Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Come On UA / AA-upgrade Your EWR Transcon Service  
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

In another topic, I posted:

"Come on, UA and AA - (well probably just AA, since UA seems to have given
up on EWR), upgrade your EWR transcon service!"

And one of the replies was:

Why?

During the 2000 SFH, the balance of power on the EWR-SFO/LAX routes shifted decisively to CO. Furthermore, CO offers (or can easily offer) widebodies complete with BF seating and PTVs at every seat for peak time transcon flights - UA and AA can't or won't commit their 763s/777s to those routes, so CO wins on product as well.


I agree with the above.

So basically, UA and AA should just give up on all those dozens of Fortune 500 corporations with headquarters in Northern NJ and assume that CO will capture all the traffic?

And, of the biz people who work at those NJ corporations who DO fly AA and UA out of EWR, well, they're just not worth the extra services that biz people flying transcon out of JFK are entitled to?

This has always baffled me!

[Edited 2004-12-07 22:04:01]

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4763 times:

>And, of the biz people who work at those NJ corporations who DO fly AA and UA out of EWR, well, they're just not worth the extra services that biz people flying transcon out of JFK are entitled to?<

Even 2 of the largest airlines in the world (including the largest) can only spread their resources so thin. Both have much more history and more extensive ops at JFK, especially for international connections, which business people on the west coast and midwest want. This is why there are so many Onepass members in the NY/NJ area but so many AAdvantage and MileagePlus members in LA, SF, Chicago, DFW, etc.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4755 times:


Both have much more history and more extensive ops at JFK, especially for international connections,

I agree with the history part of your statement, as UA and AA have never treated EWR with respect, however UA has practically NO international connections at JFK.


User currently offlineLUV4JFK From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4658 times:

AA & UA never treated EWR with respect? You've got to be kidding me. AA & UA each have at least 9 flights a day to ORD from EWR while JFK has not one flight to ORD from UA or AA. With 2 major airports that close, you can't give the same service everywhere. You have to pick and choose. Some frequencies are larger at EWR such as DFW, ATL, & ORD while others are larger at JFK like SFO, LAX, & FLL. If that were the case, CO would have the same amount of flights to JFK as they do to EWR.

LUV4JFK
 Big thumbs up



John F. Kennedy International Airport: Where America Greets The World.
User currently offlineCory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

Somewhat unrelated, does anyone know what airline at EWR gets all of the corporate contracts for NJ-based companies? I noticed a "Corporate Select" set of checkin desks at the far left side of the domestic checkin area (near international baggage recheck), and there were logos for all of the companies allowed to use the desk. I saw many large corporations based in NJ on the board - Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Ingersoll-Rand, Hertz, etc.

User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4572 times:


AA & UA never treated EWR with respect? You've got to be kidding me. AA & UA each have at least 9 flights a day to ORD from EWR while JFK has not one flight to ORD from UA or AA.

But they have more flights from LGA (JFK's "domestic terminal") to ORD than EWR-ORD.

That isn't my point, though. I'm talking on the JFK-LAX/SFO "prestige" routes.

Apparently flying JFK-LAX/SFO is a prestigious route, while flying EWR-LAX/SFO is just plain flying, according to AA and UA.

Also, just look at the history - UA, AA (and TW for that matter) always dedicated widebody a/c on this route, while from EWR, UA usually flew DC8s and the rare D10 and AA and TW flew predominantly 707s.

True, that was then, prior to the big corporate headquarter buildup in northern NJ, but things have changed. Manhattan no longer has a monopoly on corporate headquarters and high end biz travellers who use JFK.


User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 961 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4513 times:

United use to have flights to Heathrow from EWR but stopped since 9/11

User currently offlineSdkualeb From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

United flt to LHR stopped Oct 2003 not after 9/11. I to believe that United is throwing in the towel at EWR. It is sad too see, you talk about Northern Jersey and all the corporate head quarters, there is also a lot of new business going up in Jersey City and Bayonne. Also Bayonne not has Ports that has cruise ship they leave from there. there is so much puritanical and they are just letting it go bye. So many 1Ks 2Ps 1Ps, would rather commute in from NYC to EWR then sit in traffic getting to JFK. United has just given up at EWR at one time they had over 30 flts a day that I remember and I know at one time there were a lot more.

User currently offlineFA4UA From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 812 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4301 times:

To say United "has given up on EWR" sounds a little bit dramatic.

United's competitive advantage in the EWR market, and other competitor's mega-hubs, is simply to pull traffic from that location and feed our Pacific Operation via SFO and ORD. Since we offer more non-stop flights to Asia from the US than any other carrier, we're just feeding those planes from all over the system, including the heavily CO entrenched EWR marketplace.

There's no way UA would dedicate 777's and 763's with PTV's for this market. The number one decision driver of our business traveler for ticket purchase IS NOT PTVs! It's schedule and connectivity!
CO owns EWR, as UA owns DEN, SFO, and IAD. We know when to pick our battles. We're simply allocating our assets to make the most yield in our own dominant markets.

