UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

United p.s. Question

Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:32 am

Is United p.s. still 757 or have they upgauged it to 777/787 it seems like ever since UA moved p.s. services from JFK to EWR UA has seemed to assign larger aircraft to fly there p.s. routes?
 
AaronPGH
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:13 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:35 am

I have caught almost every type of UA aircraft that has a flat bed being rotated in for ps service. From 78X, to 772s, 773er, and 757s.
 
questions
Posts: 2023
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:39 am

UA no longer uses a sub fleet branded United PS.

In fact, according to their website, United PS branding is dead:

https://www.united.com/web/en-us/content/travel/inflight/premium-services.aspx?POS=US

Instead UA flies internationally configured aircraft with lie flat seats in J on “our premium transcontinental routes” offering “our premium transcontinental service.”
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:44 pm

Does UA fly 777-200ER on EWR-SFO/LAX?
 
airzona11
Posts: 1536
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:01 pm

questions wrote:
UA no longer uses a sub fleet branded United PS.

In fact, according to their website, United PS branding is dead:

https://www.united.com/web/en-us/content/travel/inflight/premium-services.aspx?POS=US

Instead UA flies internationally configured aircraft with lie flat seats in J on “our premium transcontinental routes” offering “our premium transcontinental service.”


But there is the hi-J 28 seat version and the standard 16.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:30 pm

 
questions
Posts: 2023
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:31 pm

airzona11 wrote:
questions wrote:
UA no longer uses a sub fleet branded United PS.

In fact, according to their website, United PS branding is dead:

https://www.united.com/web/en-us/content/travel/inflight/premium-services.aspx?POS=US

Instead UA flies internationally configured aircraft with lie flat seats in J on “our premium transcontinental routes” offering “our premium transcontinental service.”


But there is the hi-J 28 seat version and the standard 16.


Yes, you are correct. It was my understanding that the Hi-J subfleet was no longer dedicated to premium transcontinental routes. If so, I stand corrected.
 
seat1a
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:40 pm

Slightly off, but what happened to United's 'The Coast' service?
 
Ionosphere
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:46 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:41 pm

I flew on the 28 seat J 752 BOS-SFO last month.
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:47 pm

BOS-LAX on UA is now lie-flat 757 as well (ex-CO configuration) but not sure if it's marketed as "Coastal Comfort" service (or whatever it's called these days.)
 
smi0006
Posts: 2300
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:01 pm

N649DL wrote:
BOS-LAX on UA is now lie-flat 757 as well (ex-CO configuration) but not sure if it's marketed as "Coastal Comfort" service (or whatever it's called these days.)


How many service brands do they they? What’s does coastal comfort offer? Or simply an update to PS?
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:13 pm

smi0006 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
BOS-LAX on UA is now lie-flat 757 as well (ex-CO configuration) but not sure if it's marketed as "Coastal Comfort" service (or whatever it's called these days.)


How many service brands do they they? What’s does coastal comfort offer? Or simply an update to PS?


"United Coast" was a rumored new name for p.s. They never actually went ahead with it...or at least not yet. Instead, they've phased out p.s., and any reference to lie-flat service on EWR-SFO/LAX and SFO-BOS is described plainly as "premium transcontinental service."
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:24 pm

smi0006 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
BOS-LAX on UA is now lie-flat 757 as well (ex-CO configuration) but not sure if it's marketed as "Coastal Comfort" service (or whatever it's called these days.)


How many service brands do they they? What’s does coastal comfort offer? Or simply an update to PS?


It's pretty vague to be honest with you but Menu cards just say Boston, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles with no printed branding except "Welcome Aboard" at the top. UA is in a bit of an identity crisis since they pulled out of JFK, IMHO (and I think they regret it too.)
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:12 am

P.S. has been dead for several years now...
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 1:31 am

N649DL wrote:
smi0006 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
BOS-LAX on UA is now lie-flat 757 as well (ex-CO configuration) but not sure if it's marketed as "Coastal Comfort" service (or whatever it's called these days.)


How many service brands do they they? What’s does coastal comfort offer? Or simply an update to PS?


It's pretty vague to be honest with you but Menu cards just say Boston, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles with no printed branding except "Welcome Aboard" at the top. UA is in a bit of an identity crisis since they pulled out of JFK, IMHO (and I think they regret it too.)


UA has an identity crisis because they pulled out of JFK? Huh?? They sure do regret it and Scott Kirby knows it was a mistake to pull out of JFK, and an idiotic one under Smisek. It will be tough for UA to get back in. They lost a lot of corporate contracts because of that decision. That said, UA has no identity crisis stemming from a decision 5 years ago to stop flying out of JFK. DL does not suffer from an identity crisis because it has shrunk its EWR service, now has it?
 
flyer56
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:02 am

They initially branded it "Cross Country Comfort" and today they fly any plane with flat bed sets in first. All types. As a frequent p.s. traveler over the yeas I was asked to fill out a survey on the name and the services. I truthfully told them to me the name does not denote premium anything and sounds more like economy class with some of the rough edges sanded down. I guess enough other people gave negative feedback and they no longer capitalize it as Cross Country Comfort.

p.s. had some equity as a sub brand, they should have continued using the name and dropped painting it on the side of the aircraft.
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:43 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
smi0006 wrote:

How many service brands do they they? What’s does coastal comfort offer? Or simply an update to PS?


It's pretty vague to be honest with you but Menu cards just say Boston, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles with no printed branding except "Welcome Aboard" at the top. UA is in a bit of an identity crisis since they pulled out of JFK, IMHO (and I think they regret it too.)


UA has an identity crisis because they pulled out of JFK? Huh?? They sure do regret it and Scott Kirby knows it was a mistake to pull out of JFK, and an idiotic one under Smisek. It will be tough for UA to get back in. They lost a lot of corporate contracts because of that decision. That said, UA has no identity crisis stemming from a decision 5 years ago to stop flying out of JFK. DL does not suffer from an identity crisis because it has shrunk its EWR service, now has it?


Kirby is a numbers guy and was likely reading into the corporate contracts that didn't follow UA to EWR as a result and/or went to the competition out of JFK as a result. IMHO, a huge deal when the competition AA/DL/B6 fly out of all 3 NYC airports and UA doesn't.

DL shrunk at EWR from a TATL perspective but has upped capacity by flying hourly 737s on EWR-ATL by the fall (ditching the M88/M90/717 for the most part) and starting EWR-BOS and retaining EWR-RDU. It's a different strategy altogether but refurbishing the SkyClub and gate areas show that DL is still present at EWR for the most part.
 
smi0006
Posts: 2300
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:45 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:46 am

flyer56 wrote:
They initially branded it "Cross Country Comfort" and today they fly any plane with flat bed sets in first. All types. As a frequent p.s. traveler over the yeas I was asked to fill out a survey on the name and the services. I truthfully told them to me the name does not denote premium anything and sounds more like economy class with some of the rough edges sanded down. I guess enough other people gave negative feedback and they no longer capitalize it as Cross Country Comfort.

p.s. had some equity as a sub brand, they should have continued using the name and dropped painting it on the side of the aircraft.


Is there much difference between this service and international business (Polaris?)? Why not brand it as Polaris and rest domestic first?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:50 am

seat1a wrote:
Slightly off, but what happened to United's 'The Coast' service?

are you referring to "Ocean to Ocean" service?
 
GoSharks
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:30 am

smi0006 wrote:
flyer56 wrote:
They initially branded it "Cross Country Comfort" and today they fly any plane with flat bed sets in first. All types. As a frequent p.s. traveler over the yeas I was asked to fill out a survey on the name and the services. I truthfully told them to me the name does not denote premium anything and sounds more like economy class with some of the rough edges sanded down. I guess enough other people gave negative feedback and they no longer capitalize it as Cross Country Comfort.

p.s. had some equity as a sub brand, they should have continued using the name and dropped painting it on the side of the aircraft.


Is there much difference between this service and international business (Polaris?)? Why not brand it as Polaris and rest domestic first?

Polaris has more dessert options, Polaris Lounge access, and expanded bedding options.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:06 pm

N649DL wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

It's pretty vague to be honest with you but Menu cards just say Boston, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles with no printed branding except "Welcome Aboard" at the top. UA is in a bit of an identity crisis since they pulled out of JFK, IMHO (and I think they regret it too.)


UA has an identity crisis because they pulled out of JFK? Huh?? They sure do regret it and Scott Kirby knows it was a mistake to pull out of JFK, and an idiotic one under Smisek. It will be tough for UA to get back in. They lost a lot of corporate contracts because of that decision. That said, UA has no identity crisis stemming from a decision 5 years ago to stop flying out of JFK. DL does not suffer from an identity crisis because it has shrunk its EWR service, now has it?


