Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5639290/

Topic: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: goldenjet707
Posted 2012-12-19 07:50:12 and read 12387 times.

Per Airlinerroute UA is going to go from six daily EWR-LAX to 14 daily by summer 2013. Same goes for EWR-SFO.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: spiritair97
Posted 2012-12-19 07:53:56 and read 12382 times.

That's they're answer VX entering EWR.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-19 07:56:10 and read 12331 times.

Being discussed in conjunction with these 2 threads:

OAG Changes 12/21/2012:AA/BA/B6/DL/F9/NKUA/US (by enilria Dec 18 2012 in Civil Aviation)

EWR For Sale On Virgin America (by dwcontroller Dec 10 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: goldenjet707
Posted 2012-12-19 08:01:56 and read 12288 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 2):

Me thinks it still qualifies for having it's own thread.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: spiritair97
Posted 2012-12-19 08:09:19 and read 12211 times.

Quoting goldenjet707 (Reply 3):

I agree, since it really focuses on what UA is doing in response to VX, and maybe overreacting a little bit? I mean I know that an airline wants to defend their turf, but they obviously have a reason for only flying 6 flights a day, and fleet planning obviously isn't an issue. I'm just curious as to what point at which it becomes worth it to bleed money on a route (or two) just to not have to coexist.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-19 08:24:13 and read 12086 times.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 4):
I agree, since it really focuses on what UA is doing in response to VX, and maybe overreacting a little bit?

UA has already done this on ORD-SFO when VX entered: they upped it to 14-16 times a day or something like that.

EWR-LAX/SFO does not need this kind of frequency -- especially with PS over at JFK. It will be interesting of what types of aircraft they will use. I'm sure elites will love this as even with the recent 757 and 767 adds on these routes it's almost impossible ot upgrade.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-19 09:00:09 and read 11893 times.

While in the long run this move is meant to stiffle competition and keep EWR's fares the highest in the Nation, short term if you travel EWR-California this fantastic news. Lots of new options, and as mentioned more opportunities for upgrades which have historically been difficult on these routes even during the CO years. I've traveled JFK-SFO/LAX on UA P.S. a few times since the merger just because I couldn't get any rewards or upgrades on the flights from EWR to LAX/SFO.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-12-19 09:11:35 and read 11822 times.

Hourly service on 737s during peak times will provide options, although I can't imagine anyone demanding that much frequency on a 6 hour route. The flights every half hour EWR-LAX/SFO require 3-4 redeyes back for airplane repositioning which is excessive in my mind. 4 SFO-EWR redeyes is a waste of 737s.

That's a lot of capacity. If they had more PMCO 752s, they could beat VX with a better product, but the A319s and 738s won't compete up front with VX.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 09:18:39 and read 11768 times.

Quoting goldenjet707 (Thread starter):
Per Airlinerroute UA is going to go from six daily EWR-LAX to 14 daily by summer 2013. Same goes for EWR-SFO.



Seriously, doubling the frequency/capacity just because VX enters with 3 daily flights? 14 daily flights to LAX sounds crazy.

The war is on...

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2012-12-19 09:29:31 and read 11684 times.

Welcome to the free market folks! VX has a better product IMO but folks may yet again opt for saving $3.00 r/t and fly UA   More folks I know though are willing to pay a bit more for better service. The airlines seem to be trying to capture that with "un-bundled" things such as better meal options, Y+ etc.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: airzim
Posted 2012-12-19 09:36:00 and read 11640 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
The flights every half hour EWR-LAX/SFO require 3-4 redeyes back for airplane repositioning which is excessive in my mind.

Who says they're going back to EWR? You can send those 737's and A320's anywhere in the system from SFO. The beauty have having a hub at both ends.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-19 09:53:46 and read 11532 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
That's a lot of capacity. If they had more PMCO 752s, they could beat VX with a better product,



I think eventually they will do this, I remember when CO replaced their A300s on EWR-LAX/SFO with 3x daily DC-10s from EWR to LAX and SFO with their new BusinessFirst cabins. If they can replace a couple more Trans-Atlantic 757 routes with 763s and replace the sCO BusinessFirst equipped 757s operating EWR-Florida with sUA 757s they might have enough to operate 9 daily each EWR-LAX and EWR-SFO. Also keep in mind UA's PS services are going to be reconfigured to look identical to sCO's 757s, only with a larger BusinessFirst cabin. They should mix in the JFK and EWR 757s, some sCO 757s operate from JFK and some sUA PS 757s operate from EWR.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 09:54:37 and read 11522 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
If they had more PMCO 752s, they could beat VX with a better product

IF...But they don't have more

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
The flights every half hour EWR-LAX/SFO require 3-4 redeyes back for airplane repositioning which is excessive in my mind.

Flight SFO-EWR are hourly till 5pm (example 6.10.13) and your correct, 4 red-eyes from SFO and 2 red-eyes from LAX.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 8):
Seriously, doubling the frequency/capacity just because VX enters with 3 daily flights? 14 daily flights to LAX sounds crazy.

It's a little of both. This is free market and a response to VX. However load to EWR from the West Coast hubs are really heavy as it is and a increase could have been warranted before VX decided to join the fray.



Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
Welcome to the free market folks! VX has a better product IMO but folks may yet again opt for saving $3.00 r/t and fly UA  

Or heaven to bid cheaper tickets to travel to roughly 50 more destinations from LAX and SFO that VX doesn't offer!

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 09:58:05 and read 11480 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 12):
However load to EWR from the West Coast hubs are really heavy as it is and a increase could have been warranted before VX decided to join the fray.



Yes, but you normally do not increase the frequency from 6 daily to 14 daily flights at once.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-19 09:58:56 and read 11482 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
Hourly service on 737s during peak times will provide options, although I can't imagine anyone demanding that much frequency on a 6 hour route. The flights every half hour EWR-LAX/SFO require 3-4 redeyes back for airplane repositioning which is excessive in my mind. 4 SFO-EWR redeyes is a waste of 737s.

