Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5832186/

Topic: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: g500
Posted 2013-07-30 11:44:48 and read 9722 times.

I'm still trying to figure out why United offers their "Premium Service" out of JFK instead of EWR, their main NY hub...

Anybody here think they should add PS service to EWR and/or IAD to LAX/SFO??

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: Jasoncrh
Posted 2013-07-30 12:04:59 and read 9660 times.

This really isnt hard to figure out. JFK-LAX/SFO is a niche market with people willing to pay high fares - and NOT upgrade - to fly in premium seats.

EWR/IAD- LAX/SFO are hub to hub routes and they need lots of capacity to satisfy the demand for these services.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2013-07-30 12:12:48 and read 9625 times.

UA runs a few internationally configured 757s on EWR-LAX-SFO which offer premium lie flat seats for those who need and actually pay for it on this route. Its connecting hubs so many many upgrades so the domestic first seat is fine. They really need the capacity so it would not make sense to run P.S.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: yegbey01
Posted 2013-07-30 12:14:32 and read 9616 times.

I think, if United was able to offer high frequency to DCA from LAX and SFO, they would run PS flights for sure.

But let's face it, who wants to fly to IAD - unless you are making an onward connection!!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: VC10DC10
Posted 2013-07-30 13:22:19 and read 9436 times.

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 3):

But let's face it, who wants to fly to IAD - unless you are making an onward connection!!

It's actually a lovely airport (except for the C gates, which will be replaced in due course), well sited for many in northern Virginia, and I predict will become even more popular once WMATA trains FINALLY begin service there in 2018 (should have happened a few decades ago, but that's DC for you...). It also has far more airfield capacity than DCA, and has far fewer residents complaining about noise and such. (In my view, DCA should have been closed to all non-turboprop traffic years ago, but whatever.)

Having never tried United PS service, I'm not entirely sure what all the excitement is about; the one time I flew transcon in F on UA (LAX-IAD), the hard and soft products were lovely.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-07-30 13:47:43 and read 9348 times.

Currently UA has thrown a ton of capacity at EWR-SFO/LAX due to VX. They do run a few Intl 752s and they are generally very tough to get an upgrade on, meaning people do pay for F or full Y just to fly those birds.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: CODC10
Posted 2013-07-30 14:08:49 and read 9248 times.

As mentioned, p.s. is a low-density, high-yield product. While UA may command higher yields on its SFO service from both the EWR and IAD hubs, higher-capacity equipment is needed. The First Class meal service is the same as p.s. BusinessFirst.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 4):
It's actually a lovely airport (except for the C gates

And the low A gates... and the D gates... and the Z gates... and the midfield FIS... the list goes on!

The B gates and deliciously retro Saarinen main terminal are great, but the rest of the facility is awful!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2013-07-30 14:32:45 and read 9153 times.

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 3):
But let's face it, who wants to fly to IAD - unless you are making an onward connection!!

Uuuum . . . maybe us O&D folks who actually live here and use the airport every day?

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2013-07-30 14:35:52 and read 9144 times.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 4):
Having never tried United PS service, I'm not entirely sure what all the excitement is about;

Did it once. Apparently, the fascination is "We can afford to do this every day, and you all can't."

Other than that, there's really nothing exceptional about the P.S. flights..

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-07-30 15:09:43 and read 9021 times.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 6):
And the low A gates... and the D gates... and the Z gates... and the midfield FIS... the list goes on!
The B gates and deliciously retro Saarinen main terminal are great, but the rest of the facility is awful!

Um, ok. I would hardly call IAD awful. What's so terrible about the A gates? That you have to walk outside? You have easy access to the B concourse, so there are plenty of food and shopping options. The Z gates are bad, but will probably never get used again and will go away. Don't know the last time you used the FIS facility, but they just opened a brand new one in the last year or two. Obviously the C and D concourse is essentially the same thing and will be replaced in the near future

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-07-30 15:33:48 and read 8944 times.

The issue with EWR/IAD-SFO/LAX compared to PS over at JFK is consistency. Due to the aircraft type fluctuation, it's a bit of a crapshoot when it comes to onboard service. For instance in F last week on EWR-LAX on a 753 we had no pillows or blankets, no PDB, and F/A's disappeared after the meal service (literally having to chase them down for refills.)

Having said all that, the meal service was very consistent to what PS should be. Although it's pretty unacceptable to fly 739s with NO IFE on EWR/IAD-LAX/SFO. DTV product is a bit tacky for F as well, even if it's free..

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: yegbey01
Posted 2013-07-30 22:27:38 and read 8567 times.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 7):
Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 3):
But let's face it, who wants to fly to IAD - unless you are making an onward connection!!

Uuuum . . . maybe us O&D folks who actually live here and use the airport every day?

I meant that DCA is the preferred airport in DC. This year's stats show how IAD has been witnessing a drop in passenger count vs a surge at DCA.

I live in Fairfax county and I only choose IAD either when price is much much cheaper or whenever I am flying overseas. Can't beat DCA's convenience!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2013-07-31 03:20:59 and read 8103 times.

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 11):
I meant that DCA is the preferred airport in DC. This year's stats show how IAD has been witnessing a drop in passenger count vs a surge at DCA.

I live in Fairfax county and I only choose IAD either when price is much much cheaper or whenever I am flying overseas. Can't beat DCA's convenience!

Thanks for the clarification of what you really meant. Folks can only respond to what you actually say.

For the last couple of weeks, DCA has had some good fares. Otherwise, I myself go with whoever has the best fares -- BWI, DCA, or IAD

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 06:50:54 and read 7459 times.

To answer the original question:

It's because EWR is not viewed by people east of the Hudson River as a desirable airport, when JFK and LGA are within the city limits. The fact that JFK and LGA can be reached by taxi is also a plus.

Limiting this discussion to just NYC-LAX/SFO - this perception of EWR goes back decades. If you examine airline schedules at http://www.departedflights.com you'll see that JFK always got the "prestige" aircraft (AA, UA and TW 747) while EWR usually would get the old AA and TW 707s and UA DC8s (and on those few lucky periods an upgrade to a AA/UA DC10 on EWR-LAX and amazingly a UA 747 sometimes on EWR-SFO! But those were the exceptions - the norm was cramped narrowbody aircraft).

Much to the dismay of the EWR (and CO/UA fans), the simple fact is that even EWR's dominant carrier views EWR as a "less desirable" airport when it comes to attracting premium customers from east of the Hudson River.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2013-07-31 07:24:34 and read 7300 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 13):
Much to the dismay of the EWR (and CO/UA fans), the simple fact is that even EWR's dominant carrier views EWR as a "less desirable" airport when it comes to attracting premium customers from east of the Hudson River.

Why does every thread involoving EWR have to come down to this.................its a huge area and lots of people all those airports co-exist and are huge for a reason.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: dartland
Posted 2013-07-31 07:36:43 and read 7246 times.