Kirby is a numbers guy and was likely reading into the corporate contracts that didn't follow UA to EWR as a result and/or went to the competition out of JFK as a result. IMHO, a huge deal when the competition AA/DL/B6 fly out of all 3 NYC airports and UA doesn't.

DL shrunk at EWR from a TATL perspective but has upped capacity by flying hourly 737s on EWR-ATL by the fall (ditching the M88/M90/717 for the most part) and starting EWR-BOS and retaining EWR-RDU. It's a different strategy altogether but refurbishing the SkyClub and gate areas show that DL is still present at EWR for the most part.


Kirby joined UA from AA in 2016, two years after United closed JFK. The fact that AA/DL/B6 all fly out of JFK/LGA/EWR and UA doesn't really isn't the issue here when we're talking about NYC to LAX/SFO premium traffic. Regardless, UA is missing out on key contracts and additional market share, by not serving JFK and Kirby has stated they would like to get back in but at the right price and with the right aircraft.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3533
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 12:14 pm

questions wrote:

Yes, you are correct. It was my understanding that the Hi-J subfleet was no longer dedicated to premium transcontinental routes. If so, I stand corrected.

It is still a dedicated fleet, it's just not a large fleet so it's a smaller percent if the total departures.
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:30 pm

Rdh3e wrote:
questions wrote:

Yes, you are correct. It was my understanding that the Hi-J subfleet was no longer dedicated to premium transcontinental routes. If so, I stand corrected.

It is still a dedicated fleet, it's just not a large fleet so it's a smaller percent if the total departures.


There's only 15 of the PMUA 28-J product so it's really stretched thin as it is. Actually it might be down to 14 since one has been down for MX for a bit. There are quite a few frames in storage that UAL can pull from should things ever get desperate.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:34 am

N649DL wrote:

Kirby is a numbers guy and was likely reading into the corporate contracts that didn't follow UA to EWR as a result and/or went to the competition out of JFK as a result. IMHO, a huge deal when the competition AA/DL/B6 fly out of all 3 NYC airports and UA doesn't.


https://www.oag.com/blog/billion-dollar ... he-network

While Kirby is on record saying he believes it was a mistake for UA to close JFK and he would like to return but at the right price the one thing Kirby has done is make UA very competitive at EWR. Kirby has re-energized EWR which is evident based on the OAG numbers released just this year. People love to think UA is at a disadvantage because we don't serve JFK but yet UA's SFO-EWR route came in at number 5 on OAG's list of the top 10 routes beating out AA's LAX-JFK route.

OAG dove a little deeper and looked at the top 10 North American routes and UA's SFO-EWR came in second on that list again beating AA's LAX-JFK and UA's LAX-EWR route came in at number 7 on the list topping DL's 9th place finish for their LAX-JFK route.

As much as people Kirby included say it was a mistake leaving JFK, I think it was the best decision Smisek ever made during his time as CEO given the limited aircraft with lie flat seating UA had at the time. Before UA closed JFK and moved those assets to EWR most of our EWR-SFO/LAX flights were on 739ERs and 738s our premium passenger at EWR were not happy and were demanding the same level of service UA passengers at JFK were receiving. On top of that these routes weren't on the 10 list of most profitable routes, in North America and (SFO-EWR) in the world and now they are.

There is no question that JFK is an important airport but since Kirbys arrival he has shown that EWR can be just as competitive and successful at EWR.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3913
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:19 am

I would say it’s likely UA enters JFK again even with a token presence. Likewise with OAK. I don’t think UA is actively shopping for slots at JFK, but like they’ve done with theused narrowbody purchases if the right combo of slots and real estate comes available at the right price I don’t see them passing the opportunity.

I’ve heard several rumors that OAK will return again shortly. I don’t know much about that market though, I’d assume it would be part of their DEN growth strategy.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
questions
Posts: 2023
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:01 am

[twoid][/twoid]
N649DL wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
questions wrote:

Yes, you are correct. It was my understanding that the Hi-J subfleet was no longer dedicated to premium transcontinental routes. If so, I stand corrected.

It is still a dedicated fleet, it's just not a large fleet so it's a smaller percent if the total departures.


There's only 15 of the PMUA 28-J product so it's really stretched thin as it is. Actually it might be down to 14 since one has been down for MX for a bit. There are quite a few frames in storage that UAL can pull from should things ever get desperate.


Again, I stand corrected on the fleet.
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:19 am

jayunited wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Kirby is a numbers guy and was likely reading into the corporate contracts that didn't follow UA to EWR as a result and/or went to the competition out of JFK as a result. IMHO, a huge deal when the competition AA/DL/B6 fly out of all 3 NYC airports and UA doesn't.


https://www.oag.com/blog/billion-dollar ... he-network

While Kirby is on record saying he believes it was a mistake for UA to close JFK and he would like to return but at the right price the one thing Kirby has done is make UA very competitive at EWR. Kirby has re-energized EWR which is evident based on the OAG numbers released just this year. People love to think UA is at a disadvantage because we don't serve JFK but yet UA's SFO-EWR route came in at number 5 on OAG's list of the top 10 routes beating out AA's LAX-JFK route.

OAG dove a little deeper and looked at the top 10 North American routes and UA's SFO-EWR came in second on that list again beating AA's LAX-JFK and UA's LAX-EWR route came in at number 7 on the list topping DL's 9th place finish for their LAX-JFK route.

As much as people Kirby included say it was a mistake leaving JFK, I think it was the best decision Smisek ever made during his time as CEO given the limited aircraft with lie flat seating UA had at the time. Before UA closed JFK and moved those assets to EWR most of our EWR-SFO/LAX flights were on 739ERs and 738s our premium passenger at EWR were not happy and were demanding the same level of service UA passengers at JFK were receiving. On top of that these routes weren't on the 10 list of most profitable routes, in North America and (SFO-EWR) in the world and now they are.

There is no question that JFK is an important airport but since Kirbys arrival he has shown that EWR can be just as competitive and successful at EWR.


It was understood that EWR was not "PS" hence why they saw a variety of aircraft on the EWR-LAX/SFO routes with everything from the 738 all the way up to the 764. The high-J 757s were strictly designated for JFK-LAX/SFO and were converted rather quickly after the merger (some ex-CO 757s were also on these routes as well.) EWR-LAX/SFO served as typical "hub to hub" routes and didn't need to market itself as anything premium. Not to mention the fact that transiting through EWR is anywhere close to a premium type of experience either, in fact more of a giant PITA compared to JFK.

Smisek was in severe cost cutting mode and cutting JFK was on the list of the things to do before he was forced for resign. He also made some serious other goofs like closing CLE (a hub which UAL commanded nearly 80% of the overall market share) and refusing and/or lacking to do anything about merging work groups or dealing with scope clause on the E145 VS. E170 fleet. His stewardship at UAL was beyond lethal and UAL is surely still paying the price because of it. He was completely unfit for the position and it showed when he got caught red handed with his crooked dealing with the Port Authority.

The other big thing with UAL closing JFK was cutting off the feed to other Star Alliance carriers who don't wish to serve EWR but still relied on the JFK-LAX/SFO routes served by UA. So no, I disagree overall that leaving JFK was any sort of strategic decision other than for Smisek to save a few extra bucks to erode the competition over to DL/AA/B6. Everything the guy touched essentially led to controversy or disaster.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13872
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:33 pm

What Star carriers are at Kennedy but not EWR, ORD, IAD, LAX or SFO? The answer is none.

Pre merger United was desperately short narrow body mainline after Tilton retired all the 733 and 735s replacing them with CR7s and ER70s. The closing of CLE and reallocating those assists made sense. Just as closing CVG and MEM made sense for DL to reallocate those assets to ATL, DTW and MSP.

AA didn’t close any hubs right after their merger with US, but today Kennedy is definitely suffering while they reallocate assets to PHL.

UA leaving Kennedy was ultimately a mistake just because UA needs to serve it to maintain a large network. Smisek thought UA needed to retrench to home markets to become more profitable. Munez and Kirby have UA growing again to regain their natural market position. International wise UA is in the best position , it’s their domestic network that needs to grow.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
jayunited
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:25 pm

N649DL wrote:
It was understood that EWR was not "PS" hence why they saw a variety of aircraft on the EWR-LAX/SFO routes with everything from the 738 all the way up to the 764. The high-J 757s were strictly designated for JFK-LAX/SFO and were converted rather quickly after the merger (some ex-CO 757s were also on these routes as well.) EWR-LAX/SFO served as typical "hub to hub" routes and didn't need to market itself as anything premium. Not to mention the fact that transiting through EWR is anywhere close to a premium type of experience either, in fact more of a giant PITA compared to JFK.