These are dummy schedules. UA will update them as the adjusted date gets closer. Doubt it will be 12x 737

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 10:24:09 and read 11295 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 13):

When was the last time UA operated 6 daily SFO-EWR?? There are 9 scheduled tomorrow. Even 10 scheduled on X-mas day when there is a schedule reduction.

Actually summer schedule was roughly 10-12 last summer from SFO. Also, none of these new flights are wide-body's compared to last summer that has a few 767's. The actual seat increase this summer is not as high as one would believe.

Example June 6, 2013 SFO-EWR 10 x 737-800, 1 x 319, 5 x 320's
LAX-EWR 13 x 737-800, 1 x 757

There are not even any 739's mixed in here. So this is a pure frequency thing, which we all know is how US airlines operate.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: enilria
Posted 2012-12-19 10:36:48 and read 11229 times.

I'll say what I've said on the other threads. I've been watching the OAG for a very long time and I've never seen such a ridiculously large frequency increase in a market due to competitive incursion. There have been cases where DL/NW have retaliated on ancillary routes for new competitors, but I've never seen it this bad in the routes added. I have a few takeaways.

1) to spend this much money, UA must mint money on these routes
2) this will dramatically increase their cost by adding that many flights and probably lower their revenue due to matching VX. I would assume that means the route will now lose money.
3) to sabotage the profitability of their own route to run out a competitor and (I'm sure) reverse it all after VX is bloodied and gone is extremely anti-competitive
4) if the govt is going to allow us to only have 4 airlines in the USA, they can no longer allow this type of behavior. It's time for the govt to take a tougher stand.
5) before it was the equivalent of Kroger opening a new store across from the new Safeway market. This is the equivalent of opening new Krogers on all sides of the Safeway to block access to their parking lot. A couple of extra flights is rentable, a 75% frequency increase in markets already well-served is over the line.
6) given UA's childish punishment of Houston for supporting competition to them at HOU, this is unsurprising, but it is time to investigate UA for anticompetitive behavior. They are the largest airline after all.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 10:38:01 and read 11227 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 15):

I am talking about LAX-EWR which is different to SFO-EWR.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-12-19 10:46:53 and read 11160 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 14):
These are dummy schedules. UA will update them as the adjusted date gets closer. Doubt it will be 12x 737

I also wouldn't be surprised to see some eliminated/combined in addition to equipment swaps. I figure they will only end up flying 10-12x per day on any kind of consistent basis, especially if they upgauge more than a couple a day.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 10:46:55 and read 11161 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 17):
I am talking about LAX-EWR which is different to SFO-EWR.

That being said. As I stated above, the overall increase is with smaller aircraft. So the seat increase is not as much as one would be led to believe.

And to respond to your Reply 13. When new competition comes into your market, yes you do increase like this normally.

As Enilria just posted, there are the reason. And UA and AA both did this against VX in both ORD and DFW markets. NW uses this method for years. This is normal to protect turf.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-19 10:55:50 and read 11105 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 15):
When was the last time UA operated 6 daily SFO-EWR?? There are 9 scheduled tomorrow. Even 10 scheduled on X-mas day when there is a schedule reduction.

When CO and UA were merging in Summer 2011 legacy UA flew 4-5 daily on SFO-EWR whereas CO flew 4-6 daily. Since the merger they've had SFO-EWR on 9-10x a day.

Quoting as739x (Reply 15):
Example June 6, 2013 SFO-EWR 10 x 737-800, 1 x 319, 5 x 320's
LAX-EWR 13 x 737-800, 1 x 757

Again, you are looking too far in advance. These are dummy schedules.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 18):
I also wouldn't be surprised to see some eliminated/combined in addition to equipment swaps. I figure they will only end up flying 10-12x per day on any kind of consistent basis, especially if they upgauge more than a couple a day.

Probably quite a bit of 319/320, 738, pre-merger UA 757, ex-CO 757, and 787 if I had to guess.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-12-19 11:10:26 and read 11033 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 20):
Probably quite a bit of 319/320, 738, pre-merger UA 757, ex-CO 757, and 787 if I had to guess.

Oh no doubt! Probably a bit of everything at some point.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-12-19 11:31:40 and read 10940 times.

This should open up a lot of award seats this summer. Usually, LAX-EWR is the sticky wicket when trying to get to the EU from LAX. With so many flights, it benefits the LAX FF base greatly. That's assuming the airline doesn't hoard the seats anyway and fly the planes at 60% LF...

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 11:35:04 and read 10918 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 19):
13. When new competition comes into your market, yes you do increase like this normally.



I know that it is normal for the established carrier to dump capacity, but this seems really excessive.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 11:48:39 and read 10840 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 23):

I'll leave you to your opinion

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 20):
Again, you are looking too far in advance. These are dummy schedules.

Meaning they can add larger aircraft as need, meaning the increase incapacity is warranted.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 11:53:50 and read 11111 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 24):
I'll leave you to your opinion



I would love to have an example of other city pairs that got that much frequency/capacity increase when an competitor entered the market, such as ORD and DFW that you mention. I might have missed any such cases.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-19 12:24:50 and read 11007 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 24):
Meaning they can add larger aircraft as need, meaning the increase incapacity is warranted.

No, it's simply a placeholder until the date gets closer....it's common sense.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-19 12:36:11 and read 11296 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 16):
3) to sabotage the profitability of their own route to run out a competitor and (I'm sure) reverse it all after VX is bloodied and gone is extremely anti-competitive

In VX's current state, I'd say it was probably extremely arrogant of them to try this. Unless they were naive enough to think this wouldn't happen, which would make them stupid. Choose your poison. They had what, 70M in cash at the end of last quarter and burning more? Tell me how it's a smart move to "poke the bear".