Unsurprising that this thread got way off topic....

But to answer the OP's question: It's due to high % of connecting traffic. P.S. is for O&D high yielding traffic and JFK is by definition O&D (with some minor exceptions).

EWR / IAD are very high connecting traffic and not only is there a demand for more seats than P.S., but it also doesn't justify it from a yield perspective.

It has little (nothing?) to do with JFK being a more "premium" airport or anything like that. Remember SQ and their all business class flights from EWR? There is plenty of high yielding traffic at EWR to support premium flights, including people from Northern New Jersey and Manhattan. But on UA, it's a major connecting hub.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 08:00:17 and read 7136 times.

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 3):
But let's face it, who wants to fly to IAD - unless you are making an onward connection!!

I live 5 minutes from IAD and fly out of there all the time. It's not perfect, but I've been to many airports way worse, i.e Philtydelphia.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: airzim
Posted 2013-07-31 09:08:23 and read 6861 times.

Dedicated sub-fleets are expensive propositions given the lack of flexibility. A rather large reason for the removal of First on PS and the implementation of the same BusinessFirst seat is to increase flexibility and reliability while providing a consistent product.

Moving forward, United will have the option of subbing RR powered 757-200s or 767-400s or 767-300s with BF seating on the PS flights as demand or maintenance schedules require given the only difference between any of these planes is the number of seats per cabin, otherwise it is identical in every other way.

While there is certainly large premium demand from EWR to LAX/SFO, United needs increased flexibility through fleet utilization with the mix of 737s, 757, etc., as they dump capacity against Virgin and feed their hubs at either end. Making a guarantee of BF seating from EWR would prove logistically challenging and likely cost prohibitive (as it relates to fleet management).

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: laca773
Posted 2013-07-31 09:19:22 and read 6798 times.

Quoting msp747 (Reply 9):

Um, ok. I would hardly call IAD awful. What's so terrible about the A gates? That you have to walk outside? You have easy access to the B concourse, so there are plenty of food and shopping options. The Z gates are bad, but will probably never get used again and will go away. Don't know the last time you used the FIS facility, but they just opened a brand new one in the last year or two. Obviously the C and D concourse is essentially the same thing and will be replaced in the near future

How many gates @ IAD still use mobile lounges for boarding, deplaning?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 10):
Having said all that, the meal service was very consistent to what PS should be. Although it's pretty unacceptable to fly 739s with NO IFE on EWR/IAD-LAX/SFO. DTV product is a bit tacky for F as well, even if it's free..

Wow. I thought UA would be using the 739ERs (73J) with AVOD IFE on the transcon flights versus those that don't have it. I don't understand the logic behind what they are doing.


I think if the few transcon flights from DCA-LAX/SFO/SAN/SEA were doing surperb and high yielding, I think we'd see the airlines flying them lobbying for more slots. How are they doing now? In particular, the flights added in the past year on AA, DCA-LAX, US, DCA-SAN, UA/VX, DCA-SFO? AS has operated their DCA-LAX/SEA flight for several years as has US on DCA-PHX.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2013-07-31 09:43:20 and read 6685 times.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 18):
How many gates @ IAD still use mobile lounges for boarding, deplaning?

For boarding and deplaning exclusively? Those were the so-called "H Gate" planes.

The last airline I know of doing that was SV. But SV now boards at the B gates.

I've been on planes arriving after 2am that deboarded by mobile lounge rather that at a terminal gate but even that has been a while.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 10:13:20 and read 6565 times.

Quoting dartland (Reply 15):
It has little (nothing?) to do with JFK being a more "premium" airport or anything like that.

JFK has (historically) and remains (presently) overwhelmingly the airport where premium class service is offered - both on LAX/SFO as well as internationally.

I've always thought this to be a huge slap in the face to New Jersey, with all its Fortune 500 companies and wealthy suburbs. For some reason, the people of New Jersey have to "make do" with 737s and A320s for the most part to get to LAX/SFO.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 10:14:25 and read 6559 times.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 18):
How many gates @ IAD still use mobile lounges for boarding, deplaning?

AFAIK, none. The mobile lounges are used exclusively for transporting pax from the mid-field concourses to the main terminal and from the mid-field concourses to the International Arrivals Building. Last I was there (June 20th of this year), the only way to get from the main terminal to the mid-field concourses is by riding the Aerotrain.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-07-31 10:17:25 and read 6551 times.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 18):

How many gates @ IAD still use mobile lounges for boarding, deplaning?

I haven't seen airlines do that at IAD in years, but maybe they still do on random occasions. It seems that everyone has moved into concourse B for the most part. The mobile lounges do far less these days at IAD. You can still take them to Concouse D, and they are used to bring international passengers from Concourse B to the FIS facility at the terminal.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 10:23:47 and read 6526 times.

Quoting msp747 (Reply 22):
You can still take them to Concouse D,

Still? All pax are directed downstairs where the new security checkpoint is, and I thought the Aerotrain is the only way now to get out to the mid-field concourses.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: dfambro
Posted 2013-07-31 10:25:41 and read 6519 times.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8):
Did it once. Apparently, the fascination is "We can afford to do this every day, and you all can't."

Other than that, there's really nothing exceptional about the P.S. flights..

Even in the old configuration, the P.S. J and F seats were far easier to sleep in than the traditional domestic first seats. On a few occasions I have flown SFO-JFK-BOS instead of SFO-BOS just so I could sleep better.

I've always thought an SFO-BOS P.S red-eye flight would work, and they could re-position it to JFK in the morning for a day flight back west. Maybe that's too complicated to actually make it work.

[Edited 2013-07-31 10:37:29]

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-07-31 10:29:04 and read 6691 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 23):

Still? All pax are directed downstairs where the new security checkpoint is, and I thought the Aerotrain is the only way now to get out to the mid-field concourses

The Aerotrain doesn't go to the Concourse D side, just the C side, although even that's a hike since the station is where the future C/D concourse will be built. So they do still have the option if you are traveling out of D.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: 777Boeing777
Posted 2013-07-31 10:32:07 and read 6653 times.

Quoting msp747 (Reply 25):
So they do still have the option if you are traveling out of D.

Can you catch the Mobile Lounge on the same level as security?

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: atp50
Posted 2013-07-31 10:43:20 and read 6759 times.

As a UA hub, it seems absurd not to offer international BF customers connecting through EWR to LAX/SFO the p.s. product. This is not only the BF seat on the occasional 757-224ER on the EWR-LAX/SFO routes, but the BF-style service as well.

It would also be nice for EWR-based customers, too!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: msp747
Posted 2013-07-31 10:45:25 and read 6720 times.

Quoting 777Boeing777 (Reply 26):
Can you catch the Mobile Lounge on the same level as security?