Smisek was in severe cost cutting mode and cutting JFK was on the list of the things to do before he was forced for resign. He also made some serious other goofs like closing CLE (a hub which UAL commanded nearly 80% of the overall market share) and refusing and/or lacking to do anything about merging work groups or dealing with scope clause on the E145 VS. E170 fleet. His stewardship at UAL was beyond lethal and UAL is surely still paying the price because of it. He was completely unfit for the position and it showed when he got caught red handed with his crooked dealing with the Port Authority.

The other big thing with UAL closing JFK was cutting off the feed to other Star Alliance carriers who don't wish to serve EWR but still relied on the JFK-LAX/SFO routes served by UA. So no, I disagree overall that leaving JFK was any sort of strategic decision other than for Smisek to save a few extra bucks to erode the competition over to DL/AA/B6. Everything the guy touched essentially led to controversy or disaster.


Below is a quote from an old New York Times article.

"United Airlines said on Tuesday that it would move out of Kennedy International Airport in October, after failing to make a profit there for seven years, and will shift all of its flights to Los Angeles and San Francisco to its hub in Newark.

The change will allow United to provide its premium services — which it calls “p.s.” — for business travelers in Newark for all of its West Coast flights. Those premium cabins, installed on about a dozen Boeing 757s, are currently available only out of Kennedy.

United said it had not made a profit on the West Coast routes partly because its passengers had no options to connect once they landed at Kennedy. It has also faced increasing competition from JetBlue Airways, Delta Air Lines and American Airlines battling over the busy transcontinental market."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/busi ... ewark.html

The first reconfigured P.S. 757 took off from LAX on March 13, 2013 which happened to be years after the merger with CO, and as you can see from the New York times UA had been loosing money on the transcon flights for at least 7 years and that was no secret. Also as you can see from the Times article UA provided very little feed to Star Alliance carriers at JFK. In fact JFK for the most part basically served 2 routes for UA they were SFO and LAX at one point in time UA did have flights to IAD but nothing else at JFK post merger.

So you say Smisek's decision to close JFK and upguaged EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX service to lie flat seats was a disaster and purely a cost cutting move and yet OAG in an article posted on August 19, 2019 showing the highest revenue flights in the world and the highest revenue flights in North America stated UA's EWR-SFO-EWR route is the 5th highest revenue generator in the world and the 2nd highest in North America. The on top of that UA's EWR-LAX-EWR is the 7th highest revenue generator in North America.

So UA has gone from loosing money on JFK/EWR-SFO/LAX to having 2 of the highest revenue generating flights in North America and 1 (SFO-EWR-SFO) in the world and yet you call it disastrous . :shakehead: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The rest of you post about CLE has nothing to do with the thread which is about United p.s. not about United's history since the merger. Whether you agree or not leaving JFK for EWR was the right decision at that time, the numbers, and the facts don't lie.
 
United1
Posts: 3861
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:57 pm

N649DL wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
questions wrote:

Yes, you are correct. It was my understanding that the Hi-J subfleet was no longer dedicated to premium transcontinental routes. If so, I stand corrected.

It is still a dedicated fleet, it's just not a large fleet so it's a smaller percent if the total departures.


There's only 15 of the PMUA 28-J product so it's really stretched thin as it is. Actually it might be down to 14 since one has been down for MX for a bit. There are quite a few frames in storage that UAL can pull from should things ever get desperate.


14 High-J 752s in service with the 15th having been retired and per the last fleet plan another two to go a bit later this year. There was talk of bringing the 15th one back to help cover for the MAX groundings but that never materialized. Theoretically you could put some of the stored 752s back into service but realistically that is a pipe dream. All of them are 1989-1992 vintage and have been sitting in the desert for the last four or five years awaiting their fate. As far as I know it's not something UA has even been considering even with the MAX groundings.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:05 pm

jayunited wrote:
N649DL wrote:
It was understood that EWR was not "PS" hence why they saw a variety of aircraft on the EWR-LAX/SFO routes with everything from the 738 all the way up to the 764. The high-J 757s were strictly designated for JFK-LAX/SFO and were converted rather quickly after the merger (some ex-CO 757s were also on these routes as well.) EWR-LAX/SFO served as typical "hub to hub" routes and didn't need to market itself as anything premium. Not to mention the fact that transiting through EWR is anywhere close to a premium type of experience either, in fact more of a giant PITA compared to JFK.

Smisek was in severe cost cutting mode and cutting JFK was on the list of the things to do before he was forced for resign. He also made some serious other goofs like closing CLE (a hub which UAL commanded nearly 80% of the overall market share) and refusing and/or lacking to do anything about merging work groups or dealing with scope clause on the E145 VS. E170 fleet. His stewardship at UAL was beyond lethal and UAL is surely still paying the price because of it. He was completely unfit for the position and it showed when he got caught red handed with his crooked dealing with the Port Authority.

The other big thing with UAL closing JFK was cutting off the feed to other Star Alliance carriers who don't wish to serve EWR but still relied on the JFK-LAX/SFO routes served by UA. So no, I disagree overall that leaving JFK was any sort of strategic decision other than for Smisek to save a few extra bucks to erode the competition over to DL/AA/B6. Everything the guy touched essentially led to controversy or disaster.


Below is a quote from an old New York Times article.

"United Airlines said on Tuesday that it would move out of Kennedy International Airport in October, after failing to make a profit there for seven years, and will shift all of its flights to Los Angeles and San Francisco to its hub in Newark.

The change will allow United to provide its premium services — which it calls “p.s.” — for business travelers in Newark for all of its West Coast flights. Those premium cabins, installed on about a dozen Boeing 757s, are currently available only out of Kennedy.

United said it had not made a profit on the West Coast routes partly because its passengers had no options to connect once they landed at Kennedy. It has also faced increasing competition from JetBlue Airways, Delta Air Lines and American Airlines battling over the busy transcontinental market."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/busi ... ewark.html

The first reconfigured P.S. 757 took off from LAX on March 13, 2013 which happened to be years after the merger with CO, and as you can see from the New York times UA had been loosing money on the transcon flights for at least 7 years and that was no secret. Also as you can see from the Times article UA provided very little feed to Star Alliance carriers at JFK. In fact JFK for the most part basically served 2 routes for UA they were SFO and LAX at one point in time UA did have flights to IAD but nothing else at JFK post merger.

So you say Smisek's decision to close JFK and upguaged EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX service to lie flat seats was a disaster and purely a cost cutting move and yet OAG in an article posted on August 19, 2019 showing the highest revenue flights in the world and the highest revenue flights in North America stated UA's EWR-SFO-EWR route is the 5th highest revenue generator in the world and the 2nd highest in North America. The on top of that UA's EWR-LAX-EWR is the 7th highest revenue generator in North America.

So UA has gone from loosing money on JFK/EWR-SFO/LAX to having 2 of the highest revenue generating flights in North America and 1 (SFO-EWR-SFO) in the world and yet you call it disastrous . :shakehead: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The rest of you post about CLE has nothing to do with the thread which is about United p.s. not about United's history since the merger. Whether you agree or not leaving JFK for EWR was the right decision at that time, the numbers, and the facts don't lie.


UA and CO didn't really start cross fleeting their operations until 2012 (a few flights like EWR-GVA/ZRH were on sUA metal while sCO was still fully intact in 2010-2011.) Smisek wasn't really known for any authenticity as CEO so I question his honesty and as to why they would go public to say that PS hasn't been profitable in over 7 years (talk about shooting yourself in the foot to the press.) Also why Kirby stepped in and probably heavily questioned why they pulled out in the first place as Oscar probably shrugged it off.

United1 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
Rdh3e wrote:
It is still a dedicated fleet, it's just not a large fleet so it's a smaller percent if the total departures.


There's only 15 of the PMUA 28-J product so it's really stretched thin as it is. Actually it might be down to 14 since one has been down for MX for a bit. There are quite a few frames in storage that UAL can pull from should things ever get desperate.


14 High-J 752s in service with the 15th having been retired and per the last fleet plan another two to go a bit later this year. There was talk of bringing the 15th one back to help cover for the MAX groundings but that never materialized. Theoretically you could put some of the stored 752s back into service but realistically that is a pipe dream. All of them are 1989-1992 vintage and have been sitting in the desert for the last four or five years awaiting their fate. As far as I know it's not something UA has even been considering even with the MAX groundings.


??? All 14 or 15 are still active in the fleet and have been committed to getting the certification projects to keep them in the air longer like their sCO 757 counterparts. Where does it say they're going away by the end of the year?

UA doesn't really have a plan for this except for to maybe hang onto the 763s a little bit longer. Their already planning on possibly making the MAX as replacements for the 757s on certain routes but that's a risk considering how long the MAX program has been banned so far.
 