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 12:39:06 and read 11282 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 25):
SFO-ORD when VX entered the markets 10 daily to 17 daily by UA

4/20/11:
06:00 SFO 12:10 ORD UA 664 United Airlines 763 00 4hrs 10mins
08:50 SFO 14:56 ORD UA 134 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 6mins
09:49 SFO 15:55 ORD UA 972 United Airlines 763 00 4hrs 6mins
10:55 SFO 17:10 ORD UA 906 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 15mins
11:42 SFO 17:53 ORD UA 102 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 11mins
13:45 SFO 20:00 ORD UA 760 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 15mins
15:55 SFO 21:52 ORD UA 150 United Airlines 752 00 3hrs 57mins
18:52 SFO 00:56 ORD UA 152 United Airlines 320 00 4hrs 4mins
22:50 SFO 04:48 ORD UA 338 United Airlines 752 00 3hrs 58mins
23:20 SFO 05:17 ORD UA 158 United Airlines 752 00 3hrs 57mins

5/31/11:
06:00 SFO 12:10 ORD UA 590 United Airlines 763 00 4hrs 10mins
06:15 SFO 12:27 ORD UA 684 United Airlines 319 00 4hrs 12mins
06:57 SFO 13:07 ORD UA 616 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 10mins
08:57 SFO 15:03 ORD UA 728 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 6mins
09:20 SFO 15:27 ORD UA 261 United Airlines 319 00 4hrs 7mins
09:49 SFO 15:55 ORD UA 972 United Airlines 763 00 4hrs 6mins
10:55 SFO 17:10 ORD UA 906 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 15mins
11:47 SFO 17:58 ORD UA 302 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 11mins
13:45 SFO 19:55 ORD UA 760 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 10mins
14:38 SFO 20:56 ORD UA 874 United Airlines 319 00 4hrs 18mins
16:15 SFO 22:17 ORD UA 495 United Airlines 320 00 4hrs 2mins
17:05 SFO 23:05 ORD UA 1685 * United Airlines 738 00 4hrs
17:50 SFO 23:51 ORD UA 603 United Airlines 752 00 4hrs 1min
18:50 SFO 01:00 ORD UA 477 United Airlines 320 00 4hrs 10mins
22:10 SFO 04:10 ORD UA 1048 * United Airlines 738 00 4hrs
22:53 SFO 04:46 ORD UA 338 United Airlines 777 00 3hrs 53mins
23:59 SFO 05:56 ORD UA 774 United Airlines 752 00 3hrs 57mins

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 26):
No, it's simply a placeholder until the date gets closer....it's common sense.

I understand what it is. I'm not understanding why personal about it. I understand the practice, I have been in the industry a long time.

[Edited 2012-12-19 12:45:47]

[Edited 2012-12-19 12:46:23]

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 12:47:00 and read 11162 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 28):
SFO-ORD when VX entered the markets 12 daily to 21 daily bu UA



That is also a very large increase, very much comparable to the current one. However, isnt UA back to about 12 daily flights after failing to drive away VX?

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 13:04:36 and read 11139 times.

12/20/13 SFO-ORD 14 flights

And yes VX has not pulled from the market or expanded in the market, but only they know what their numbers are on the route. So you can't really say that UA's move was a failure.

I think its more the practice of adding the flights when the new entrant enters the market and flood it, not sustaining the service.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 13:18:46 and read 10955 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 30):
I think its more the practice of adding the flights when the new entrant enters the market and flood it, not sustaining the service.



Correct, but the point with flooding the market is to try to make the competitor to pull out of the route, which VX obviously didnt do at ORD.

I am convinced that VX will wind it through again. They know what they are up to, and I am sure that VX expects anything but a smooth entrance into UA's turf markets.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 13:24:51 and read 10847 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 31):
and I am sure that VX expects anything but a smooth entrance into UA's turf markets.

Exactly the point!!

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 13:32:23 and read 10743 times.

Quoting as739x (Reply 32):
Quoting B747forever (Reply 31):
and I am sure that VX expects anything but a smooth entrance into UA's turf markets.

Exactly the point!!



Good then.

Will be interesting to see how long UA will keep the frequency at 14 daily flights to LAX. Such large capacity dump will also affect them in a negative way with lower yields.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-19 13:32:39 and read 10727 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 29):
That is also a very large increase, very much comparable to the current one. However, isnt UA back to about 12 daily flights after failing to drive away VX?
Quoting as739x (Reply 30):
12/20/13 SFO-ORD 14 flights

Well I think that's really a seasonal reduction, not really a draw down. Next summer is 16x for the day I checked.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: DolphinAir747
Posted 2012-12-19 13:32:54 and read 10724 times.

Strategy or not, I need to fly this route 5 times or so next year so this is great news!

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: as739x
Posted 2012-12-19 13:34:17 and read 10689 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 34):

Well I think that's really a seasonal reduction, not really a draw down. Next summer is 16x for the day I checked.

Yep. winter schedule. I didn't look into next summers schedule. Thanks for looking that up!

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-12-19 13:41:07 and read 10649 times.

And then people wonder why NYC airspace is so congested.

Could it have to do with the fact that 50 aircraft fly NYC-SFO alone every day? Now add up all the other ridiculous frequencies to other markets and you have a serious congestion problem./

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-19 13:44:09 and read 10592 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
And then people wonder why NYC airspace is so congested.

Could it have to do with the fact that 50 aircraft fly NYC-SFO alone every day? Now add up all the other ridiculous frequencies to other markets and you have a serious congestion problem./



Really doesnt matter from where an aircraft comes from, be it 50 aircraft from LHR or PHL. If you want to manage the congestion, put a limit on the number of available slots. Then it is up to the airline to decide how they want to use those slots.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: airzim
Posted 2012-12-19 13:55:09 and read 10510 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 31):
Correct, but the point with flooding the market is to try to make the competitor to pull out of the route, which VX obviously didnt do at ORD.