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure because I haven't flown out of D since all of these changes were made. I think the access to the mobile lounges is on the same level as security. You may have to take an elevator up a level, but I'm not sure. Of course to catch the Aerotrain, you still have to go down a level after security

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: ytib
Posted 2013-07-31 11:42:05 and read 6461 times.

If you go back years ago the reason why LAX-JFK existed with a premium class was the entertainment industry. The fare bucket for First on United was P (not F) and it was serviced with a fleet of 767 aircraft. Same reason why AA has the LAX-JFK flights. There was also the flights to SFO at that time as the financial industries would fill the plane.

p.s. was the change from the 767-200 to the 757 fleet and initially a low density premium product in all classes hence E+ all the way through Y. The product has changed greatly since the initial roll out of p.s. and some of this was driven by a change in the SAG contract saying members don't have to be in first class.

The reason why it goes to JFK is the perception and the fact that it has for quite a while, and changing it from JFK to EWR will just get those high dollar passengers flying on AA instead.

It has been discussed many times before but the market out of IAD does not really exist to justify this type of fleet running those routes or having selective flights which are p.s.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: max999
Posted 2013-07-31 11:48:55 and read 6418 times.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8):
Did it once. Apparently, the fascination is "We can afford to do this every day, and you all can't."

Other than that, there's really nothing exceptional about the P.S. flights..

If that is the case, then other airlines have UA beat on their soft product. From what I understand, DL and AA offer complimentary lounge access for their transcon premium passengers. Also, DL offers amenity kits and catering is on the same level as BusinessElite.

Combined with the fact that all of the transcon carriers are now implementing flat beds on their flights. p.s. is not going to be competitive.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 12:25:18 and read 6359 times.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 27):
As a UA hub, it seems absurd not to offer international BF customers connecting through EWR to LAX/SFO the p.s. product. This is not only the BF seat on the occasional 757-224ER on the EWR-LAX/SFO routes, but the BF-style service as well.

It would also be nice for EWR-based customers, too!

Yes, I agree. On the one hand we're told by some on here that EWR pulls lots of "high profile" and "premium" passengers. Well then why does UA specifically cater fo "high profile" and "premium" passengers with their "Premium Service (p.s.)" only from JFK? Are they "better people" over there taking flights at JFK compared to the people taking flights at EWR?

I suspect the answer is that there isn't nearly as much "high profile" and "premium" passenger traffic at EWR as we are led to believe.


Quoting ytib (Reply 29):
The reason why it goes to JFK is the perception and the fact that it has for quite a while, and changing it from JFK to EWR will just get those high dollar passengers flying on AA instead.


Yep. Those using p.s. won't change to using EWR.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: a380787
Posted 2013-07-31 12:32:24 and read 6366 times.

The issue with p.s. EWR-SFO/LAX is not lack of premium passengers, but frequency.

If UA made a special subfleet of p.s. (on top of their regular hub-to-hub sardine cans) out of EWR, they can probably only fill 4x daily to each town. That's hardly competitive.

Once and for all, can N62NA stop talking about EWR being not premium enough.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 13:01:04 and read 6301 times.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 32):
If UA made a special subfleet of p.s. (on top of their regular hub-to-hub sardine cans) out of EWR, they can probably only fill 4x daily to each town. That's hardly competitive.

4x p.s. EWR-LAX would be a great alternative. Why can't UA offer both "sardine can service" and p.s. service out of EWR? Would it be difficult to differentiate these services in the schedule listings so that prospective customers would have a difficult time figuring out which were the p.s. flights vs the "sardine can" flights?

Quoting a380787 (Reply 32):
Once and for all, can N62NA stop talking about EWR being not premium enough.

Then the second part of my statement is true: Are the "premium" people taking flights at JFK "better" compared to the "premium" people taking flights at EWR?

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: bsmalls
Posted 2013-07-31 13:04:35 and read 6291 times.

Over the years this topic has been discussed ad nauseam but I guess that's what these forums are for but as someone who for the last few years has travelled between the New York area and LAX about 8 times annually, let me add my two cents as to one of the reasons why United never ran it's PS service from Newark.

My wife is a Gold member with United and being based in Newark travels out to Los Angeles for work twice a month, sometimes staying for two weeks and during those times I fly out weekends to be with her. That means me finding a cheap fare to LAX from Newark, and let me tell you, usually there are none. When comparing nonstop airfares on United on the same dates and times from either Newark or JFK to LAX, the nonstop fares from Newark are on average $75 to $150 (sometimes higher), more in economy. If I were to fly roundtrip on either Delta, United, or Virgin from JFK, I could usually find a round trip ticket for as little as $300. Newark, the average round trip ticket would run from $370 to $550, way higher fares. So, what I would usually do is buy a one way ticket on United from JFK to LAX and sit in economy plus (which offers less room than economy plus in non PS aircraft but that's for a different forum), usually paying $119 to $159. I would then use my wife's miles for a reward ticket back to Newark. United makes a killing on their EWR-LAX flights so why should the dump a PS aircraft on a sector that is already making them tons of money. The PS aircraft have less seating and being used in a market that has tons of elite members flying, I'm guessing most would be eligible to upgrade to business for the cost of a economy fare. Plus, up until Virgin's entry into the LAX, SFO market, besides American's 1 nonstop flight to LAX there was no non-stop competition I have to admit there has been a little fare relief in the market now that Virgin has arrived in Newark but the fares are still on average in economy slightly higher from Newark than JFK.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: atp50
Posted 2013-07-31 14:22:06 and read 6254 times.

I'm a Global Services member spending $10-20,000 per month with UA. Is my status as a business executive based in NJ using EWR less than that of the occasional celebrity traveling back to Hollywood from JFK?

I would think that UA's margins are being carried by business people, not celebrities. Perhaps UA should refocus its attention accordingly. It's 2013, not 1963. The historic glamour of JFK no longer exists. Except for DL's admirable efforts to improve their JFK facilities, most of JFK seems like a third-world airport by international standards. EWR (Terminal C) is much nicer, drawing quite a bit from NYC.

UA should add p.s. from EWR as I suggested earlier.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 14:24:15 and read 6212 times.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 35):
I'm a Global Services member spending $10-20,000 per month with UA. Is my status as a business executive based in NJ using EWR less than that of the occasional celebrity traveling back to Hollywood from JFK?

Thanks for posting that. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one here that feels as you do.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: gigneil
Posted 2013-07-31 14:44:31 and read 6199 times.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 18):
Wow. I thought UA would be using the 739ERs (73J) with AVOD IFE on the transcon flights versus those that don't have it. I don't understand the logic behind what they are doing.

They have zero 739ERs with AVOD.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 27):
This is not only the BF seat on the occasional 757-224ER on the EWR-LAX/SFO routes, but the BF-style service as well.