United1
Posts: 3861
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:22 pm

N649DL wrote:

14 High-J 752s in service with the 15th having been retired and per the last fleet plan another two to go a bit later this year. There was talk of bringing the 15th one back to help cover for the MAX groundings but that never materialized. Theoretically you could put some of the stored 752s back into service but realistically that is a pipe dream. All of them are 1989-1992 vintage and have been sitting in the desert for the last four or five years awaiting their fate. As far as I know it's not something UA has even been considering even with the MAX groundings.


??? All 14 or 15 are still active in the fleet and have been committed to getting the certification projects to keep them in the air longer like their sCO 757 counterparts. Where does it say they're going away by the end of the year?
.[/quote]

There are currently 14 active High-J 752s in UAs fleet. Per the last fleet plan UA published two of those 14 are scheduled to be retired a bit later this year. I never said all of them would be retired by the end of the year just that a couple of them would be. Not sure what "certification projects" you are referring to...all of them already have NGS installed.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3931
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:26 pm

UA857 wrote:
Is United p.s. still 757 or have they upgauged it to 777/787 it seems like ever since UA moved p.s. services from JFK to EWR UA has seemed to assign larger aircraft to fly there p.s. routes?

the PS thing is Long Gone,,
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:27 pm

United1 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

14 High-J 752s in service with the 15th having been retired and per the last fleet plan another two to go a bit later this year. There was talk of bringing the 15th one back to help cover for the MAX groundings but that never materialized. Theoretically you could put some of the stored 752s back into service but realistically that is a pipe dream. All of them are 1989-1992 vintage and have been sitting in the desert for the last four or five years awaiting their fate. As far as I know it's not something UA has even been considering even with the MAX groundings.


??? All 14 or 15 are still active in the fleet and have been committed to getting the certification projects to keep them in the air longer like their sCO 757 counterparts. Where does it say they're going away by the end of the year?
.


There are currently 14 active High-J 752s in UAs fleet. Per the last fleet plan UA published two of those 14 are scheduled to be retired a bit later this year. I never said all of them would be retired by the end of the year just that a couple of them would be. Not sure what "certification projects" you are referring to...all of them already have NGS installed.[/quote]

I just checked and you're right only 2 are to go which means down to 13 so I wonder if they'll reactivate any 757s (especially with the sCO 757 frame that's going to be scrapped after the EWR incident as well.) especially if the MAX bans continue. Looks like 4 of 7 763s are also getting Polaris meaning only 3 retirements at this point, less than IIRC they planned for. Hard to keep track of the 763s in general at the moment.

https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfle ... t-tracking
 
questions
Posts: 2023
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:29 am

strfyr51 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Is United p.s. still 757 or have they upgauged it to 777/787 it seems like ever since UA moved p.s. services from JFK to EWR UA has seemed to assign larger aircraft to fly there p.s. routes?

the PS thing is Long Gone,,


Agree. It is now “premium transcontinental service” on “premium transcontinental routes.” (Source: united.com)

The question is whether or not there is still a sub-fleet being used on the routes.

Do any aircraft in the Hi-J sub-fleet fly international routes?

Do other internationally configured aircraft rotate onto the premium transcontinental routes?

Will UA replace the existing Hi-J sub-fleet in the future or will network planners just rotate internationally configured aircraft onto the premium transcontinental routes?
 
VC10er
Posts: 4095
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:49 am

At the time of launch of the special 752 subfleet ps, 3 class - it was a great innovative step up from old “762 ‘n Things” that preceded ps.
I flew those transcons fairly often and bounced around between AA, UA even TWA L-1011s. I don’t recall what Delta was doing, or if PanAm connected JFK to SFO/LAX with special service? However those transcontinental flights always had “something” a bit special as they were long domestic flights across the USA. (I recall the ENORMOUS difference between Biz and First back then on a UA 762. Business was indeed better than economy, yet far less glam than First. (Once I was returning from SFO to JFK, in Biz, which was fuller in the front of the business cabin - I was sitting towards the back left of the cabin which was much emptier for some unexplainable reason, yet passengers were still boarding and I was praying the empty aisle seat next to me would remain empty. Then someone a bit famous entered Biz left aisle on the right side. The somewhat famous person was Ann Coulter! I detest Ann Coulter and I was absolutely terrified she’d sit next to me! My heart started pounding because she started starring at me intensely. “Please God NO, please!” Those seats were just slightly bigger than coach seats, but with a bit more recline and a footrest. Fortunately she found her seat: my row but opposite window- however still she shamelessly kept starring at me? Maybe she thought I was cute? I was much younger. That story is 1 reason I love seats like Polaris!
But back then nobody ever even could foresee bed seats. Nothing even close to a bed seat had yet appeared even internationally.
So, back to ps, seeing international business lounge chairs in leather, Singapore Biz seats in First was a WOW moment! When completed, ps really was industry leading, w personal tape players, Westin duvets and beautiful new interiors. It did, for a little while, feel very special.

Today is a hodgepodge of aircraft from EWR. I will always find and book the 78X. I don’t think hodgepodges are good for a brand in anyway. While UA is rocking it elsewhere, one day, (IF) they want to truly OWN transcon, I’d recommend the following:
- Be as constant as possible (at least all EWR-SFO/LAX) with a great Polaris “inspired” design and atmosphere
- Become truly COSAST TO COAST, and add IAD, BOS, MIA perhaps with 737MAX-10 w new flatbed First
- Update and add new additional UC’s (EWR!!!)
- Behind First add 2/3 rows of Premium Economy (either the new purple or new domestic F seat
- SUB BRAND IT WITH A GREAT “EVOCATIVE” NAME (by “evocative” I mean a name that evokes premium coast to cost. Not a name that requires an explanation, Ex: NOT something like Avilon or something that says nothing, but something like, (example only) “UNITED C2C Services”

IMHO!!! R
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:02 pm

VC10er wrote:
At the time of launch of the special 752 subfleet ps, 3 class - it was a great innovative step up from old “762 ‘n Things” that preceded ps.
I flew those transcons fairly often and bounced around between AA, UA even TWA L-1011s. I don’t recall what Delta was doing, or if PanAm connected JFK to SFO/LAX with special service? However those transcontinental flights always had “something” a bit special as they were long domestic flights across the USA. (I recall the ENORMOUS difference between Biz and First back then on a UA 762. Business was indeed better than economy, yet far less glam than First. (Once I was returning from SFO to JFK, in Biz, which was fuller in the front of the business cabin - I was sitting towards the back left of the cabin which was much emptier for some unexplainable reason, yet passengers were still boarding and I was praying the empty aisle seat next to me would remain empty. Then someone a bit famous entered Biz left aisle on the right side. The somewhat famous person was Ann Coulter! I detest Ann Coulter and I was absolutely terrified she’d sit next to me! My heart started pounding because she started starring at me intensely. “Please God NO, please!” Those seats were just slightly bigger than coach seats, but with a bit more recline and a footrest. Fortunately she found her seat: my row but opposite window- however still she shamelessly kept starring at me? Maybe she thought I was cute? I was much younger. That story is 1 reason I love seats like Polaris!
But back then nobody ever even could foresee bed seats. Nothing even close to a bed seat had yet appeared even internationally.
So, back to ps, seeing international business lounge chairs in leather, Singapore Biz seats in First was a WOW moment! When completed, ps really was industry leading, w personal tape players, Westin duvets and beautiful new interiors. It did, for a little while, feel very special.

Today is a hodgepodge of aircraft from EWR. I will always find and book the 78X. I don’t think hodgepodges are good for a brand in anyway. While UA is rocking it elsewhere, one day, (IF) they want to truly OWN transcon, I’d recommend the following:
- Be as constant as possible (at least all EWR-SFO/LAX) with a great Polaris “inspired” design and atmosphere
- Become truly COSAST TO COAST, and add IAD, BOS, MIA perhaps with 737MAX-10 w new flatbed First
- Update and add new additional UC’s (EWR!!!)
- Behind First add 2/3 rows of Premium Economy (either the new purple or new domestic F seat
- SUB BRAND IT WITH A GREAT “EVOCATIVE” NAME (by “evocative” I mean a name that evokes premium coast to cost. Not a name that requires an explanation, Ex: NOT something like Avilon or something that says nothing, but something like, (example only) “UNITED C2C Services”

IMHO!!! R


United launched "ps" in 2004 when it was already in Bankruptcy. The 762 fleet at UA was being rapidly phased out (these were among the oldest 762s flying around at the time and part of UA's fleet rationalization post 9/11 and while in Chapter 11). At the time, AA was flying 762s in a 3 class cabin layout and was the market leader. DL was nowhere near as dominant at JFK then as it is now. The DL ramp up at JFK began in earnest after it exited Chapter 11 and the merger with NW was underway though the investments in JFK were already being made. In 2004 Delta was operating out of the combined Pan Am Worldport (Terminal 3) and the adjacent Terminal 2. "ps" was launched with a lot of publicity, advertising, and a focus on the supposed premium experience in United First and United Business. The economy class cabin was all Economy Plus until around 2011-2012, when Smisek increased the density on the UA ps fleet, had the original First and Business Class cabins replaced with the CO Business First seat and product. The original Business Class on the UA 757 assigned to ps featured seats from Lufthansa. They were wide, leather, heavily padded, and brown. The best row on that plane was Row 9. There was unlimited legroom due to the positioning of the Emergency Exit in front.