I am convinced that VX will wind it through again. They know what they are up to, and I am sure that VX expects anything but a smooth entrance into UA's turf markets.

At that stage length its going to be harder to sustain. jetBlue has found similar issues with transcon flying, you need to drive good RASM to keep these flights around. UA has the benefit of hubs at either end, and can distribute the CASM across multiple flights, economy of scales with ground staff, etc. Coupled with some significant long haul for both hubs, they could flood the local O&D with cheap fares and drive to improve yields on the international O&D sectors (EWR-SYD, SFO-BOM). VX is point to point and they're going to get what the get. Any connections to LAX or LAS through SFO is just going to make it worse.

We know VX is losing money hand over fist. So I'm not convinced their presence in ORD is actually beneficial except for driving cash in the door.

This airline was doomed from the start once they decided to hub in the West Coast. There is just not enough domestic traffic flow to make this work in any location. SFO is the best of the ugly sisters but the inherent problems of the West have not gone away.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-19 13:58:54 and read 10520 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 16):
before it was the equivalent of Kroger opening a new store across from the new Safeway market. This is the equivalent of opening new Krogers on all sides of the Safeway to block access to their parking lot.

It is not even REMOTELY the same thing. United is in no way preventing passengers from boarding a VX plane.

Quoting enilria (Reply 16):
6) given UA's childish punishment of Houston for supporting competition to them at HOU, this is unsurprising, but it is time to investigate UA for anticompetitive behavior.

No it isn't. Responding to competition isn't being anticompetitive. If VX wishes to offer 14x a day, there is no barrier to do so.


Dumping - offering too much service and intentionally losing money on it - is illegal. This is far from so.

Its not United's fault Virgin is smaller than them, and in America just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal.


NS

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: something
Posted 2012-12-19 14:06:41 and read 10379 times.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
folks may yet again opt for saving $3.00 r/t and fly UA

If passengers were smart, which they aren't, they would try to exclusively fly Virgin, thereby ruining UA strategy and making sure low fares and higher service levels are to stay.

Quoting enilria (Reply 16):
4) if the govt is going to allow us to only have 4 airlines in the USA, they can no longer allow this type of behavior. It's time for the govt to take a tougher stand.

''Dumping'' is illegal after WTO rules. In economic terms, this is called penetration pricing. The problem in this particular case is that the traditional and legally applicable definition of ''dumping'' is hard to apply - unless one could prove that UA has been profitable one these flights, is no longer profitable under the new schedule and that the new schedule came into existence for no other reason than VX's market entry.

This is extremely difficult to prove and in a country like the USA, unlikely to happen.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-12-19 14:27:54 and read 10162 times.

Airspace wont be more crowded....EWR is slot controlled.

Which, as I said in the other thread, really makes this adjustment STUPID,

What are they cutting to have 28 slots a day dedicated to this bloodbath?

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-19 14:29:03 and read 10176 times.

I started off in the OAG thread on this by posting that this kind of frequency is insane.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 5):
EWR-LAX/SFO does not need this kind of frequency -- especially with PS over at JFK. It will be interesting of what types of aircraft they will use.

Yep, doesn't require this amount of frequency. LAX will be almost all 738, with just 1 or 2 752s.

SFO loses the 763 and is going to be 738/A319.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 5):
I'm sure elites will love this as even with the recent 757 and 767 adds on these routes it's almost impossible ot upgrade.

Less seats to upgrade to per flight. And they're 738s - not exactly luxurious for a 6 hour flight.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 7):
the A319s and 738s won't compete up front with VX.

I stated the same in the OAG thread on this - many disagreed with me. VX has the better product, definitely.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 9):
Welcome to the free market folks! VX has a better product

Yep.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
And then people wonder why NYC airspace is so congested.

Yep. Which is why I avoid flying into NYC and take Amtrak up there instead.  

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-12-19 14:32:08 and read 10167 times.

Quoting something (Reply 41):
''Dumping'' is illegal after WTO rules. In economic terms, this is called penetration pricing. The problem in this particular case is that the traditional and legally applicable definition of ''dumping'' is hard to apply - unless one could prove that UA has been profitable one these flights, is no longer profitable under the new schedule and that the new schedule came into existence for no other reason than VX's market entry.

Well, as a UA customer, I've felt that EWR-LAX was underserved. UA was trying to push more international connections through IAD, ORD and IAH, making it hard to get on those flights during summer. So adding some frequency and capacity is warranted. But from 6-14 is a large increase, so it wouldn't be hard to prove that at lease some was in response to VX.

But "response" to VX is not the same as dumping.

Is the intent to lose money and kill of VX?

Is the intent to make lower margins but sell more seats after seeing that VX has demonstrated higher demand than thought?

Is the intent to add frequency to better connect to international connections come summer?

Are they reducing aircraft size while adding frequency so overall capacity increase isn't as great as it seems?

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: something
Posted 2012-12-19 14:42:09 and read 9986 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 44):
But "response" to VX is not the same as dumping.

Is the intent to lose money and kill of VX?
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 44):
Are they reducing aircraft size while adding frequency so overall capacity increase isn't as great as it seems?

Which is exactly why proving this is near impossible. In Germany, all gas station raise or lower their prices almost simultaneously - and they have yet to prove any hints of collusion between the oil companies.

Technically, UA can let this operation run under the guise of a ''training excersize'', to get cabin crew and pilots trained on the aircraft type. Now they're not operating the route at a loss, but as a tax-deductible business expense. Some crafty lawyers and auditors will probably find some even nicer loopholes.

In either way, if I were to fly this route I'd fly VX on principle.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-19 14:55:54 and read 9835 times.

Quoting something (Reply 45):

Technically, UA can let this operation run under the guise of a ''training excersize'', to get cabin crew and pilots trained on the aircraft type. Now they're not operating the route at a loss, but as a tax-deductible business expense.