FA4UA



The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

I think that UA & CO should merge, then UA could have a good position at JFK & EWR. I think that their route systems complement each other well.

User currently offlineSdkualeb From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

We know when to pick our battles. We're simply allocating our assets to make the most yield in our own dominant markets.

Translation ( We gave up on EWR) I just spent 8 long years to just watch EWR melt and give into CO. And now I have nothing to show for it. For a short period we were able to fill a 777 to SFO. When the 777 went to DEN I would take DBs all the time. And only a 1/4 was Int Cx Paxs and it wasn't snow season. 757 to SFO would have 50-60 Paxs want to UG with only 24 seats, it would have sometimes over 100 premiers and higher booked on the flt. They all wanted Aisle and Economy Plus seats. I was a little hard to keep them all happy SO being they didn't get what they want who knows how many went to fly 767 from the other side of the airport. Its SO sad to see how they just pushed paxs away and makes me very angry. After all that I now have to drive a truck for a plumbing supply store  Sad


User currently offlineLaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4009 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have to agree that the runs between LAX, SFO-EWR-LAX, SFO are not of equal value of the runs AA & UA offer on their JFK services. I know there a lot of folks in NY who prefer to use EWR because it's easier to get to than JFK.

CO wins on these routings hands down and good for them. I recently saw a pic of a meal on airliners.net on a UA flight EWR-LAX and it was really, really bad nothing compared to their JFK runs.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4176 times:

"We know when to pick our battles."

Not really - UA could have kicked the crap out of CO at EWR through the late 1990s, but instead decided to tilt at windmills in IAD and MIA instead. Besides, the UA rollback at EWR only came as a result of the 2000 SFH - before then, UA controlled a much higher share of EWR premium traffic, and held many of the EWR-based Fortune 500 contracts.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4140 times:

UA used to have a very good product between EWR-LAX/SFO, and at one point they also served SAN nonstop from EWR.

At least one LAX flight was operated with one of the various forms of 767 in UA's fleet, the rest were 757 and later, A320. SFO got mostly 757s and A320s, and SAN I believe was a 757 while it operated.

My company briefly had an agreement with UA, around 1996-1997, and had nonstop service to most of the cities we did business in at that time. As our division grew, so did our list of client cities, and eventually CO became the best option due to their extensive nonstop route network and overall better package than United.

I recall excellent meals up front on UA, attentive, classy service and a generally consistent product. I recently did EWR-DEN-SFO-EWR on UA since I needed to go directly between meetings in DEN and SFO on the same day, and received an upgrade on the 757 SFO-EWR (buddy of mine is a UA SFO-based pilot, he helped me out  Smile) and service levels have definitely declined. Looking at the overall transcon picture, CO's F service is superior to UA's two-class First, but it didn't always used to be that way.


User currently offlineFlyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

I remember AA flying DC-10's from EWR to LAX, I saw one when I went to pick up my aunt when I was a kid. I remember it was parked next to a DC-9 and it looked soooo big compared.

User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

N62NA....take a look at CO's operations in Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Dulles. CO isn't much of a factor in those HUB cities for United and American, despite (using your argument) the huge business and population presence in those cities. Newark is a CO hub and that's why UA, AA, NW et. al. aren't as big there. So, despite the fact that you might live near there, Newark is not the center of the universe  Smile. Maybe someday United will add its new premium 757 service to the EWR-SFO/LAX routes, too. I'm sure they'll wait until they evaluate how it's doing out of JFK.

User currently offlineUA744KSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

How can anyone say that CO wins the prize when it comes to flights from Newark to SFO and LAX when they're now operating 738's on these routes?

User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3975 times:

Ummm... to further what UA744KSFO said, looking at Continental Airlines timetable for flights today between LAX and EWR, here are the aircraft flying it:
738
762
752
738
738
753

What the heck are you talking about, "CO offers widebodies"? I see just one -- a 762. Frankly, AA and UA own the West Coast originating LA/SF-NYC market. Whether it's on AA's TEN 762s per day from LAX-JFK, or Uniteds new (fantastic) PS service, CO just can't compete with their 737-800s. Sorry. Obviously UA and AA have chosen to concentrate their trans-con operations at JFK, rather than EWR. I don't see CO flying trans-con to JFK, I wonder why?


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

"What the heck are you talking about, "CO offers widebodies"? I see just one -- a 762. Frankly, AA and UA own the West Coast originating LA/SF-NYC market. Whether it's on AA's TEN 762s per day from LAX-JFK, or Uniteds new (fantastic) PS service, CO just can't compete with their 737-800s. Sorry. Obviously UA and AA have chosen to concentrate their trans-con operations at JFK, rather than EWR. I don't see CO flying trans-con to JFK, I wonder why?"

1. CO rotates widebodies and BF-configured 757s on the transcon schedule based on market demand.

2. The market share data recently cited on a.net about NYC-LAX/SFO metro area traffic flows indicates that AA/UA don't "own" jack when it comes to transcon flying - they're definitely big players, but don't even come close to comprising a de facto duopoly on the routes.