UA ps featured 7 daily nonstops from JFK to SFO and 6 daily nonstops to LAX. Before UA closed JFK, the operation was based out of Terminal 7 and featured a huge United Club which had been virtually unchanged since the days of UA's TPAC and LHR service at JFK. Today, that club is the Alaska Airlines lounge, I believe.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1370
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:39 pm

questions wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Is United p.s. still 757 or have they upgauged it to 777/787 it seems like ever since UA moved p.s. services from JFK to EWR UA has seemed to assign larger aircraft to fly there p.s. routes?

the PS thing is Long Gone,,


Agree. It is now “premium transcontinental service” on “premium transcontinental routes.” (Source: united.com)

The question is whether or not there is still a sub-fleet being used on the routes.

Do any aircraft in the Hi-J sub-fleet fly international routes?

Do other internationally configured aircraft rotate onto the premium transcontinental routes?

Will UA replace the existing Hi-J sub-fleet in the future or will network planners just rotate internationally configured aircraft onto the premium transcontinental routes?

Yes, there is still a subfleet. The 14 PW 752's with 28 J seats fly only to those 4 cities, EWR, BOS, LAX and SFO, but they are not enough for all the frequencies between the cities. The RR752's with 16 J seats, are technically an International fleet, but UA has been flying fewer European routes with them, so they are free to fly more Transcon routes, and even some mid-con routes. They can be seen to DEN, IAH, and Florida even. In addition, some widebody aircraft can be flown between EWR and LAX/SFO, either for re-positioning or because they have downtime. When they do, they are considered part of the Premium Transcontinental Service, because they have lie flat beds as well.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4095
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:12 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
At the time of launch of the special 752 subfleet ps, 3 class - it was a great innovative step up from old “762 ‘n Things” that preceded ps.
I flew those transcons fairly often and bounced around between AA, UA even TWA L-1011s. I don’t recall what Delta was doing, or if PanAm connected JFK to SFO/LAX with special service? However those transcontinental flights always had “something” a bit special as they were long domestic flights across the USA. (I recall the ENORMOUS difference between Biz and First back then on a UA 762. Business was indeed better than economy, yet far less glam than First. (Once I was returning from SFO to JFK, in Biz, which was fuller in the front of the business cabin - I was sitting towards the back left of the cabin which was much emptier for some unexplainable reason, yet passengers were still boarding and I was praying the empty aisle seat next to me would remain empty. Then someone a bit famous entered Biz left aisle on the right side. The somewhat famous person was Ann Coulter! I detest Ann Coulter and I was absolutely terrified she’d sit next to me! My heart started pounding because she started starring at me intensely. “Please God NO, please!” Those seats were just slightly bigger than coach seats, but with a bit more recline and a footrest. Fortunately she found her seat: my row but opposite window- however still she shamelessly kept starring at me? Maybe she thought I was cute? I was much younger. That story is 1 reason I love seats like Polaris!
But back then nobody ever even could foresee bed seats. Nothing even close to a bed seat had yet appeared even internationally.
So, back to ps, seeing international business lounge chairs in leather, Singapore Biz seats in First was a WOW moment! When completed, ps really was industry leading, w personal tape players, Westin duvets and beautiful new interiors. It did, for a little while, feel very special.

Today is a hodgepodge of aircraft from EWR. I will always find and book the 78X. I don’t think hodgepodges are good for a brand in anyway. While UA is rocking it elsewhere, one day, (IF) they want to truly OWN transcon, I’d recommend the following:
- Be as constant as possible (at least all EWR-SFO/LAX) with a great Polaris “inspired” design and atmosphere
- Become truly COSAST TO COAST, and add IAD, BOS, MIA perhaps with 737MAX-10 w new flatbed First
- Update and add new additional UC’s (EWR!!!)
- Behind First add 2/3 rows of Premium Economy (either the new purple or new domestic F seat
- SUB BRAND IT WITH A GREAT “EVOCATIVE” NAME (by “evocative” I mean a name that evokes premium coast to cost. Not a name that requires an explanation, Ex: NOT something like Avilon or something that says nothing, but something like, (example only) “UNITED C2C Services”

IMHO!!! R


United launched "ps" in 2004 when it was already in Bankruptcy. The 762 fleet at UA was being rapidly phased out (these were among the oldest 762s flying around at the time and part of UA's fleet rationalization post 9/11 and while in Chapter 11). At the time, AA was flying 762s in a 3 class cabin layout and was the market leader. DL was nowhere near as dominant at JFK then as it is now. The DL ramp up at JFK began in earnest after it exited Chapter 11 and the merger with NW was underway though the investments in JFK were already being made. In 2004 Delta was operating out of the combined Pan Am Worldport (Terminal 3) and the adjacent Terminal 2. "ps" was launched with a lot of publicity, advertising, and a focus on the supposed premium experience in United First and United Business. The economy class cabin was all Economy Plus until around 2011-2012, when Smisek increased the density on the UA ps fleet, had the original First and Business Class cabins replaced with the CO Business First seat and product. The original Business Class on the UA 757 assigned to ps featured seats from Lufthansa. They were wide, leather, heavily padded, and brown. The best row on that plane was Row 9. There was unlimited legroom due to the positioning of the Emergency Exit in front.

UA ps featured 7 daily nonstops from JFK to SFO and 6 daily nonstops to LAX. Before UA closed JFK, the operation was based out of Terminal 7 and featured a huge United Club which had been virtually unchanged since the days of UA's TPAC and LHR service at JFK. Today, that club is the Alaska Airlines lounge, I believe.


THANKS and interesting! I’M ACTUALLY SHOCKED! Because had you asked me what year those special 752s with 3 classes, I wouldn’t have remembered! I cannot remember dates or numbers!
But I do have photographic memory! And recall every detail of everything.

“IF” you were flying First on ps (or 1k) you could use the First Class section of the Red Carpet Club at JFK, glass doors to the left of reception (guarded by 2 very large porcelain Chinese dogs) The First Class lounge was slightly redecorated (or enhanced) to coincide with the launch of ps. United’s parter hotel was Westin* (don’t know the extent of that Westin partnership, might have been limited to ps) because the pillows and duvets aboard were supplied by Westin. UA had created a zen-like peace and quiet space ala Westin in the First Class lounge- did you ever see it? It was a bit schizophrenic in design terms: the UA First Class lounge was very traditional; wing back chairs with floral upholstery, silk flower arrangements in fanciful brass pots, a lot of dark wood, and faux Ming vases, etc. (I saw many celebrities in there over the years!)

What UA added was, if you walked behind the back side wall, a renovated section was revealed: the back of the separator wall were about 100 square nooks, each nook had 1 flickering electric candle in each. The middle of the wall had a large flatscreen TV that looped a video of calming images, (a stream in the woods, ocean waves, blowing palm trees and turquoise waters, etc etc) All modern and square lined furnishings, chairs and 1 chaise lounge/daybed w a bizarre sunlamp over the daybed and a large modern coffee table with a succulent arrangement in the middle with black river stones. (Real succulents look like plastic, these were plastic) - all taupe leather (pre-merger UA had a small love affair with taupe for many years): this new space was meant to soothe the nerves of stressed biz people, preflight and offered water infused with Asian spices. I believe a similar one existed at SFO’s large RCC with the rotunda, in the back were there were many (often unused) wooden business cubbies.
I can see it all in my head right now as if I were there last night!
My mind is BLOWN because if that it was 2004, that means I was flying UA virtually exclusively since October 1991, 13 years doing 175k to 250k “BIS” United miles a year! I only remember that time/date because that was a very BIG year for me. I had turned 30, and started working at Landor October 1991. It was a lot of flying, and since Landor HQ was in SF, I was very often in First Class on UA transcons. Either using paper regional upgrades, or comped-up.
So from 1991 to 2004 weren’t all UA transcon flights operated by 762’s? How old could they have been? Not that old, maybe 10 years old in 1991???
I do recall being surprised that the smaller, single aisle 752 had the range. (I knew far less about aviation at 30, no internet yet, no a.net- but always loved flying and airplanes.
One correction: the 2004 752 ps First Class seats were angled flats in dark blue, and were from Singapore Business. I don’t know if UA took them used from Singapore or just bought the same seat in same color. I knew it because I’d often fly a Singapore 747 in J from JFK to Frankfurt. They were NOT comfortable! They looked really nice upon boarding, but when fully flat (but angled) there was a rock hard bump that spanned the seat width and placed right at your lower back/hips which made side sleeping actually painful.
And you are spot on! Row 9 of business was the BEST, 10ft if open space in front of you, and those international recliners UA had were SO comfortable. Except for being leather, the recline on the ps 752 did not go back nearly as far as their international, grey cloth counterparts. On international Biz, those recliners went back “almost” flat! (Which also meant that on a long flight the guy in front of you, his comb-over-dandruffed head was only 2 ft in front of your eyes and hovering almost over your dinner table!

