Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT?  
User currently offlineUA933 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 220 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5975 times:

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

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

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


united - It's time to fly!
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

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

User currently offlineKanebear From United States of America, joined May 2002, 953 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

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

User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5876 times:

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

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

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


No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

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

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


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

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

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


User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8913 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5806 times:

Quoting UA933 (Thread starter):

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

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

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

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


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5757 times:

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

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

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



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5645 times:

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

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


User currently offlineAntonovman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 724 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5610 times:

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

User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5582 times:

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

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


User currently offlineElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5571 times:

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

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


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6532 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5561 times:

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

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


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5561 times:

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

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

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

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



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineChicagoFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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


User currently offlinePlanecrazy2 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 615 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

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

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



United Airlines - Worldwide Service
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5467 times:

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

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


User currently offlineAloha73G From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2372 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

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

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

-Aloha!



Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

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



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

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

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



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

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

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


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26147 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

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

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

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



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

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

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

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



Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
User currently offlineContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5141 times:

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

User currently offlineJFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3626 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

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

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

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

Major Players in NY:

At LGA:

American
Delta
USAirways

At JFK:
American
Delta
jetBlue

At EWR:

Continental

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

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

PJ


User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5014 times:

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

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

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

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


No Vueling No Party
25 SJUSXM : Even that is debatable because UA considers NRT a hub.
26 EXAAUADL : AA has much more feed and they have been in the market for much longer than UAL. Also you cant just look at JFK. AA has a much larger city presence i
27 SeeTheWorld : Actually, the LAX flights are the least profitable of the four gateways (not including JFK), and I've heard they sometimes are marginal. I suspect th
28 FlyDreamliner : Huh, now I would have thought continental myself. JFK was never good for UA, too much competition, and they never really wanted to commit to a large
29 Tommy767 : Speak for yourself. CO is more specifically Northern NJ's hometown airline. I miss the days of the "beefed up" EWR operation back in the 1990s. The o
30 Post contains links UAL777UK : UA, certainly want to ramp up IAD. UA Applies For IAD-PEK (by BigGSFO Aug 15 2006 in Civil Aviation)
31 NonRev : **First Post** So many reasons though why long haul ops were cancelled... Loss making route Equipment better used elsewhere No need for 777 maintainan
32 Jetdeltamsy : My thoughts behind my comment are that AA has had a major presence in NYC since the 1940's. Continental only became huge there after its acquisition
33 AASTEW : CO really just became respectful in the NYC area just about 10yrs ago. All before then they really didn't have much force in the NYC area. Yes, I also
34 Dutchjet : I really think that most are making this more complicated than it really is.......UA has reduced its presense in the NYC area (at one time, UA had far
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...
Official; UA Shifting JFK-NRT/ceasing JFK-LHR posted Fri Jul 28 2006 15:36:15 by Gman3
UA JFK-LHR, Will It Survive? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 15:35:57 by ContinentalEWR
Why No Late-night JFK-SFO/LAX Flights On UA/AA? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 06:47:30 by RJpieces
If UA Go Bust, Who Will Fill In Their LHR Slots posted Tue May 17 2005 23:41:52 by Lazyshaun
Will Be Flying Air India JFK-LHR posted Sat Feb 21 2004 04:52:41 by Pacificflyer
Why 2 UA 744s At LHR This Morning? posted Mon Nov 24 2003 14:25:09 by Mozart
UA Daylight Flight JFK-LHR posted Wed Apr 30 2003 06:02:07 by ContinentalEWR
UA JFK-LHR, Only 1 Flight? posted Mon Apr 14 2003 03:55:06 by ContinentalEWR
Why Does UA Only Fly To LHR In The UK posted Wed Nov 7 2001 17:27:53 by Arsenal@LHR
UA JFK-LHR posted Sat Aug 25 2001 19:46:30 by ContinentalEWR