AA787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4542 times:
AA and UA have already committed to JFK. The 3 class 762's, for AA at least, are all based at JFK. AA has a new terminal going up there. In addition, many people from NJ ARE flying CO, but when AA and UA first arrived on the scene, that part of the tri-state area was not that important. They focused on Connecticut, Westchester, Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn and Long Island because that's where the people were. AA and UA still have a reasonable operation at EWR, and it may grow when the proposed new Terminal A is built.
SHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4511 times:
N62NA-Are you joking? EWR has a lot more daily flights to ORD than JFK has...if you consider JFK that major of a city for United, consider this: JFK has a combined ZERO daily flights on UA to ORD and DEN, their two largest hubs. Likewise, American has nothing between JFK and ORD, their second largest hub, and only three daily MD-80's between JFK and DFW (compared to 7 from EWR and 13 MD-80/83/738's from LGA), and Delta has 4 daily mainlines between JFK and ATL (two 763's, a 757 as Song, an MD80) and a quintet of CRJ's, whereas EWR has an even dozen (9 MD80's, along with a 757 and two 738's) and LGA has 16 (5 MD80's, 4 757's, 6 763's, and a 764, the only 7 widebodies LGA sees all day), and then with CVG, JFK sees 4 (2 763's, 2 CRJ's), EWR sees 6 (2 CRJ's, 3 732's and a 738) and LGA sees 7 (2 CRJ's, 2 738's, 2 MD80's, and a 757)...and you tell me which airport is disrespected...hint: it certainly isn't EWR or LGA
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
AA787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4504 times:
As a New Yorker, I find EWR to be nicer, its just that when you fly out of EWR you always feel like your missing something. When you look out the window at 20 CO 737s lined up, you think to yourself, "the line-up at JFK has to be more interesting!" JFK is like a New York tourist spot. No trip is complete without flying into JFK and experiencing true New York hospitality!!!!
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4090 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4498 times:
N62NA-Are you joking?
Not joking at all! There has been lots of discussion on here as to why there isn't any traffic to speak of between JFK and ORD, DFW, ATL and that has to do with the fact that LGA is pretty much JFK's domestic operation.
But, the original reason for the post was specifically re: AA and UA transcon service out of JFK versus EWR and not just number of flights, but the fact that almost all LAX and SFO traffic on these two airlines from JFK is widebody while EWR is almost always narrowbody (and lately on UA, the A319 LAX-EWR!).
Given the quickly shrinking number of flights at JFK by UA (they now only serve LAX, SFO, AA), Japan">NRT and LHR), the real topic here is AA and how it views it's transcon services from EWR vs JFK.
AA787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4484 times:
AA views JFK as a Focus airport. I hope it becomes a hub when the new terminal is done and hopefully JFK will become AA's main European gateway. AA is at JFK, but they do have 763 LAX-EWR service (I may be wrong).
SHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4479 times:
AA-What I said wasn't directed at you...
N62NA-I know that the discussion comes up all the time...I'm usually the one who starts that discussion...the EWR/LGA/JFK situation is the one that frustrates me to no end, especially when you consider that LaGuardia is the only one of the PANYNJ-3 without any rail transportation (JFK and EWR both have the AirTrain) and I have to either park my car at LGA, which is nearly impossible (particularly if you are staying a Thursday and Friday night, and as a result cannot park on the street, which is barely safe anyway) or take a livery service (which, from Oceanside, isn't exactly cheap)
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4090 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4465 times:
AA is at JFK, but they do have 763 LAX-EWR service (I may be wrong).
Yeah, they used to, but lately they have been back to 757 and even 738 at times.
SHUPirate1, my sympathies to you! I usually try to fly up to the NYC area via EWR on AA, and I cringe on those times when I have to use LGA instead. The fact that LGA has no rail transportation is unfortunate, but my original post was commenting on someone's observation specifically about UA and AA at EWR.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16564 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4367 times:
AA has one of their current EWR-LAX flights as a 767-300, besides that AA and UAL are in the process of making huge cuts to their trans-Con service from both EWR and JFK.