I do remember when those 3 class ps 752’s were reconfigured to the 2 class Diamond seat. In one way they were much better as they were real BED seats. But the “stylishness” of the original ps was gone. AA I believe upped their game and took all the celebrities in LA away from UA with a much more Private First Class, and moving to EWR almost made transcon just another domestic flight, but with Diamond seats. Smisek made ZERO attempt to make those transcons special.

It would be really awesome to see UA do something innovative and take back the unique and premium brand perception!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1243
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:08 pm

VC10er wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
At the time of launch of the special 752 subfleet ps, 3 class - it was a great innovative step up from old “762 ‘n Things” that preceded ps.
I flew those transcons fairly often and bounced around between AA, UA even TWA L-1011s. I don’t recall what Delta was doing, or if PanAm connected JFK to SFO/LAX with special service? However those transcontinental flights always had “something” a bit special as they were long domestic flights across the USA. (I recall the ENORMOUS difference between Biz and First back then on a UA 762. Business was indeed better than economy, yet far less glam than First. (Once I was returning from SFO to JFK, in Biz, which was fuller in the front of the business cabin - I was sitting towards the back left of the cabin which was much emptier for some unexplainable reason, yet passengers were still boarding and I was praying the empty aisle seat next to me would remain empty. Then someone a bit famous entered Biz left aisle on the right side. The somewhat famous person was Ann Coulter! I detest Ann Coulter and I was absolutely terrified she’d sit next to me! My heart started pounding because she started starring at me intensely. “Please God NO, please!” Those seats were just slightly bigger than coach seats, but with a bit more recline and a footrest. Fortunately she found her seat: my row but opposite window- however still she shamelessly kept starring at me? Maybe she thought I was cute? I was much younger. That story is 1 reason I love seats like Polaris!
But back then nobody ever even could foresee bed seats. Nothing even close to a bed seat had yet appeared even internationally.
So, back to ps, seeing international business lounge chairs in leather, Singapore Biz seats in First was a WOW moment! When completed, ps really was industry leading, w personal tape players, Westin duvets and beautiful new interiors. It did, for a little while, feel very special.

Today is a hodgepodge of aircraft from EWR. I will always find and book the 78X. I don’t think hodgepodges are good for a brand in anyway. While UA is rocking it elsewhere, one day, (IF) they want to truly OWN transcon, I’d recommend the following:
- Be as constant as possible (at least all EWR-SFO/LAX) with a great Polaris “inspired” design and atmosphere
- Become truly COSAST TO COAST, and add IAD, BOS, MIA perhaps with 737MAX-10 w new flatbed First
- Update and add new additional UC’s (EWR!!!)
- Behind First add 2/3 rows of Premium Economy (either the new purple or new domestic F seat
- SUB BRAND IT WITH A GREAT “EVOCATIVE” NAME (by “evocative” I mean a name that evokes premium coast to cost. Not a name that requires an explanation, Ex: NOT something like Avilon or something that says nothing, but something like, (example only) “UNITED C2C Services”

IMHO!!! R


United launched "ps" in 2004 when it was already in Bankruptcy. The 762 fleet at UA was being rapidly phased out (these were among the oldest 762s flying around at the time and part of UA's fleet rationalization post 9/11 and while in Chapter 11). At the time, AA was flying 762s in a 3 class cabin layout and was the market leader. DL was nowhere near as dominant at JFK then as it is now. The DL ramp up at JFK began in earnest after it exited Chapter 11 and the merger with NW was underway though the investments in JFK were already being made. In 2004 Delta was operating out of the combined Pan Am Worldport (Terminal 3) and the adjacent Terminal 2. "ps" was launched with a lot of publicity, advertising, and a focus on the supposed premium experience in United First and United Business. The economy class cabin was all Economy Plus until around 2011-2012, when Smisek increased the density on the UA ps fleet, had the original First and Business Class cabins replaced with the CO Business First seat and product. The original Business Class on the UA 757 assigned to ps featured seats from Lufthansa. They were wide, leather, heavily padded, and brown. The best row on that plane was Row 9. There was unlimited legroom due to the positioning of the Emergency Exit in front.

UA ps featured 7 daily nonstops from JFK to SFO and 6 daily nonstops to LAX. Before UA closed JFK, the operation was based out of Terminal 7 and featured a huge United Club which had been virtually unchanged since the days of UA's TPAC and LHR service at JFK. Today, that club is the Alaska Airlines lounge, I believe.


THANKS and interesting! I’M ACTUALLY SHOCKED! Because had you asked me what year those special 752s with 3 classes, I wouldn’t have remembered! I cannot remember dates or numbers!
But I do have photographic memory! And recall every detail of everything.

“IF” you were flying First on ps (or 1k) you could use the First Class section of the Red Carpet Club at JFK, glass doors to the left of reception (guarded by 2 very large porcelain Chinese dogs) The First Class lounge was slightly redecorated (or enhanced) to coincide with the launch of ps. United’s parter hotel was Westin* (don’t know the extent of that Westin partnership, might have been limited to ps) because the pillows and duvets aboard were supplied by Westin. UA had created a zen-like peace and quiet space ala Westin in the First Class lounge- did you ever see it? It was a bit schizophrenic in design terms: the UA First Class lounge was very traditional; wing back chairs with floral upholstery, silk flower arrangements in fanciful brass pots, a lot of dark wood, and faux Ming vases, etc. (I saw many celebrities in there over the years!)

What UA added was, if you walked behind the back side wall, a renovated section was revealed: the back of the separator wall were about 100 square nooks, each nook had 1 flickering electric candle in each. The middle of the wall had a large flatscreen TV that looped a video of calming images, (a stream in the woods, ocean waves, blowing palm trees and turquoise waters, etc etc) All modern and square lined furnishings, chairs and 1 chaise lounge/daybed w a bizarre sunlamp over the daybed and a large modern coffee table with a succulent arrangement in the middle with black river stones. (Real succulents look like plastic, these were plastic) - all taupe leather (pre-merger UA had a small love affair with taupe for many years): this new space was meant to soothe the nerves of stressed biz people, preflight and offered water infused with Asian spices. I believe a similar one existed at SFO’s large RCC with the rotunda, in the back were there were many (often unused) wooden business cubbies.
I can see it all in my head right now as if I were there last night!
My mind is BLOWN because if that it was 2004, that means I was flying UA virtually exclusively since October 1991, 13 years doing 175k to 250k “BIS” United miles a year! I only remember that time/date because that was a very BIG year for me. I had turned 30, and started working at Landor October 1991. It was a lot of flying, and since Landor HQ was in SF, I was very often in First Class on UA transcons. Either using paper regional upgrades, or comped-up.
So from 1991 to 2004 weren’t all UA transcon flights operated by 762’s? How old could they have been? Not that old, maybe 10 years old in 1991???
I do recall being surprised that the smaller, single aisle 752 had the range. (I knew far less about aviation at 30, no internet yet, no a.net- but always loved flying and airplanes.
One correction: the 2004 752 ps First Class seats were angled flats in dark blue, and were from Singapore Business. I don’t know if UA took them used from Singapore or just bought the same seat in same color. I knew it because I’d often fly a Singapore 747 in J from JFK to Frankfurt. They were NOT comfortable! They looked really nice upon boarding, but when fully flat (but angled) there was a rock hard bump that spanned the seat width and placed right at your lower back/hips which made side sleeping actually painful.
And you are spot on! Row 9 of business was the BEST, 10ft if open space in front of you, and those international recliners UA had were SO comfortable. Except for being leather, the recline on the ps 752 did not go back nearly as far as their international, grey cloth counterparts. On international Biz, those recliners went back “almost” flat! (Which also meant that on a long flight the guy in front of you, his comb-over-dandruffed head was only 2 ft in front of your eyes and hovering almost over your dinner table!

I do remember when those 3 class ps 752’s were reconfigured to the 2 class Diamond seat. In one way they were much better as they were real BED seats. But the “stylishness” of the original ps was gone. AA I believe upped their game and took all the celebrities in LA away from UA with a much more Private First Class, and moving to EWR almost made transcon just another domestic flight, but with Diamond seats. Smisek made ZERO attempt to make those transcons special.