I don't think that's how the tax laws work - at least here in the USA. You take all your revenue, deduct all expenses, deduct any tax credits and that's your profit (or loss).

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-19 15:03:10 and read 9837 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):
And they're 738s - not exactly luxurious for a 6 hour flight.

I've been on extremely long Trans-Cons, SEA-EWR, and I've been on surprising quick flights. For example today UA #1127 flew SFO-EWR in 4.16 hrs.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...7/history/20121219/0632Z/KSFO/KEWR

I don't understand the complaints that a 738 is not a good aircraft for a four hour flight.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-19 15:46:50 and read 9441 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 47):
I've been on extremely long Trans-Cons, SEA-EWR, and I've been on surprising quick flights. For example today UA #1127 flew SFO-EWR in 4.16 hrs.

You're being rather disingenuous - you know as well as I do that the 4 hour 16 minute flight you used as an example was due to very strong west to east winds aloft and that the flights EWR-SFO are taking considerably longer. Why are you trying to make my statement out to be false/deceptive?

Here's UA 391 EWR-SFO today - 6 hours 11 minutes:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL391

Quoting STT757 (Reply 47):
I don't understand the complaints that a 738 is not a good aircraft for a four hour flight.

  Because it isn't a 4 hour flight!

BTW... If you think the 738 is a "good" aircraft to serve the Star Alliance megahub EWR on a 6 hour transcon to LAX/SFO, with it's standard, domestic F seating then you should take a look at what's flying out of JFK on LAX/SFO. It's considerably better.



[Edited 2012-12-19 15:47:58]

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-19 16:21:27 and read 9169 times.

The 738 is fine, both upfront and in the back. I've done LAX, SFO, SEA, SAN and LAS on the 73NGs (738s, 737-900ERs) from EWR.

[Edited 2012-12-19 16:23:35]

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: boilerla
Posted 2012-12-19 16:26:09 and read 9112 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 48):
ecause it isn't a 4 hour flight!

BTW... If you think the 738 is a "good" aircraft to serve the Star Alliance megahub EWR on a 6 hour transcon to LAX/SFO, with it's standard, domestic F seating then you should take a look at what's flying out of JFK on LAX/SFO. It's considerably better.

So what are you saying? Eveyr transcon should be on a PS style product? The demand isn't there. Proof? No other airline has done it except for JFK. UA will soon start retrofitting their PS products to have a product that's just as good as their TATL product. You want that on every transcon?

LAX/SFO-IAD, LAX/SFO-BOS, LAX/SFO-MCO, LAX/SFO-PHL, LAX/SFO-PIT, SFO-FLL, etc. can all be 6+ hour transcons in bad headwinds. But saying that UA should have a fleet of 767s with lie-flat seats for every transcons in their system, despite the fact that most fo them have 1-2 paid F tickets a flight, is unreasonable.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-19 16:43:11 and read 9002 times.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 50):
Eveyr transcon should be on a PS style product? The demand isn't there. Proof? No other airline has done it except for JFK. UA will soon start retrofitting their PS products to have a product that's just as good as their TATL product. You want that on every transcon?

Well, yeah, you've inadvertently said what all the EWR-lovers out there hate to hear: EWR can't support premium services, invariably the airlines will offer premium services from JFK only.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 50):
But saying that UA should have a fleet of 767s with lie-flat seats for every transcons in their system, despite the fact that most fo them have 1-2 paid F tickets a flight, is unreasonable.

I'm just speaking about EWR, not IAD. And as the Star Alliance hub serving the most important market in the USA to not offer anything that approaches the hard product of what is available at the OneWorld and SkyTeam airport across the river says plenty about EWR.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: caljn
Posted 2012-12-19 19:13:15 and read 7944 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 51):
Well, yeah, you've inadvertently said what all the EWR-lovers out there hate to hear: EWR can't support premium services, invariably the airlines will offer premium services from JFK only.

I can just see you sitting before your computer rubbing your hands together. Jeez, get over your obsession with EWR.
Is it really that important that an airline offers a few "premium" transcons and said flights demonstrates some superiority?
Or is it feelings of inferiority really at play here. Hmmm....

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-19 19:32:17 and read 7808 times.

Quoting caljn (Reply 52):

I can just see you sitting before your computer rubbing your hands together. Jeez, get over your obsession with EWR.
Is it really that important that an airline offers a few "premium" transcons and said flights demonstrates some superiority?
Or is it feelings of inferiority really at play here. Hmmm....

Dumb comment. If you want to attack me personally, go ahead, but please do it via the excellent messaging system they have here on a.net, and not in the public forums.
.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: panam330
Posted 2012-12-19 20:18:57 and read 7505 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):
I stated the same in the OAG thread on this - many disagreed with me. VX has the better product, definitely.

Until you factor in MileagePlus miles, which you obviously don't earn on VX. Many will put their money where their mouth is. But I'm willing to bet that many more will not give up their precious miles, even for an improved experience.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-20 00:16:09 and read 6660 times.

Here's why they can't do it to EWR: Its a hub.

They need butts in seats, to send aloft to their many further destinations. In order to do that, they need to have the seats available. Many if not most of those seats are economy class seats, sadly, and as a result need an economy class seat to connect to.

They ALREADY SERVE New York with a premium O/D product.

NS

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: klwright69
Posted 2012-12-20 00:37:03 and read 6568 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):
Less seats to upgrade to per flight. And they're 738s - not exactly luxurious for a 6 hour flight.

This is US domestic flying. Nothing really qualifies as "luxurious." Besides I think the choice of aircraft is just temporary until the schedules are finalized. "Luxury" is not the relevant term. Does another aircraft like the 757 count as "luxury?"

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):
Yep, doesn't require this amount of frequency. LAX will be almost all 738, with just 1 or 2 752s.

SFO loses the 763 and is going to be 738/A319.