UAL prior to 9-11 flew 7 daily nonstops from EWR-SFO, now they are down to 2 or 3.
UAL has the smallest market share in NYC of the big 6, with the retirement of their 767-200 fleet and the lingering bankruptcy look for big changes. UAL is already scheduling 757s on some trans-cons from JFK, eventualy look for 757s and even A320s to take over many routes. They way things are going UAL may be totaly out of the market in the next year or two, the NYC-West Coast flights are not the cash cows they once were.
The LCCs are hitting the yields on the Trans-Cons hard, the majors are loosing money on routes that were once their most profitable. The days of three class all widebody service from NYC to LAX and SFO are slipping fast, long live the A320, 737NG and the 757.
AA, CO and DL can continue to route some International 767s on Domestic Trans-Cons from JFK and EWR, however the days of dedicated fleets of aircraft just to serve the Trans-con market is over.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16564 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4346 times:
Just to add a futher point,
The NYC/East Coast- West Coast market is going the same route NYC-Florida routes went in the 1980s.
In the 1980s-early 1990s all the airlines flew wide bodies from EWR, LGA, JFK to Florida.
I've personaly flown..
Pan Am DC-10-10
CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO (Many times!)
The growth of low fare carries, first PeoplExpress, then Carnival, Kiwi, Spirit, then DL Express, Jetblue, Continental Lite, Metro Jet etc.. Pretty much killed the wide body NYC- Florida flights.
TWA used to fly L1011s from LGA to PBI, JFK-CO / KMCO), USA - Florida">MCO
Eastern used to fly A300s, L1011s from EWR, JFK, LGA to Florida
DL flew L1011s, 767s from EWR, LGA and JFK to Florida.
Now you have Jetblue flying 14 (!) daily nonstops from JFK to FLL.
In a few years the NYC-West Coast market will be dominated by A320s, 737NGs and 757s.
The hold outs will be AA, CO and perhaps DL (if they are still around), they will operate 767s which operate from JFK/EWR to Europe/Latin America on these routes. Instead of having a dedicated fleet of Wide Bodies for Trans-cons they will route International flights through to the West Coast instead of having them sit on the ground in EWR/JFK, they will be able to use Widebodies to the West Coast because of better International aircraft utilization.
I expect AA to try and maintain all widebody service from JFK to LAX, but their JFK-SFO flights will definetly get some 757s as well as 767-300s.
CO as well as DL will continue to route "some" of their International 767s through to LAX, however that will be the extent.
UAL as I mentioned before either downsizes to A320s/757s or is not competing at all within the next couple years.
Just to add to the LCC competition, Virgin USA is going to have it's headquarters in NYC and it's hub in SFO. NYC-SF will be probably be their first route.
Qqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2221 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4072 times:
AA previously had flown a three-class 762 from EWR to LAX. The fact that it is gone must be proof it wasn't worth it. And as for AA scaling back its transoncs from JFK, they've added two JFK-LAX flights in the past few months, so things there are looking up, not down. A quick look at SABRE for 10Jun shows 12 LAX-JFK flights on 762s. All LAX-EWR flights are 757s.
However, AA's three-class transcons are down, as a whole. AA used to operate BOS-LAX/SFO and LAX-IAD with three-class 762s, but those are all now being operated by 757s and 738s. I guess that's even more proof of how profitable LAX-JFK is for AA. I was told at a meeting in the past JFK-LAX is one of the top five markets for revenue for AA. Number one is DFW-ORD. And just for facts, AA operates 15 MD-80s and one 777 between DFW and ORD. Also on top is DFW-LGA. That route's flown 13 times a day with a mix of MD-80s and 738s.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
B727fan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4055 times:
True, JFK always comes to mind first when thinking about the NYC metro airports, and why not, it is located in NY and if I am not mistaking, it serves as the largest Int'l. Airport in the area. HOWEVER, the good old EWR is also one of the busiest airports in the country. (I hear it handles more traffic than JFk, but not sure) One thing that we must take in to consideration is the fact that EWR does not have the capability of handling too many large and wide body planes like JFk. Also having shorter runways with no room to expand at EWR, enables JFK to be the "leader" per-se! But it is a very easily get-to airport, and for its size, its got a pretty impressive resume for both traffic and diversity. I think if EWR could expand (runways, parking & terminals) it would have even GREATER potentials! Unfortunately, it is bounded by some of the major and heavily traveled roads in the Tristate area!