Since nobody else has pointed this out - 100% of LAX/SFO flights from EWR and IAD receive the p.s. meal service and are supposed to receive the same amenities.

NS

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-07-31 15:04:39 and read 6171 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 37):
100% of LAX/SFO flights from EWR and IAD receive the p.s. meal service

I thought it was just EWR, not IAD.

This is a recent photo of from a dinner flight SFO-IAD: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/21181559-post1118.html

If it was p.s. service, it would have had the shrimp appetizer as a separate plated course.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: Jasoncrh
Posted 2013-07-31 15:12:44 and read 6117 times.

Sorry - these are hub to hub routes. There is too much demand to fly such small gauge on these heavy connect - oriented markets. That's the main reason for no p.s. flights - the p.s. equipped planes are simply not big enough. Sorry.

And despite your business, there's still more business people paying higher fares at JFK than at EWR. With a limited fleet and with the need to provide the volume to sustain hub operations on both ends, UA has to put the aircraft where they are needed most. Volume for the hub is provided on the Newark hub routes, and PS for the smaller volume but higher fare passenger goes to JFK.

Sorry you dont agree with it. But, as others have pointed out, UA does fly the internationally configured planes on a few EWR flights a day to both cities. If you want the lie flat seats take one of those.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 35):
I'm a Global Services member spending $10-20,000 per month with UA. Is my status as a business executive based in NJ using EWR less than that of the occasional celebrity traveling back to Hollywood from JFK?

I would think that UA's margins are being carried by business people, not celebrities. Perhaps UA should refocus its attention accordingly. It's 2013, not 1963. The historic glamour of JFK no longer exists. Except for DL's admirable efforts to improve their JFK facilities, most of JFK seems like a third-world airport by international standards. EWR (Terminal C) is much nicer, drawing quite a bit from NYC.

UA should add p.s. from EWR as I suggested earlier.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2013-07-31 15:18:04 and read 6111 times.

I could see a mix of ps and regular flights EWR-LAX/SFO. UA is converting 15 752s for JFK-LAX/SFO service, which looks like 13 or 14 daily flights.

If 4 or 5 roundtrips were added EWR-LAX(4)/SFO(5), it would likely take another 10 units. Such a schedule would offer better maintenance and scheduling flexibility with swap-out capability at LAX and SFO.

The new service would need about 10 additional 752 units. 1.) they could all be additionally converted sUA 752 or 2.) a mix of some additionally converted sUA 752s plus some sCO 752s. The sCO 752s may see less TATL service with more widebodies coming into service and these 41 units have a lot of life left. Additionally, at EWR, TATL 752s would probably routed into/out of ps service efficiently.

Assuming sCO 752s get WiFi, IFE offering would be fairly consistent as would seating, except for the seating mix.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 15:52:11 and read 6067 times.

Quoting Jasoncrh (Reply 39):
Sorry - these are hub to hub routes. There is too much demand to fly such small gauge on these heavy connect - oriented markets.

Small guage? EWR-LAX/SFO is mostly 737/A32S. And they just dumped a whole lot more on those routes to try and pummel VX to death.

Quoting Jasoncrh (Reply 39):
Volume for the hub is provided on the Newark hub routes, and PS for the smaller volume but higher fare passenger goes to JFK.

All the way from New Jersey? No. The New Jersey traveler is stuck with mostly 737/A32S aircraft.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 40):
I could see a mix of ps and regular flights EWR-LAX/SFO. .

Yes!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-07-31 17:56:30 and read 5928 times.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 35):
I'm a Global Services member spending $10-20,000 per month with UA. Is my status as a business executive based in NJ using EWR less than that of the occasional celebrity traveling back to Hollywood from JFK?

I would think that UA's margins are being carried by business people, not celebrities. Perhaps UA should refocus its attention accordingly. It's 2013, not 1963. The historic glamour of JFK no longer exists. Except for DL's admirable efforts to improve their JFK facilities, most of JFK seems like a third-world airport by international standards. EWR (Terminal C) is much nicer, drawing quite a bit from NYC.

UA should add p.s. from EWR as I suggested earlier.

If you truly are a G.S. passenger I appreciate and thank you for your business. But on today 7-31-2013 United has 13 nonstop operating on the EWR-LAX route and 16 nonstops operating on the EWR-SFO route. Out of 13 or 16 nonstops which flights should be p.s. they all can not operate as a p.s. flight due to the demand that exist on these hub routes. To accommodate passengers like yourself United does operate sCO international 757-200 on these routes I do not know whether the departure time of the international 757 is compatible with your schedule but even if United did introduce p.s. service on EWR-LAX/SFO routes every flight would not be a p.s. flight. P.S. has nothing to do with the historic glamour of JFK or celebrities in Hollywood it is about a business model which works for United. When p.s. was first introduce people asked what about ORD-LAX/SFO United flat out said no not going to happen because you can not run p.s. service on every flight on hub to hub routes and even if United was to convert some flights to p.s. service some people would still be upset because the flights would not match their schedule.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-07-31 18:49:58 and read 5841 times.

Thanks for your reply JayUnited.

Question for you. Looking at EWR-LAX, there are 752 operating at:

6:19a
7:59a
10:13a
1:15p
3:20p
4:55p
7:10p

Which ones of those operate with the international 757? If it were an easy "rule of thumb" that any 752 running on EWR-LAX was the international 757, that would probably be a pretty easy way for folks looking for that "extra added feature" of the beds in F easy to figure out.

The 752 schedule to LAX looks like what would be a pretty good p.s. schedule out of EWR to LAX.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: hereandthere41
Posted 2013-07-31 20:02:49 and read 5750 times.

United's 757 sub-fleet doesn't operate on a closed loop between IAD/EWR and the West Coast. There are many other markets around the system that are serviced with this fleet and require the capacity. The p.s. product is on JFK because that's the market that supports it. Not IAD or EWR. Many of the hub to hub routes are full of COMP upgrades in the premium cabin. The p.s. premium cabin is primarily full of customers who have actually PAID for the product on that given flight. Whether someone wants to dismiss them as celebrity types or not, they're still the intended customer for the product: The one who actually supports the product with cash. If EWR and IAD could support a product like that, every U.S. airline would have already poured their resources into it. But they haven't. Why are we still talking about this?

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-07-31 20:13:00 and read 5731 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):

Flight numbers between 1-100 or over 1000 would indicate a int'l 757 between EWR-LAX.

The rest of domestic 757s with overhead monitors and channel 9. It's easy to operate them on turns from SFO, LAX, and EWR. Routes can sometimes consist of LAX-EWR-BOS or LAX-EWR-IAH-LAX etc. The int'l birds require more lift from EWR on the TATL circuit. Still, they tend to get around to ORD, IAD, LAX, and DEN these days.

What baffles me is how UA plans to replace all these 757 with 739s in the next 2 years. Seems costly and unrealistic.