It would be really awesome to see UA do something innovative and take back the unique and premium brand perception!


Yes, UA was operating all 762s on JFK-LAX/SFO until they were replaced with the ps configured 757s. One JFK-SFO rotation I think would occasionally see a 767-300ER and in some cases, even a 777 before and after the switch to the 752. The 763s and 772s were not a regular occurrence but subbed in when a 752 went tech. The UA 762 fleet was older by 2004. Most were built and delivered from 1982 onward, so the oldest would have been 22 years old, not ancient, but in bankruptcy, UA probably figured the cost of overhauling a wide body was more expensive than jazzing up a 752. The UA 757s in ps configuration were not really all that luxurious, but there was a tie in with Westin for the pillows and blankets / duvets, and food was decidedly better (interestingly, the on board catering was played up substantially when ps first launched, but UA did cut back a lot not long after and the experience pretty much was the same food wise relative to AA and DL. The planes sported the newer blue livery faster and the words "premium service" were featured on the fuselage adjacent to the boarding door but in smaller letters, similar in size to the "worldwide service" markings on the battleship grey livery.

By the time the 2-class Diamond seat configuration was in place, American had announced it would replace the 762s with the A321T which began rolling out onto the LAX/SFO routes from JFK in 2014. The competition at JFK intensified further with DL adding more frequencies and some wide bodies at certain times, and when B6 launched MINT, the shine was long gone from ps. Stupidly, Smisek pulled the plug on JFK and consolidated at EWR in a cost cutting move that the current UA management team know was a big mistake, even if EWR-SFO on UA is one of the airline's most profitable routes.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4095
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:17 pm

cosyr wrote:
questions wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
the PS thing is Long Gone,,


Agree. It is now “premium transcontinental service” on “premium transcontinental routes.” (Source: united.com)

The question is whether or not there is still a sub-fleet being used on the routes.

Do any aircraft in the Hi-J sub-fleet fly international routes?

Do other internationally configured aircraft rotate onto the premium transcontinental routes?

Will UA replace the existing Hi-J sub-fleet in the future or will network planners just rotate internationally configured aircraft onto the premium transcontinental routes?

Yes, there is still a subfleet. The 14 PW 752's with 28 J seats fly only to those 4 cities, EWR, BOS, LAX and SFO, but they are not enough for all the frequencies between the cities. The RR752's with 16 J seats, are technically an International fleet, but UA has been flying fewer European routes with them, so they are free to fly more Transcon routes, and even some mid-con routes. They can be seen to DEN, IAH, and Florida even. In addition, some widebody aircraft can be flown between EWR and LAX/SFO, either for re-positioning or because they have downtime. When they do, they are considered part of the Premium Transcontinental Service, because they have lie flat beds as well.


Another thought! I LOVE when I find a 752 to Denver or Florida, or 763 or 772 to IAH. Does anyone know how many “domestic” flat bed seats fly everyday on UA (excluding the expected SFO/LAX) but considering other very long narrow body flights? Does UA have more or less the same amount of domestic lie-flats as AA & DL? Even considering Canada & Mexico?

I would love to see a day when 4/5+ hour flights! Such as EWR to Palm Springs or Vegas, or SFO to FLL & MIA, ORD to Mexico or Caribbean nonstop, even EWR to San Diego, etc or Mexico or Western Canada, etc, etc. The thought of flying a UA 737-800 for 5+ hours in that OLD F seat is a nightmare. I would absolutely prefer E+.

My unrealistic DREAM was that there would be enough 737M-10’s with a newly designed flatbed seat “virtually” guaranteeing that when flying United “domestic/NA long haul”. United is most premium.

Of course I could be very wrong, but I would think a United ad claim, something like: “Most Domestic & North American First Class Bed Seats on flights over 4.5 Hours than any other airline by a Mile!” - naturally UA would cost more for First, HOWEVER the “new” NYC (especially Manhattan) out of EWR (even LGA within the parameter) (and SF too) are such wealthy cities, real estate is out of control expensive, yet the apartments all sell, studios for $1.2 million! If you threw a tennis ball blindfolded, almost anywhere in Manhattan, the likelihood of it hitting a very wealthy person is is probably 6/7 out of 10! It’s out of control, there was always room for the middle class, but no more! I have lived here 57 years, I cannot believe how rich and exclusive Manhattan has become. UA could grab an enormous share of the “NEW” West Side, Hudson Yards, ALL downtown, financial district and due to EWR’s proximity UA could maybe pull it off? Even NJ along the Hudson is getting a handful of super tall office and residential towers each year. “Follow the Money”
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:53 pm

N649DL wrote:
UA and CO didn't really start cross fleeting their operations until 2012 (a few flights like EWR-GVA/ZRH were on sUA metal while sCO was still fully intact in 2010-2011.) Smisek wasn't really known for any authenticity as CEO so I question his honesty and as to why they would go public to say that PS hasn't been profitable in over 7 years (talk about shooting yourself in the foot to the press.) Also why Kirby stepped in and probably heavily questioned why they pulled out in the first place as Oscar probably shrugged it off.


It has taken me some time to do my research when UA pulled the plug at JFK we only had 26 daily slots a far cry from where UA was at JFK even when I start at UA. When UA left JFK we weren't even using all 26 of those slots we had 7 SFO flights and 6 LAX flights and I believe 3-4 flights to IAD, everything else had been canceled. Not to get off topic but this is related Kirby also regrets the fact UA leased/sold their LHR slots. I believe past CEO's sold or leased out a total of 4 LHR slots, those decisions hampered UA. Although we finally got a year around slot for DEN-LHR this year, UA still wants to go daily double LAX-LHR during IATA summer Kirby regrets that decision as well. How does that tie in because I believe the last 2 slot UA either sold or leased out were our JFK-LHR slots. UA's JFK operation was loosing money before Smiseks arrival because past CEO's mismanaged UA and JFK. I'm not giving Smisek a pass I agree with you Smisek was not a authentic person or CEO and he almost put the nail in the coffin UA had been constructing before his arrival.

Now lets take a look at EWR just prior to UA's departure from JFK, in particular let us look at the transcon routes. Summer 2015 UA's EWR-SFO route had 16 daily departures (9x 738s, 1x A319, 2x 757s (s-CO) 3x 739ERs) only 2 of 16 flights had lie flat seating. EWR-LAX was at 14 daily flights (2x A319s, 6x 739ERs, 1x 738, 1x 753 and 4x 752s (s-CO)) 4 of 10 flights lie flat seats.

With most of the s-CO 752s still being used for international routes out of EWR what choice did UA have back then to give premium customers at EWR what they wanted while still keeping JFK open? You can question Smirks honesty (I will give you the CLE de-hub not profitable was a lie just talk to any s-CO employee) but if you look at UA's history and our decline at JFK that decline started long before Smisek and it was no secret that UA at JFK was bleeding money. I get it fast forward to 2019 and everyone is saying it was a mistake. But what no one not even Kirby says or addresses it what UA should have done with the limited resources we had in 2015.

Another thing that bugs me is people say UA should have stayed. However there is nothing preventing UA from going back into JFK right now. There are slots available in the morning and evening (after 7 pm). Even though there are no primetime slot available UA could relaunch both SFO and LAX today. Those morning and evening departures from JFK could link up with afternoon and late night international departures fromSFO and LAX. Also on the flip side looking at how much money UA is making off EWR-SFO/LAX why is it that the only direct competitor UA has on these routes is Alaska Airlines? Why isn't AA, DL, or B6 flying EWR-SFO or EWR-LAX? As you already pointed out DL flies almost hourly departures EWR-ATL, they are launching BOS and RDU from EWR. But yet no DL, no AA and no B6 on EWR-SFO/LAX why it that especially seeing EWR is not slot controlled? Could it be the reason they aren't on the EWR-SFO/LAX routes is for the same reason UA isn't on JFK-SFO/LAX. Airlines are driven by cost even one as highly successful as DL just look at DL's now canceled EWR-AMS route. DL couldn't make money on the route and canceled it. Apples to oranges I know but UA's JFK operation was not making money hadn't made money for years before Smisek. I stand by my believe that closing JFK was the ONLY smart decision Smisek ever made during his time at UA because it set up EWR-SFO/LAX for success. Now in 2019 EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX are some of the most profitable routes in North America and the World.
 
N649DL
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:15 pm

jayunited wrote:
N649DL wrote:
UA and CO didn't really start cross fleeting their operations until 2012 (a few flights like EWR-GVA/ZRH were on sUA metal while sCO was still fully intact in 2010-2011.) Smisek wasn't really known for any authenticity as CEO so I question his honesty and as to why they would go public to say that PS hasn't been profitable in over 7 years (talk about shooting yourself in the foot to the press.) Also why Kirby stepped in and probably heavily questioned why they pulled out in the first place as Oscar probably shrugged it off.