p.s. AA787, I agree with you about the "too many 737's and oh, dont forget the ERJs!!"
Bsmalls35 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
I have always thought that EWRs biggest gap in service was 3 class transcon flights. I even remember when delta had non-stop service between ewr & lax in the 90s. Hopefully in the not to distant future, UA & AA will build up their service at EWR. However, I won't be holding my breath.
Tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6442 posts, RR: 9 Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3988 times:
Wow. I remember reading in the star ledger in 1999 that United had 80 flights out of EWR per day! Now they are down too much. I'm getting fed up. I'm sick of seeing those continental tails at EWR (as much as I do like CO, it gets boring.)
Back on topic. Well United is a lost cause in EWR now as they don't serve any widebodies to California as they did in previous years. I remember them flying 777s into San Francisco back in 1999. Well all that is gone, and now were down to A319s .
AA I have some respect for. They still serve a good 43 flights per day out of EWR, and they are the 2nd biggest carrier here. As for the trans-cons, I wish I could have tested a route on the 763 out in April when I went out to Los Angeles, but I took CO. Now it is documented that 757s and 738s will come and take over the EWR market. Still, 4 years ago AA was flying 3 757s per day to LA. I think AA should take more advantage of transcons in EWR, and start to fly a San Jose and San Francisco route. Well, we will have to see what happens in the future. A new addition of Terminal A is planned, so maybe AA will gain a few flights here.
JFK gets soo many transcons that its unbearable. I do like JFK though, but EWR is my home airport.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4090 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3970 times:
Wow, 1992 would have been a great time to take a transcon from EWR. I remember taking a flight EWR-LAX either in the late 80s or early 90s on CO and it was on a 747. Now that was fun!
I agree with Tommy767 that UA is a lost cause at EWR. I'm not sure how much more service they can cut. But it isn't just limited to EWR, they've got a major problem on their hands at JFK too, with service to just AA), Japan">NRT, LAX, SFO and LHR... Not to mention their recent cutbacks here at MIA.
Seems as if AA is adding more flights and UA keeps cutting back. I guess if that's what UA has to do to get out of bankruptcy, then they have to.
Thanks also to STT757 for the DL 767-200 EWR-LAX info!
CarbHeatIN From Ireland, joined Jun 2004, 211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3870 times:
they've got a major problem on their hands at JFK too, with service to just AA), Japan">AA), Japan">NRT, LAX, SFO and LHR... Not to mention their recent cutbacks here at MIA.
UA also serves IAD from JFK.
Whereas AA, CO and to a lesser degree DL use the NYC metro airports as Hubs, UA have moved towards exploiting NYC as an O&D market primarily.(Although one of the LHR flights does continue on to the West coast). United has no non-hub flights out of NYC. Transcons to JFK. ORD and DEN to LGA. EWR gets all to a lesser extent.
Uniteds' east coast hub is nearby IAD. By pursuing a strategy of O&D UA has cut down on the associated costs of providing transfers/connections, not to mention crew accomodation in NYC. I'm not sure I would categorise such a strategy as a "major problem".
That said, I was extremely impressed with UA's terminal 7 at JFK (especially compared to AA's dumps in 8 and 9) and would much prefer to connect there at the moment vis-a-vis IAD. Perhaps this will change with the renovations at IAD.