And why not? Maybe UA does not "need" a lot of frequencies between ORD and EWR/LGA. Maybe they don't "need" that many frequencies between IAH and LAX/SNA. How do you know and define what they "need?"

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-20 06:40:41 and read 5608 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):
Less seats to upgrade to per flight. And they're 738s - not exactly luxurious for a 6 hour flight.

Again, as I said if a placeholder in the UA schedule is titled "738" or "319" it's only temporary until the date getes closer. The type of aircraft will change.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 47):
I don't understand the complaints that a 738 is not a good aircraft for a four hour flight.

It's a 6 hour flight, STT. You are embellishing.

The 738 product is about average but from a Y perspective inferior to VX. The directv product is something like $8 for a transcon and on VX I believe they have free content.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-20 07:23:04 and read 5428 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 57):
The directv product is something like $8 for a transcon and on VX I believe they have free content.

That's cheap, they wanted $17.95 for Wifi on my last PS JFK-SFO flight.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-20 07:36:07 and read 5343 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 58):
hat's cheap, they wanted $17.95 for Wifi on my last PS JFK-SFO flight.

No, it's not. It's a rip off.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-20 07:44:54 and read 5309 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 59):
No, it's not. It's a rip off.

Let's put this all in context. $8 is a ripoff for:

Letting you watch live television, keeping up with current events and ensuring you get to watch whatever tv series you follow or your choice of any number of movies.. It does this by connecting to a satellite which is orbiting around the earth after being launched by what amounts to a giant missile.

It does all of this while you are travelling over 500MPH at an altitidue some 6-8 miles above the earth in a little metal tube.

And we're going to complain about $8 bucks?

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-20 08:26:12 and read 5174 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 60):
And we're going to complain about $8 bucks?

It's a rip off because other airlines such as B6 and DL will give you satellite TV for free.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-20 08:30:03 and read 5159 times.

Quoting panam330 (Reply 54):

Until you factor in MileagePlus miles, which you obviously don't earn on VX. Many will put their money where their mouth is. But I'm willing to bet that many more will not give up their precious miles, even for an improved experience.

Yep - but VX just needs to fill 8 F seats per flight. Shouldn't be that hard in an area of over 10 million people.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 55):

They ALREADY SERVE New York with a premium O/D product.

Which leaves the entire NJ half of the market without a premium O/D product. And dumps all those Star Alliance travelers coming in from on those trans-Atlantic F and J lie-flat beds into standard domestic seats for a flight that is almost as long as their trans-Atlantic flight.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 56):

This is US domestic flying. Nothing really qualifies as "luxurious."

Take a look at what AA is going to be putting on JFK-LAX/SFO.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 56):
And why not? Maybe UA does not "need" a lot of frequencies between ORD and EWR/LGA. Maybe they don't "need" that many frequencies between IAH and LAX/SNA. How do you know and define what they "need?"

Don't know where you're going with this... ORD? IAH? SNA?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 57):
It's a 6 hour flight, STT. You are embellishing.

Yeah - mystifying why he would even try to put over such a gross distortion.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 57):
The 738 product is about average but from a Y perspective inferior to VX. The directv product is something like $8 for a transcon and on VX I believe they have free content.

Yep.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: boilerla
Posted 2012-12-20 08:40:44 and read 5107 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 57):
The 738 product is about average but from a Y perspective inferior to VX. The directv product is something like $8 for a transcon and on VX I believe they have free content.

True, but VX is still losing money hand over fist. Unless they trim their premium product down or figure out how to make money with their premium product that doesn't cost/command a premium, they are in trouble.

At the end of the day, the carrier with the best IFE or service is not what people choose. If they did, VX would be killing it in every market they entered. In survey after survey people choose price, schedule and FF program. UA is obviously using their advantage in the latter, and will match VX on the former.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 51):
I'm just speaking about EWR, not IAD. And as the Star Alliance hub serving the most important market in the USA to not offer anything that approaches the hard product of what is available at the OneWorld and SkyTeam airport across the river says plenty about EWR.

Well IAD is also a *A hub, as are some of the others. But in reality, as noted, most carriers in the *A actually fly out of JFK. EWR is just a UA hub, not really a *A hub.

Also as noted most people on the LAX/SFO-JFK flights are O&D. With EWR, not so much. Lots of connecting flows to TATL traffic.

Finally, UA cannot really afford a PS style product on a hub-hub route like this, simply due to economics of the fleet. Every plane that served LAX/SFO-EWR would need to be configured for PS, in case there's an aircraft swap, cancellation, or weather delay (gasp, not at EWR!). Look at what happens when the PS fleet needs a swap at JFK now--it's chaotic due to seat map changes and configuration in Y. Having another 25+ 757s sub-fleet in a low-density configuration on a hub-hub route is probably not what UA wants right now.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: something
Posted 2012-12-20 08:53:58 and read 5070 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 57):
The 738 product is about average but from a Y perspective inferior to VX. The directv product is something like $8 for a transcon and on VX I believe they have free content.

JetBlue is still better. They have free checked bags, free tv, more legroom, snacks and drinks, and one of the best websites in the industry. It feels like you find everything that you could possibly look for intuitively at an instant. There are no annoying pop ups or intros, and most importantly (to me anyway), the website doesn't try to hide anything. All final prices are displayed right where you'd expect them. It's impressive that JetBlue managed to keep this fantastic product-quality up even now that they've grown to such a huge enterprise. I keep having my fingers crossed they'll eventually debut on the TATL market.

VX isn't exactly my type of airline. It feels too loud and hip for me and they lag way behind JetBlue (so I'd fly EWR-BOS-LAX on them). But they're lightyears ahead of United and their website is an insult to their customers.

I have really no idea why anyone would fly United (or DL, AA, US) unless the price is proportionally lower. Which it never seems to be.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2012-12-20 08:54:43 and read 5068 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11):
and replace the sCO BusinessFirst equipped 757s operating EWR-Florida with sUA 757s

Last time I flew the route (December 1st) the dinner-hour Business-First 757 had been replaced with a 320.