3. CO won't operate transcons ex-JFK because its management isn't stupid enough to ignore its EWR hub strengths and premium traffic.

[Edited 2004-12-08 21:14:06]


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3871 times:


N62NA.... So, despite the fact that you might live near there, Newark is not the center of the universe

Close! Grew up in Northern NJ and used EWR as my home airport for my first 38 years on the planet. Have since moved to MIAA...

take a look at CO's operations in Denver, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Dulles. CO isn't much of a factor in those HUB cities for United and American, despite (using your argument) the huge business and population presence in those cities. Newark is a CO hub and that's why UA, AA, NW et. al. aren't as big there.

I don't believe the economic base of any of those cities approaches the base of biz travellers in central and northern NJ, Staten Island, lower Manhattan, the westside of Manhattan and Rockland County NY, not to mention part of Westchester NY which all feed into EWR.

So, I still stand by my statement that according to UA and AA, biz people who fly transcon out of EWR, well, they're just not worth the extra services that biz people flying transcon out of JFK are entitled to?


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

N62NA:

Chicago has a lot of money. Tons of Fortune 500 companies, and the nation's largest exporter.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

So, I still stand by my statement that according to UA and AA, biz people who fly transcon out of EWR, well, they're just not worth the extra services that biz people flying transcon out of JFK are entitled to?

Apparently, according to CO, biz people flying out of EWR aren't worth it either. (see the aircraft they utilize on the route for proof)


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4454 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3810 times:


Apparently, according to CO, biz people flying out of EWR aren't worth it either. (see the aircraft they utilize on the route for proof)

Good point, though it's not an equipment related issue per se, as UA is using 757s with their new PS service. It's more of a "they don't give a damn about the EWR traveller compared to the JFK traveller" apparently.


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

I still don't see it as "not giving a damn". It's playing to their strength (much like CO is). UA and AA both offer trans-cons to EWR. They offer MORE (and with bigger/better planes) to JFK. CO does not even offer service to JFK, so couldn't we switch the question around and say, hey, CO, you should start giving a damn about the Long Island/Eastern Manhattan/Brooklyn/Queens-area traffic! It goes both ways, and the fact that AA and UA have transcons to EWR at all says that they give a damn about northern New Jersey.

User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13086 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

UA and AA are still significant players at EWR, with a number of key international and mainline domestic services, as it is a important market for their airlines. Yes, they have lost ground to CO as EWR is a major hub at EWR, but CO will not or cannot take all of the business originating from the NYC/northern NJ market. Many companies, even those HQ'ed or with major operations in NYC metro market, have volume fare discount contracts with AA & UA and not CO, as serve better other major sites of those businesses, like in the Chicago, Phoenix, Dallas or Charlotte (NC) markets. As EWR is CO's hub, it pays for them to operate more widebody service in/out of EWR than AA and UA. AA and UA are also largly hubbed in other markets, with Dallas and Chicago respectivly so. Also don't forget that DL has a major international hub at JFK and has recently expanded domestic, including transcon services at JFK.

25 AAplatnumflier : If AA and UA dont even fly a 777 out of JFK what makes you think they would have the ability or even have the demand for a 777 out of EWR?? As much as
26 Jacobin777 : AAplatnumflier....i agree, even though AA flies 10 flights from LAX-JFK and UA flies 5 from LAX-JFK...... for AA to fly 10 767's...its got to be some
27 Mymiles2go : Why don't people seem to get it on this board? Airlines are in the business of making MONEY - not satisfying some random A.net forum poster who doesn'
28 N62NA : All great responses, thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. This isn't really about widebodies or lack thereof, as now UA has redefined with t
29 AAplatnumflier : My opinion AA is already starting by adding those lie flat business class beds in Business. I think with the delivery of those few more 777's I think
30 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : AA the opertunity to fly the 763 back and forth between LAX-JFK ...good thing it wont give them the opportunity to, 'cause they wouldn't want it
31 FLY777UAL : Oddly enough, in the late 90's United tested out their enhanced onboard service on all trans-con and mid-con flights to/from EWR. No other markets. In
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Late-night JFK-SFO/LAX Flights On UA/AA? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 06:47:30 by RJpieces
How Many In $116 Trillion Lawsuit Were On UA/AA? posted Fri Aug 16 2002 05:52:56 by Bobcat
Here's the skinny on UA/AA in ORD!! posted Thu Mar 18 1999 00:37:19 by wackylink
Significance Of Flag On UA Gate @EWR? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 22:13:32 by 22right
Service On IAD - SFO On UA Nonstop posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:51:31 by Eastern023
Plastic Gloves On UA Economy Meal Service posted Sat Sep 16 2006 00:33:48 by LH417AF025
NON-REV Upgrade On UA For OAL? posted Sat Jul 1 2006 02:52:58 by Malaysia
Come On Boeing, Name Your New Plane! posted Fri Dec 31 2004 13:18:54 by Intheknow
777 On UA Transcon posted Mon Jan 12 2004 20:17:08 by Benjamin
How To Get An Upgrade On UA Longhaul posted Thu Dec 11 2003 01:57:03 by Industrybuff