[Edited 2013-07-31 20:19:14]

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: Surfandsnow
Posted 2013-07-31 21:12:30 and read 5676 times.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):

I'm still trying to figure out why United offers their "Premium Service" out of JFK instead of EWR, their main NY hub...

That may be the case today, but certainly not when UA launched p.s. back in 2004. At that time, JFK was the airline's primary NY base for long haul operations - much more prominent than EWR, especially with respect to the West Coast. Things changed when CO entered Star Alliance and then merged with UA, but the airline still sees demand for this niche JFK-LAX/SFO service (albeit in a 2 class, rather than 3 class, configuration). Otherwise, they would be dropping it, not revamping it.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Anybody here think they should add PS service to EWR and/or IAD to LAX/SFO??

Absolutely not. EWR/IAD-LAX/SFO are hub to hub routes. They need to run higher density aircraft in order to provide feed for regional ops (i.e. California flights connecting to EWR-Upstate NY services) and transoceanic routes (i.e. California flights connecting to EWR-secondary European market services). The p.s. routes are targeted at O&D, whereby UA is willing to cede the Y component to other carriers in order to focus on premium pax. They can't do that on a hub-hub route!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-07-31 21:23:28 and read 5666 times.

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 46):

Although it would be nice to see a 767 turn on EWR/IAD-LAX. Last year a 764 was used on EWR-LAX rather consistently

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: hOmSAr
Posted 2013-07-31 22:06:49 and read 5586 times.

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 46):
That may be the case today, but certainly not when UA launched p.s. back in 2004.

I'm surprised that it took this long for someone to point out that EWR has only been a UA hub for about 2-3 years, when p.s. had already been around for a while and established at JFK.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: Jasoncrh
Posted 2013-08-01 05:43:20 and read 5418 times.

the 757 Ps planes have 114 coach seats. That's way fewer than all but the 737-700 series as well as the A320. the PS planes have people who actually pay, not upgrade, to premium cabins. for hub to hub routes, UA needs lots of seats, and that's what the combination of larger coach cabins plus additional frequencies delivers.

Agree wholeheartedly with everything SurfandSnow says..

Quoting N62NA (Reply 41):

Quoting Jasoncrh (Reply 39):
Sorry - these are hub to hub routes. There is too much demand to fly such small gauge on these heavy connect - oriented markets.

Small guage? EWR-LAX/SFO is mostly 737/A32S. And they just dumped a whole lot more on those routes to try and pummel VX to death.

Quoting Jasoncrh (Reply 39):
Volume for the hub is provided on the Newark hub routes, and PS for the smaller volume but higher fare passenger goes to JFK.

All the way from New Jersey? No. The New Jersey traveler is stuck with mostly 737/A32S aircraft.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 40):
I could see a mix of ps and regular flights EWR-LAX/SFO. .

Yes!

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-08-01 07:26:38 and read 5337 times.

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 46):
Absolutely not. EWR/IAD-LAX/SFO are hub to hub routes. They need to run higher density aircraft in order to provide feed for regional ops (

So we've come to the point now where a 737/A319/A320 is a "higher density" aircraft? I suppose a CR7 is a "higher density" aircraft too, compared to a CR2.

The point is, UA is not running high density aircraft on EWR-LAX/SFO. And the recent huge increase in flights is an attempt to squash VX.

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 46):
The p.s. routes are targeted at O&D, whereby UA is willing to cede the Y component to other carriers in order to focus on premium pax.

So there is no O&D EWR-LAX/SFO? You're totally ignoring northern and central New Jersey. A huge market.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: Jasoncrh
Posted 2013-08-01 08:35:22 and read 5278 times.

Nobody said there's "No demand" from EWR-LAX/SFO. Where do you get that? That's why there are more than 10 flights a day in each of those markets. What has been said is that there is not as much premium demand in those markets. There are some, but not as many, people willing to pay for J rather than upgrade to J. So, the aircraft that has the low density, high premium seating, goes to JFK, where people pay full J rates, adn the higher density planes with fewer J, more Y, goes to EWR.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 50):
So we've come to the point now where a 737/A319/A320 is a "higher density" aircraft? I suppose a CR7 is a "higher density" aircraft too, compared to a CR2.

The point is, UA is not running high density aircraft on EWR-LAX/SFO. And the recent huge increase in flights is an attempt to squash VX.

Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 46):
The p.s. routes are targeted at O&D, whereby UA is willing to cede the Y component to other carriers in order to focus on premium pax.

So there is no O&D EWR-LAX/SFO? You're totally ignoring northern and central New Jersey. A huge market

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: CODC10
Posted 2013-08-01 09:10:40 and read 5221 times.

If UA wants to be competitive in the JFK-SFO/LAX transcons, they need to run a premium product. There's no reason to operate a similarly costly product from EWR as they already have that market sewn up, such that a p.s. service would likely result in poorer margins and negligible new passengers. Further, any new passengers they would attract with a p.s.-style service from EWR are likely already UA customers at JFK.

Put another way, EWR-SFO/LAX is already a high-yield operation for UA. This is an independently-verifiable fact. If UA is presently spending 60 cents to make $1.00 for a passenger in that market, why spend 70 cents to make that same dollar? The economics aren't there, nor is the volume of premium demand as exists at JFK. I'm rather confident that the present state of EWR transcontinental operations is profit-optimized as it stands now. If UA's margins at EWR would benefit substantially from p.s.-style service, we'd already be seeing it.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 50):

So we've come to the point now where a 737/A319/A320 is a "higher density" aircraft? I suppose a CR7 is a "higher density" aircraft too, compared to a CR2.

Yes, a 737/A319/320 has a higher density configuration than a p.s. 757. Capacity and density are two different concepts... and in the UA configuration, a CR7 is not a higher density aircraft than a CR2.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-08-01 09:39:53 and read 5165 times.

There's this statement (and by the way, I didn't say there was "no demand" from EWR-LAX/SFO):


Quoting Jasoncrh (Reply 51):
Nobody said there's "No demand" from EWR-LAX/SFO. Where do you get that? That's why there are more than 10 flights a day in each of those markets. What has been said is that there is not as much premium demand in those markets. There are some, but not as many, people willing to pay for J rather than upgrade to J. So, the aircraft that has the low density, high premium seating, goes to JFK, where people pay full J rates, adn the higher density planes with fewer J, more Y, goes to EWR.




Which is at odds with this statment:


Quoting a380787 (Reply 32):
Once and for all, can N62NA stop talking about EWR being not premium enough.



See above reply #51.Clearly in reply #51 the reason giving is there is not as much premium demand at EWR on this particular route.


Quoting CODC10 (Reply 52):
There's no reason to operate a similarly costly product from EWR as they already have that market sewn up, such that a p.s. service would likely result in poorer margins and negligible new passengers



Now this I agree with. Why give the New Jersey customers the same premium service as the JFK customers when UA has a near monopoly on EWR-LAX/SFO and can just "get by" with lesser quality.