Btw, some Business-First 757s are now flying IAD-LAX -- no doubt in relation to the new IAD-MAN.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-12-20 08:59:12 and read 5042 times.

Quoting something (Reply 64):
VX isn't exactly my type of airline. It feels too loud and hip for me and they lag way behind JetBlue (so I'd fly EWR-BOS-LAX on them). But they're lightyears ahead of United and their website is an insult to their customers.

So do you find it more "loud and hip" than VS? I've never flown either so I can't compare, FWIW.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2012-12-20 09:02:17 and read 5050 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 48):
You're being rather disingenuous - you know as well as I do that the 4 hour 16 minute flight you used as an example was due to very strong west to east winds aloft

Very true.

My BWI-SFO last Saturday was rated 6:09 (though we actually made it in 5:30).

The week before, ORD-SNA took us 5 hours and change.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2012-12-20 09:03:48 and read 5032 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 48):
You're being rather disingenuous - you know as well as I do that the 4 hour 16 minute flight you used as an example was due to very strong west to east winds aloft

Very true.

My BWI-SFO last Saturday was rated 6:09 (though we actually made it in 5:30).

The week before, ORD-SNA took us 5 hours and change.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2012-12-20 09:05:52 and read 5024 times.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 63):
If they did, VX would be killing it in every market they entered. In survey after survey people choose price, schedule and FF program.

One thing that I don't get is why VX focuses at LAX, and the approach of doing 3x LAX and 3x SFO. Why not just focus on one of the two with better frequency from it, e.g. just SFO. Atleast it wouldn't suffer as much in schedule if it went in bigger there, and it can be competitive at SFO. In terms of leisure where VX is hoping to attract pax, San Francisco/Bay Area is the by most surveys the favored destination of the two, and SFO offers connection to SAN, and better connections to the Pac NW than LAX.

From tripadvisor:
http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Destinations-cTop-g191
SFO has 2 and 20 and better connects to 8, 9 and 12, where LAX just has 6.

And not much different (maybe 25 mins more) for flying east-SFO-LAS over east-LAX-LAS.

[Edited 2012-12-20 09:08:52]

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-12-20 09:15:56 and read 4971 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 62):
Which leaves the entire NJ half of the market without a premium O/D product. And dumps all those Star Alliance travelers coming in from on those trans-Atlantic F and J lie-flat beds into standard domestic seats for a flight that is almost as long as their trans-Atlantic flight.

"All those Star Alliance Travelers", like who? They can get to the west coast non-stop from almost every *A hub in Europe. There is no need for them to stop in EWR to go to SFO/LAX.. I understand the argument for places like MAN, EDI, SNN etc, but not from FRA, MUC, BRU. Even any secondary cities you can fly to a European hub to get the non-stop and arrive straight to your destination.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: dartland
Posted 2012-12-20 09:20:43 and read 4950 times.

The salient point here is that UA can afford to do this because of connecting power at EWR.

The seat dumping will not deteriorate their yields nearly as much as it would otherwise, since so many of the seats are being priced for an O&D SFO/LAX to Europe. It's a HUGE insurance policy for UA to be able to do this.

As for premium product -- the O&D traffic on this route is often the price-sensitive, so they will drop prices to get them from VX, as those folks don't need the P.S. product out of JFK. The premium connecting passengers are an issue, but no different than what they've got today.

In summary -- while it sounds aggressive and it will cost money, it will be 10x more harmful to VX for the cost to UA, because of their connecting power at EWR.

Either way, a win for the EWR-LAX/SFO O&D passengers looking for cheap transcons. If only DL/B6/AA/UA would price match out of JFK, that would be sweet!

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-12-20 09:57:20 and read 4852 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 61):
It's a rip off because other airlines such as B6 and DL will give you satellite TV for free.

How many channels on VX? UA it's over 95 + 8 pre recorded programing.

VX

http://virginamerica.com/vx/booking/satellite-tv

UA

http://www.united.com/CMS/en-US/travel/Pages/DirecTVChannelLineup.aspx

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: klwright69
Posted 2012-12-20 12:06:01 and read 4671 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 62):
Quoting klwright69 (Reply 56):And why not? Maybe UA does not "need" a lot of frequencies between ORD and EWR/LGA. Maybe they don't "need" that many frequencies between IAH and LAX/SNA. How do you know and define what they "need?"
Don't know where you're going with this... ORD? IAH? SNA?

It's called making an illustration. How do you know what UA "needs" in any given market? You can't say UA doesn't need X number of flights in any given market.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-20 12:48:24 and read 4582 times.

This:

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 70):
"All those Star Alliance Travelers", like who? They can get to the west coast non-stop from almost every *A hub in Europe. There is no need for them to stop in EWR to go to SFO/LAX..

Conflicts with this:

Quoting dartland (Reply 71):
so many of the seats are being priced for an O&D SFO/LAX to Europe.

I happen to agree with dartland on this one (above).


Quoting RDH3E (Reply 70):
There is no need for them to stop in EWR to go to SFO/LAX.. I understand the argument for places like MAN, EDI, SNN etc, but not from FRA, MUC, BRU. Even any secondary cities you can fly to a European hub to get the non-stop and arrive straight to your destination.

A passenger in Europe can go to only two of the Star Alliance cities in Europe and then connect onward to LAX on a nonstop. FRA and MUC on LH (1 flight from each city to LAX).

A passenger in many (many) locations in Europe can also go via EWR nonstop and then on to LAX nonstop. There's a lot more seats for this scenario than the first.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 70):
They can get to the west coast non-stop from almost every *A hub in Europe.

See above.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 73):
How do you know what UA "needs" in any given market? You can't say UA doesn't need X number of flights in any given market.

