AA as our hometown airline. We don't have a true hometown airline but Continental and JetBlue come pretty close.

Speak for yourself. CO is more specifically Northern NJ's hometown airline.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 19):
UA has long been a Chicago based airline and has usually left NYC to its compeditors. They tried to beef up NYC flights, particularly at EWR and LGA back when UA was trying to be all things to all people.

I miss the days of the "beefed up" EWR operation back in the 1990s. The only logicial explanation of why they gutted EWR was because CO really hit them hard (major expansion in the late 1990s)

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2006-08-15 19:19:44 and read 3818 times.

UA, certainly want to ramp up IAD.

UA Applies For IAD-PEK (by BigGSFO Aug 15 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: NonRev
Posted 2006-08-16 00:02:55 and read 3466 times.

**First Post**

So many reasons though why long haul ops were cancelled...

Loss making route
Equipment better used elsewhere
No need for 777 maintainance at JFK

In the end the JFK route's failing was a self-fulfilling profecy: Gradually reducing the capacity (at one time I think there were 4xdaily JFK and a EWR flight from LHR) turns away the business traveler who wants flexibility, the thinking being "If we are half filling 2 flights, surely we will fill 1 flight???" - Unfortunately it doesn't work like that on business routes.

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Jetdeltamsy
Posted 2006-08-16 00:14:46 and read 3449 times.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 28):
Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 21):
New Yorker's identify AA as their preferred airline.

Huh, now I would have thought continental myself.

My thoughts behind my comment are that AA has had a major presence in NYC since the 1940's.

Continental only became huge there after its acquisition of People Express and New York Air.

I think Continental definitely has a market advantage over AA because of the size of their Newark operation.

But a lot of people think of AA as a New York airline, run by New York people. They have forgiven the company for moving HQ to...wherere????..
Ft.Worth...TEXAS??????? WTF!

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: AASTEW
Posted 2006-08-16 00:57:24 and read 3411 times.

CO really just became respectful in the NYC area just about 10yrs ago. All before then they really didn't have much force in the NYC area. Yes, I also including EWR! AA has always been there. AA is number 1 or 2 at all three airports.

AASTEW JFK

Topic: RE: Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?
Username: Dutchjet
Posted 2006-08-16 01:17:01 and read 3395 times.

I really think that most are making this more complicated than it really is.......UA has reduced its presense in the NYC area (at one time, UA had far more service to the NYC airports and was the leading carrier at EWR) and is focusing its east coast operations around its revitalized IAD hub....thus the services from JFK to LHR and JFK to NRT are not longer part of UA's long term plans and they are moving along, so simple is it. As mentioned above, the Tokyo route will operate out of IAD where UA has a large hub to help support the service (and less competition) and the London route will simply be dropped. Dont forget that UA got is getting up to $21 million for the JFK-London authority from Delta and will make a nice piece of change leasing the LHR slots to AC. Risk free revenue is a good thing.

With regard to UA's future, UA has always had very well situated hubs which serve as gateways to their transatlantic and transpacific route systems. UA probably sees its future as more West Coast/Pacific oriented with its powerful pacific routes, but UA will remain a player across the Atlantic as well serving key cities (including LHR) and having an strong alliance with leading EU carrier Lufthansa.

UA dropping international service from JFK is a sensible move for UA.....the flights no longer made much sense. AA and DL from JFK and CO from EWR are more than capable of picking up the services dropped by UA (CO and AA already service NYC-London and NYC-Tokyo, DL will be entering the NYC-London market and many think that NYC-Tokyo could be on DL's agenda). All of this makes a lot of sense....of course, its sad to see UA drop routes that it has flown for years, but in today's enviorment, the airlines have little time for tradition or sentiment, they deploy their assets as effectively as possible....and UA has determined that IAD (and not JFK) is where they need to be.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/