Quoting CODC10 (Reply 52):
Further, any new passengers they would attract with a p.s.-style service from EWR are likely already UA customers at JFK.



I don't think people living in NJ are going all the way out to JFK just to take p.s. service.


Quoting CODC10 (Reply 52):
If UA is presently spending 60 cents to make $1.00 for a passenger in that market, why spend 70 cents to make that same dollar?



Yes, a good illustration of what I believe is the real reason why there isn't p.s. service out of EWR.


Quoting CODC10 (Reply 52):
Yes, a 737/A319/320 has a higher density configuration than a p.s. 757
.



Not by very much. But I will admit that "higher density" can apply to a CR7 vs CR2 as well as a 739 and a p.s. 757.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: tlecam
Posted 2013-08-01 13:08:33 and read 5064 times.

I was shocked when I recently looked at the frequency on the EWR-SFO route. It's basically a transcontinental shuttle service. No way to do that with PS planes.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: laca773
Posted 2013-08-01 13:24:58 and read 5043 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 31):

Yes, I agree. On the one hand we're told by some on here that EWR pulls lots of "high profile" and "premium" passengers. Well then why does UA specifically cater fo "high profile" and "premium" passengers with their "Premium Service (p.s.)" only from JFK? Are they "better people" over there taking flights at JFK compared to the people taking flights at EWR?

I suspect the answer is that there isn't nearly as much "high profile" and "premium" passenger traffic at EWR as we are led to believe.

I feel that's a pretty safe statement to believe. EWR is a transit station. People fly via EWR mainly to connect onward to transatlantic, and other domestic eastern seaboard markets. UA's JFK-LAX/SFO fights are mainly those who originate at either end. They are not transit passengers.

Quoting bsmalls (Reply 34):
My wife is a Gold member with United and being based in Newark travels out to Los Angeles for work twice a month, sometimes staying for two weeks and during those times I fly out weekends to be with her. That means me finding a cheap fare to LAX from Newark, and let me tell you, usually there are none. When comparing nonstop airfares on United

Of course there are no low fares, and very few open seats on these segments because of the amount of passengers transiting onward via EWR to other destinations. I suspect it's not an easy feat to find a decent discounted Y ticket on UA to from EWR even if they are running 13-16 flights a day in either LAX/SFO-EWR.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 38):
This is a recent photo of from a dinner flight SFO-IAD: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/21181559-post1118.html

If it was p.s. service, it would have had the shrimp appetizer as a separate plated course.

This does not look like a P.S. type meal. This looks like something AA would serve ORD-LAX/SFO. DL does a lovely job on their transcon catering. Even what they offer in terms of BOB is better than the rest with the exception of VX.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: atp50
Posted 2013-08-02 05:13:27 and read 4832 times.

To answer the earlier question from Jasoncrh, yes - I am indeed GS and fly UA over 200,000 miles per year mostly in BusinessFirst and First (domestic) to many cities in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. As an ex-CON, EWR-based frequent flier, I've been GS since the merger, Presidential Platinum since CO started the program, and the highest status OnePass level for 10 years prior. I was Platinum with AA for five years prior to that until I made the jump to CO OnePass Gold using their "elite matching program" at the time.

With over 2 million lifetime miles with UA/CO, my twice-a-year flier wife is also GS.

The lack of p.s. service out of EWR is just another example of UA's muddled premium products. I look forward to the full harmonization of the sUA and sCO products (p.s., Global First) which will no doubt take several more years. Perhaps if AA or DL offered premium service to EWR from LAX/SFO (and maybe they already do, I don't know), then UA might offer a couple of p.s. flights accordingly.

In the interim, I'll continue to fly sCO's product given the convenience of EWR and hope, to quote Gordon Bethune, that UA "doesn't take the cheese off the pizza" during the harmonization.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-08-02 09:01:16 and read 4746 times.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 56):
Perhaps if AA or DL offered premium service to EWR from LAX/SFO (and maybe they already do, I don't know), then UA might offer a couple of p.s. flights accordingly.

Unfortunately, given that AA is now down to a single 738 on EWR-LAX (now there's a great F hard product for a "New York to Los Angeles" transcon!) and DL doesn't even acknowledge EWR-LAX with a token flight like AA does, I'm sure that UA has absolutely no intention of offering a premium product out of EWR to LAX/SFO.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-08-02 11:52:27 and read 4637 times.

Quoting tlecam (Reply 54):
I was shocked when I recently looked at the frequency on the EWR-SFO route. It's basically a transcontinental shuttle service. No way to do that with PS planes.

It is only like that because UA dumped capacity due to VX entering the market. It used to be around 6-8 a day depending on the season.


Regardless of what JFK may or may not be, it likely still commands a higher fare. I did a very isolated fare search for EWR-LAX RT and JFK-LAX RT about 10 days out and the JFK F ticket was almost double many of the EWR trips.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: CODC10
Posted 2013-08-02 12:27:12 and read 4613 times.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 58):
I did a very isolated fare search for EWR-LAX RT and JFK-LAX RT about 10 days out and the JFK F ticket was almost double many of the EWR trips.

That's the big differentiator. JFK-LAX/SFO commands substantially higher premium fares than EWR, while EWR attracts a higher Y cabin yield due to more limited competition than JFK. The service offerings meet this need: p.s. caters to the demands of the premium JFK market, while EWR provides more capacity for the higher-yielding Y segment.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-08-02 13:13:38 and read 4556 times.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 56):
To answer the earlier question from Jasoncrh, yes - I am indeed GS and fly UA over 200,000 miles per year mostly in BusinessFirst and First (domestic) to many cities in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. As an ex-CON, EWR-based frequent flier, I've been GS since the merger, Presidential Platinum since CO started the program, and the highest status OnePass level for 10 years prior. I was Platinum with AA for five years prior to that until I made the jump to CO OnePass Gold using their "elite matching program" at the time.

With over 2 million lifetime miles with UA/CO, my twice-a-year flier wife is also GS.

The lack of p.s. service out of EWR is just another example of UA's muddled premium products. I look forward to the full harmonization of the sUA and sCO products (p.s., Global First) which will no doubt take several more years. Perhaps if AA or DL offered premium service to EWR from LAX/SFO (and maybe they already do, I don't know), then UA might offer a couple of p.s. flights accordingly.

In the interim, I'll continue to fly sCO's product given the convenience of EWR and hope, to quote Gordon Bethune, that UA "doesn't take the cheese off the pizza" during the harmonization.