If we're going to play the "how do you know?" game, then best we shut down the entire forum here, as the whole point of the forum is to express ideas and opinions. That's the "fun" of it. (More people around here need to have more fun and not get all serious about this stuff).

Quoting dartland (Reply 71):
As for premium product -- the O&D traffic on this route is often the price-sensitive, so they will drop prices to get them from VX, as those folks don't need the P.S. product out of JFK.

It's something I have a very hard time understanding: How EWR, which serves half of the NYC metro area (the half primarily west of the Hudson River), somehow doesn't merit the same premium services as JFK, which serves the other half of the NYC metro area. People who are west of the Hudson River aren't going to go to JFK for a flight to LAX. And as our big EWR supporter on here is always stating, NJ is affluent, home to corporate headquarters to dozens of huge corporations, etc.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-20 12:57:13 and read 4565 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 61):
It's a rip off because other airlines such as B6 and DL will give you satellite TV for free.

Delta doesn't give you satellite TV for free.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 62):
Take a look at what AA is going to be putting on JFK-LAX/SFO.

And what are they putting on EWR-LAX/SFO? That's what we're talking about.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 62):
Yep - but VX just needs to fill 8 F seats per flight. Shouldn't be that hard in an area of over 10 million people.

And VX is going directly out of business. Its sad and not something you want to hear, but its almost unavoidable at this point.

NS

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: tommy767
Posted 2012-12-20 13:08:29 and read 4519 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 75):
Delta doesn't give you satellite TV for free.

Yes 18 free channels on dish equipped aircraft.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: SHAQ
Posted 2012-12-20 13:16:34 and read 4524 times.

That's the joy of free-market.
VX is very dumb by going head to head with UA in this route.
The first error. Flying to LAX and SFO instead of choosing only one.
They would be better if they fly 35 weekly flights in EWRLAX or EWRSFO

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-20 14:01:30 and read 4431 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 75):

And what are they putting on EWR-LAX/SFO? That's what we're talking about.

A crummy 1x daily 738.

Your comment about "what we're talking about" doesn't take into account.what we're talking about in this thread!  

[Edited 2012-12-20 14:02:05]

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: spiritair97
Posted 2012-12-20 14:53:43 and read 4330 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 75):
Delta doesn't give you satellite TV for free.

I got it free when I flew them to the Bahamas over the summer on a 737-700.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-12-20 15:56:46 and read 4286 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 78):
Your comment about "what we're talking about" doesn't take into account.what we're talking about in this thread!  

Yes it does. You were like OMG LOOK WHAT AA HAS ON JFK. Well, UA has a VERY competitive product on JFK as well.

NS

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: dartland
Posted 2012-12-20 16:19:21 and read 4212 times.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 79):
I got it free when I flew them to the Bahamas over the summer on a 737-700.

On the 75E's which run these routes exclusively, it is an AVOD system with paid short and long programming. The only thing free are 2 channels of looping tv programs which include many advertisements (sponsored by Lincoln, as of late) and an entire advertising show for Delta Vacations. Not great.

If you're willing to pay, the AVOD selection is quite good. But the free content is minimal.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-20 17:24:24 and read 4144 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 80):
Yes it does. You were like OMG LOOK WHAT AA HAS ON JFK. Well, UA has a VERY competitive product on JFK as well.

Yes, look at what AA (will soon have) along with what DL and UA have over at JFK flying to LAX/SFO. And the other half of the NY Metro Area (EWR) will be getting domestic 738s / A32S 14x per day.

At the moment, it appears that UA will have ZERO flights from EWR to LAX/SFO on equipment with a hard product even approaching what VX will have, in addtion to what is available on 3 airlines from JFK;

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: spiritair97
Posted 2012-12-20 20:23:32 and read 3920 times.

Quoting dartland (Reply 81):

True, didn't think about what we were actually talking about! :p Silly me!


Either way, I wish VX the best of luck....and they're gonna need it! I have flown UA (oddly enough, all ex-continental routes with ex-CO aircraft) a few times and was impressed from a service point of view, but thought the aircraft were pretty average.

VX will also have some connectivity at SFO, but not much at all. This MIGHT help them, provided they can compete with other 1-stop transcon options fro mthe secondary cities to which they also fly.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-20 22:18:33 and read 3831 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 74):
A passenger in Europe can go to only two of the Star Alliance cities in Europe and then connect onward to LAX on a nonstop. FRA and MUC on LH (1 flight from each city to LAX).

Also LX via ZRH to LAX.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-21 08:39:37 and read 3593 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 84):
Also LX via ZRH to LAX.

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting about them!  

Still, though, I think my point is a good one.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-21 08:45:19 and read 3592 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 85):
Oh yeah, I keep forgetting about them!

And then you have LAX-LHR on UA and NZ that connects to other star alliance members flights out of LHR.

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-12-21 09:06:43 and read 3557 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 86):

And then you have LAX-LHR on UA and NZ that connects to other star alliance members flights out of LHR.

Uh oh... My position is eroding!  

Just to restate my point, if you don't live close to LHR, ZRH, MUC or FRA and instead live closer to one of those smaller cities that UA serves nonstop to EWR, it would seem that those passengers would go via EWR. Or maybe not!  

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: B747forever
Posted 2012-12-21 09:38:03 and read 3497 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 87):
Uh oh... My position is eroding!

Oh one more, you could kind of count TK also as it captures some European traffic to LAX. Also remember, we are still only talking about star carriers to Europe.  

Topic: RE: UA EWR-LAX/SFO Going To 14 Daily Each
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-12-21 10:12:16 and read 3440 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 87):

More true now that bmi is gone. But still from LAX last year my wife and I flew LAX LHR ZRH on UA/LX and returned VCE MUN LAX on LH. we did this to avoid EWR outbound and the short redeye not good for sleeping. Not mention the fact that UA/CO makes F seats LAX-EWR impossible to get with awards.

Maybe these extra 8 flights will change that.


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/