Please don't take my response the wrong way but if you are looking for p.s. service then why not fly out of JFK. Now I know JFK is a long ways a way from EWR but if p.s. service is really they important to you and if you are truly willing to pay for the p.s. service then why not either drive or hire a car service to take to and pick you up from JFK. Believe me I understand the point you are making in saying EWR should have the same level of service as JFK but that is just not possible. Now if what you truly want is a lie flat seat on these long transcon flights then as it has been mentioned UA does in fact use sCO international 757-200's on some EWR/LAX,SFO routes. But if this is truly about the overall p.s. service that service is not coming to EWR because where UA can sacrifice the coach seating out of JFK in favor of more premium seating UA can not sacrifice coach seating into and out of EWR. If UA did launch p.s. service out of EWR, UA would have to have to run at least 22 non stops between EWR-SFO and probably at least 19 non stops between EWR-LAX just to make up for the lost capacity in coach and that increase in capacity would impact UA's EWR operation in other ways as well. There are a lot of reasons why UA will not launch p.s on EWR routes so if JFK is an option then use JFK.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: Jasoncrh
Posted 2013-08-02 13:40:23 and read 4528 times.

I dont doubt you are. And I never said thre werent travelers such as you in New Jersey. That said, there are not enough of you to warrant ps service at Newark. Furthermore, as I said before, EWR and the two california cities are all hubs for UA. UA needs the capacity (there are more Y seats on 737/Airbus than there are on the ps 757s) to feed the hubs. It's nothing personal, but in a resource - constrained and competitive environment, UA (or any other ailrine/ company in any industry) must make careful allocation decisions to earn the maximum return on their assets. What you see in the market offerings is reflective of this. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 56):
To answer the earlier question from Jasoncrh, yes - I am indeed GS and fly UA over 200,000 miles per year mostly in BusinessFirst and First (domestic) to many cities in Europe, Asia, and North and South America. As an ex-CON, EWR-based frequent flier, I've been GS since the merger, Presidential Platinum since CO started the program, and the highest status OnePass level for 10 years prior. I was Platinum with AA for five years prior to that until I made the jump to CO OnePass Gold using their "elite matching program" at the time.

With over 2 million lifetime miles with UA/CO, my twice-a-year flier wife is also GS.

The lack of p.s. service out of EWR is just another example of UA's muddled premium products. I look forward to the full harmonization of the sUA and sCO products (p.s., Global First) which will no doubt take several more years. Perhaps if AA or DL offered premium service to EWR from LAX/SFO (and maybe they already do, I don't know), then UA might offer a couple of p.s. flights accordingly.

In the interim, I'll continue to fly sCO's product given the convenience of EWR and hope, to quote Gordon Bethune, that UA "doesn't take the cheese off the pizza" during the harmonization.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2013-08-02 15:00:12 and read 4478 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 60):
If UA did launch p.s. service out of EWR, UA would have to have to run at least 22 non stops between EWR-SFO and probably at least 19 non stops between EWR-LAX just to make up for the lost capacity in coach and that increase in capacity would impact UA's EWR operation in other ways as well.

I don't think anyone is asking for all service EWR-LAX/SFO with ps aircraft. There are numerous A320 aircraft on these routes with 144 seats. The new ps 752 has 142 seats. Higher cost to operate, but much higher revenue with little total seat loss.

The beauty of the new ps configuration is that it is more dense than the old configuration and has regular Y class. So, sCO 752s can substitute for ps as well as potentially sUA ps units flying TATL service - could that be why the lie flats match the 2 class international 752 and other international aircraft and many ETOPS units are being converted to ps? EWR-LHR anyone?

There would be little loss in total seats if 5 flights a day were changed to a mix of sCO 752 and new ps configuration units. If 3 ps 752s and 2 sCO 752 were flown as ps service, they would offer 234 E+ and 414Y seats. If they replaced 2 739s, 2 738s and 1 320, the seat change in coach would be a loss of 8 E+ seats and 48Y seats. That's an average of only 11 coach seats per flight while First would go up 34 seats (7 per flight) from 82 F seats to 116 lie flats ps seats. A total seat loss of 4 seats per flight.

UA would advertise and schedule services is an entirely different question.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-08-02 15:28:11 and read 4453 times.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 62):
I don't think anyone is asking for all service EWR-LAX/SFO with ps aircraft.

I certainly am not advocating EWR go all p.s.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 62):
There are numerous A320 aircraft on these routes with 144 seats. The new ps 752 has 142 seats. Higher cost to operate, but much higher revenue with little total seat loss.

Good point.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 62):
If 3 ps 752s and 2 sCO 752 were flown as ps service, they would offer 234 E+ and 414Y seats. If they replaced 2 739s, 2 738s and 1 320, the seat change in coach would be a loss of 8 E+ seats and 48Y seats. That's an average of only 11 coach seats per flight while First would go up 34 seats (7 per flight) from 82 F seats to 116 lie flats ps seats. A total seat loss of 4 seats per flight.

Good analysis.

And let's remember, once again, the reason UA has so many flights right now between EWR-LAX/SFO is to try to drive VX out of EWR. UA wants to keep EWR a "cattle car class" airport and run out the competition, especially if the competition is offering a much nicer product than UA.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-08-02 15:39:40 and read 4444 times.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 62):
There are numerous A320 aircraft on these routes with 144 seats. The new ps 752 has 142 seats. Higher cost to operate, but much higher revenue with little total seat loss.

Not Really

Today's EWR-LAX schedule
8 752s (Both PMUA and PMCO)
1 753
1 320
2 739
2 738

EWR-SFO
7 738
4 752
5 739

I'm sure the schedule varies day by day but by no means are there numerous 320s on the route

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-08-02 15:41:02 and read 4439 times.

If UA really saw a need from EWR, it probably couldn't hurt to run the international 752s on an westbound schedule of something like 7am, 10am, 1pm, 4pm and 7pm to try it out. Then do the same eastbound except change the 7pm to a 10pm red-eye.

That would still allow UA to run hub-to-hub service on whatever other equipment they'd like. Is the market there to do that at the fare premium p.s. receives? I don't honestly know. UA does know, though, and they haven't yet decided to separate out the int'l-configured 752s they do fly on the route with any special designation.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-08-02 16:14:52 and read 4412 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 65):
If UA really saw a need from EWR, it probably couldn't hurt to run the international 752s on an westbound schedule of something like 7am, 10am, 1pm, 4pm and 7pm to try it out. Then do the same eastbound except change the 7pm to a 10pm red-eye.

They already run PMCO int'l 752s on the 1:15pm and 3:20pm EWR-LAX flts, I think there might be one other.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-08-02 16:40:26 and read 4394 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 65):

To me the problem is not the EWR vs. JFK premium market. As I said before, it's the consistency factor in the hard and soft product.

UA claims that you will get the same experience flying a transcon to LAX or SFO from EWR and JFK. On my last flight in F on the 753, the menu really was quite the same (food was good) but the soft product was inconsistent. No PDB, no pillows or blankets, F/A's checked out after meal service. All of these misses would start a riot on a true JFK P.S. flight.

This is the problem with offering 12-16 flights per day on EWR-SFO/LAX -- consistency. If you fly flight 1600 from EWR-LAX on an int'l 757 you'l likely say it was the same, if not better than flying the same route on PS out of JFK. However, if you fly a "dark" IFE-less 739 on the same route, I'd say you probably wouldn't stick around flying UA much longer.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-08-02 16:47:24 and read 4382 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 67):
To me the problem is not the EWR vs. JFK premium market. As I said before, it's the consistency factor in the hard and soft product.

Yes, of course, I addressed that in my post: "they haven't yet decided to separate out the int'l-configured 752s they do fly on the route with any special designation." Perhaps I should have said "branding" instead of "designation".

Supposedly, no matter which aircraft you fly from either EWR or JFK, you're supposed to receive the p.s. menu (soft product). Equipment (hard product) from EWR is pot luck at the moment. UA could, if they wanted, fly the sCO 752s ex-EWR with the service branded/designated differently. But they don't.

Is that more clear?

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: usairways85
Posted 2013-08-02 17:08:55 and read 4359 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
Equipment (hard product) from EWR is pot luck at the moment.

Hard product throughout the UA system is a potluck. Some aircraft with no IFE, some with over head tvs, some with wifi and over head tvs, some with DTV, some with AC outlets, some without AC outlets, some with AVOD

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-08-02 17:11:57 and read 4358 times.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 69):
Hard product throughout the UA system is a potluck.

On p.s. flights, it isn't supposed to be pot luck, although during the transition between 3-class and 2-class seating on the p.s. routes, there will be some variability. Except in extreme circumstances when a p.s.-configured plane isn't available, one with the standard configuration might be substituted.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: jayunited
Posted 2013-08-02 18:31:15 and read 4308 times.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 67):
UA claims that you will get the same experience flying a transcon to LAX or SFO from EWR and JFK. On my last flight in F on the 753, the menu really was quite the same (food was good) but the soft product was inconsistent. No PDB, no pillows or blankets, F/A's checked out after meal service. All of these misses would start a riot on a true JFK P.S. flight.

When did United make this claim officially because there is no way for UA to make such a claim when they are running so many different fleet types on this route.? I would like for you to post the link where UA claims that their EWR/LAX,SFO service is the same as their JFK-LAX/SFO service. If UA has in fact said that publicly they are flat out lying to people because that is not the case. So if you can please substantiate your statement that UA has officially and publicly made these comments.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: tommy767
Posted 2013-08-02 19:19:26 and read 4255 times.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 71):

The printed menu's are exactly the same -- it says in fine print on the menu "EWR/JFK-LAX" when I flew it 2 weeks ago in F on EWR-LAX on the 753. In addition there was a write up in the CEO letter in Hemisheres a few months ago about the enhanced offerings on "New York (Newark) and JFK to LAX and SFO." I'm not going to look into my collection of magazines and scan in the letter, but it's for sure out there.

I get it from EWR from a hard product standpoint. Some planes will have DTV, others AVOD, others CRT (having no IFE is pretty awful for a stage length of 5.5 hours.) Soft product is supposed to be roughly the same. That's why I mentioned having zero pillow and blanket in F on a transcon to be an embarrassment.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2013-08-03 00:25:04 and read 4138 times.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 64):
EWR-SFO
7 738
4 752
5 739

I'm sure the schedule varies day by day but by no means are there numerous 320s on the route

I took a quick look at the online timetable, which is really condensed and switches equipemtn almost daily over a month period.
Adding EWR-SFO for the whole week of Aug3 I get
319 = 7
738 = 29
752 = 25 looks like all sUA units
739 = 39
73G = 3
The average aircraft on EWR-SFO is F 18.8F, E+ 48.8, Y 94.7, Total 162.4

If 2 daily 738s went 752 ps aircraft, F +12, E+, even, Y -24 = loss of 24 daily seats
If 3 daily 739s went sCO 752, F -4, E+ -7, Y +12 = gain of 4 total seats
Total loss of 20 seats per day with 5 swaps to 2ps and 3 sCo 752s

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: atp50
Posted 2013-08-03 07:36:33 and read 4047 times.

Sorry, Jasoncrh - my last reply was to be a response to Jayunited. Working from an iPhone has its limitations.

In any case, perhaps a couple of p.s. flights from EWR-LAX/SFO per day would be a nice experiment for UA. Six hours on a westbound transcontinental is little different than 7-8 hours on a westbound transatlantic.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-08-03 11:45:30 and read 3981 times.

Quoting atp50 (Reply 74):
perhaps a couple of p.s. flights from EWR-LAX/SFO per day would be a nice experiment for UA. Six hours on a westbound transcontinental is little different than 7-8 hours on a westbound transatlantic.

Yep, would be nice to see them try it. But I'm afraid they want to keep EWR "cattle car class" and we won't be seeing any such experimentation.

And those 6 hours on a westbound transcon is about the same length as an eastbound EWR-LHR flight.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: atp50
Posted 2013-08-04 06:02:06 and read 3823 times.

"Cattle car class" like the PMUA 757-200 first class seat numbers 1C and 1D (right side, first row). The seat is seemingly inches away from the bulkhead with no place to put one's legs. It wasn't to LAX/SFO, but it was from EWR.

Without making a fuss, I asked the flight attendant how UA could actually sell the seat as first class. I got up and went back to Economy Plus where the seat had easily 3x the leg room.

They brought my meal back to economy for me.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2013-08-05 07:45:04 and read 3615 times.

Historically Washington has received the same premium transcontinental service that airlines offered in NYC, but I wonder if history has changed - if the Washington premium market has moved away from the airlines and more to private/charter aircraft. I get an unscientific, seat-of-the-pants feel that it has.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: BOACCunard
Posted 2013-08-05 11:50:20 and read 3602 times.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 77):
Historically Washington has received the same premium transcontinental service that airlines offered in NYC

How long ago is "historically?"

It certainly hasn't for quite a while. Just JFK-LAX/SFO, on AA and UA.

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2013-08-05 12:09:36 and read 3613 times.

Quoting BOACCunard (Reply 78):
How long ago is "historically?"

Since the first jets up until UA's PS. Over that time BOS, PHL, and IAD were usually given the same version of first class that New York got.

[Edited 2013-08-05 12:11:43]

Topic: RE: Should EWR Or IAD Get United PS Service To LAX/SFO
Username: BOACCunard
Posted 2013-08-05 13:20:48 and read 3598 times.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 79):
Since the first jets up until UA's PS. Over that time BOS, PHL, and IAD were usually given the same version of first class that New York got.

I think it must have ended at least a bit earlier than that. I clearly recall that PS replaced a product that was JFK-LAX/SFO only at the time (using very very dated 762s), and by then AA's equivalent product was as well.


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/