It has taken me some time to do my research when UA pulled the plug at JFK we only had 26 daily slots a far cry from where UA was at JFK even when I start at UA. When UA left JFK we weren't even using all 26 of those slots we had 7 SFO flights and 6 LAX flights and I believe 3-4 flights to IAD, everything else had been canceled. Not to get off topic but this is related Kirby also regrets the fact UA leased/sold their LHR slots. I believe past CEO's sold or leased out a total of 4 LHR slots, those decisions hampered UA. Although we finally got a year around slot for DEN-LHR this year, UA still wants to go daily double LAX-LHR during IATA summer Kirby regrets that decision as well. How does that tie in because I believe the last 2 slot UA either sold or leased out were our JFK-LHR slots. UA's JFK operation was loosing money before Smiseks arrival because past CEO's mismanaged UA and JFK. I'm not giving Smisek a pass I agree with you Smisek was not a authentic person or CEO and he almost put the nail in the coffin UA had been constructing before his arrival.

Now lets take a look at EWR just prior to UA's departure from JFK, in particular let us look at the transcon routes. Summer 2015 UA's EWR-SFO route had 16 daily departures (9x 738s, 1x A319, 2x 757s (s-CO) 3x 739ERs) only 2 of 16 flights had lie flat seating. EWR-LAX was at 14 daily flights (2x A319s, 6x 739ERs, 1x 738, 1x 753 and 4x 752s (s-CO)) 4 of 10 flights lie flat seats.

With most of the s-CO 752s still being used for international routes out of EWR what choice did UA have back then to give premium customers at EWR what they wanted while still keeping JFK open? You can question Smirks honesty (I will give you the CLE de-hub not profitable was a lie just talk to any s-CO employee) but if you look at UA's history and our decline at JFK that decline started long before Smisek and it was no secret that UA at JFK was bleeding money. I get it fast forward to 2019 and everyone is saying it was a mistake. But what no one not even Kirby says or addresses it what UA should have done with the limited resources we had in 2015.

Another thing that bugs me is people say UA should have stayed. However there is nothing preventing UA from going back into JFK right now. There are slots available in the morning and evening (after 7 pm). Even though there are no primetime slot available UA could relaunch both SFO and LAX today. Those morning and evening departures from JFK could link up with afternoon and late night international departures fromSFO and LAX. Also on the flip side looking at how much money UA is making off EWR-SFO/LAX why is it that the only direct competitor UA has on these routes is Alaska Airlines? Why isn't AA, DL, or B6 flying EWR-SFO or EWR-LAX? As you already pointed out DL flies almost hourly departures EWR-ATL, they are launching BOS and RDU from EWR. But yet no DL, no AA and no B6 on EWR-SFO/LAX why it that especially seeing EWR is not slot controlled? Could it be the reason they aren't on the EWR-SFO/LAX routes is for the same reason UA isn't on JFK-SFO/LAX. Airlines are driven by cost even one as highly successful as DL just look at DL's now canceled EWR-AMS route. DL couldn't make money on the route and canceled it. Apples to oranges I know but UA's JFK operation was not making money hadn't made money for years before Smisek. I stand by my believe that closing JFK was the ONLY smart decision Smisek ever made during his time at UA because it set up EWR-SFO/LAX for success. Now in 2019 EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX are some of the most profitable routes in North America and the World.


What I did like about UA maintaining PS status at JFK is that EWR-LAX/SFO was rightsized for operations during the day and saw a true variety of aircraft. I knew when UA pulled out of JFK and spun it up with really broke ass CO marketing schemes like "Up to 15 lie-flat departures a day!!" just looked straight up desperate and/or UA was really stretched thin on their 757 fleet to keep JFK's operation afloat (recall Smisek sold 30 of them to Fedex in a fire sale.) Regardless, PS had been losing money for years and in typical Smisek fashion it was retract mode instead of compete mode. Recall EWR-LAX was flown by sCO and sUA 757 before JFK was cut but rapidly experienced issues integrating the 739ER to sub in for the sUA 757 (weight and balance and crew issues mainly). IIRC, there were issues with boarding and deplaning times with the 737s vs. the 757 which led to on-time issues as well, but nonetheless I could more or less read through the lines that it was pretty desperate for UAL to completely pull out of JFK.

The competitive offerings on EWR-LAX are pathetic these days as it's just UA or AS with their stripped down A320. B6 I'm actually surprised has never started EWR-LAX but they seem to have a lot of internal issues on Mint at the moment. AA flew it for a long time until around 2011 and DL I still say could launch it but EWR-SEA would probably come first as UA isn't competitive on that route at all. I'm not sure if DL on EWR-CDG/AMS was losing money or if there were corporate contracts dropped and/or used resources to test the waters on new routes like IND-CDG and whatnot (which IMHO is a route that I think could easily get canned as well.)

As already pointed out the big loss that Kirby discovered was CA based passengers forfeiting flying into EWR versus JFK. Delta could be in striking distance of launching EWR-LAX with a 319/320/738 etc. but is waiting for the next wave of expansion to do so (ORD-LAX is likely another one). I think a big factor for DL are gate issues at LAX as they're currently renovating T2/T3. However the DL A220 could also be a great fit for EWR-LAX and EWR has been a committed A220 destination replacing 717s out of EWR for a little while now.
Last edited by N649DL on Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
 
codc10
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:17 pm

jayunited wrote:
Apples to oranges I know but UA's JFK operation was not making money hadn't made money for years before Smisek. I stand by my believe that closing JFK was the ONLY smart decision Smisek ever made during his time at UA because it set up EWR-SFO/LAX for success. Now in 2019 EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX are some of the most profitable routes in North America and the World.


Theres is no way the loss of UA-exclusive contracts at LAX completely negated the considerable benefits of the consolidation at EWR, which, as you say, has strengthened EWR-LAX/SFO far beyond what they were at UAL. I think the point is that Kirby believes there could have been a way to do both, at least without weakening United’s competitive position at LAX.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United p.s. Question

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:16 am

keep in mind on EWR-LAX, UA gets lower yield than DL does on JFK-LAX. And they use similarly configured premium sections. For all the talk about cutting back to EWR being worth it, they certainly aren't capturing the highest yielding clients on NYC-LAX market anymore.
 
codc10
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:00 am

tphuang wrote:
keep in mind on EWR-LAX, UA gets lower yield than DL does on JFK-LAX. And they use similarly configured premium sections. For all the talk about cutting back to EWR being worth it, they certainly aren't capturing the highest yielding clients on NYC-LAX market anymore.


A trend which predates the EWR move. But there is no doubt the Los Angeles/SoCal POS took the biggest hit when UA closed JFK.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 332
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:33 am

Is United still using 757 for transatlantic flights?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13872
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:08 pm

A different decision from the same era was the retirement of the pre merger CO 762s, regardless of whether or not CO should have ordered those instead of 763s or more 764s they were great from a passenger perspective

They were 2000/ 2001 builds that I think would have been perfect for Transcons. If UA still had them today they could drop the 757s on the EWR-LAX/SFO flights offering all wide body service mixing in the 762s with 78J, 77Ws, 772s.

They could have come up with a good high J, premium Y, Y+ configuration.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
jayunited
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Tue Sep 03, 2019 1:59 pm

tphuang wrote:
keep in mind on EWR-LAX, UA gets lower yield than DL does on JFK-LAX. And they use similarly configured premium sections. For all the talk about cutting back to EWR being worth it, they certainly aren't capturing the highest yielding clients on NYC-LAX market anymore.


UA had been loosing those high yielding NYC clients for years at JFK. UA's slow demise at JFK happened well before the final decision came to close JFK. One of the reasons UA launched p.s. was retirement of the 762s but also to try and stop the bleeding. They had hoped p.s. would keep those high yielding clients, but many of them had left or were leaving for AA whose service back then at JFK was better than UA. You can't isolate out one route you have to look at the entire operation to see the whole picture. Like I stated earlier UA couldn't even make money on JFK-LHR. That route no matter what airline has always been a high yield route because of corporate accounts. Most of that corporate travel took place either in first or business class and yet UA couldn't make money on the route because we had lost so many NYC corporate accounts. When I started working for UA JFK-LAX was around 10-12 nonstop a day when JFK closed the route was down to only 6 nonstop a day with little to no corporate accounts and an abysmal load factor and SFO wasn't any better only 7 nonstop a day. AA had been kicking our as* on these routes for years.

We all focus on Kirby saying leaving JFK was a mistake but there was something else Kirby said when he first made that announcement at a town hall and it was AA benefited greatly from UA's slide at JFK. AA at JFK is now repeating the same mistakes UA made and UA's slide at JFK began just prior to filing bankruptcy. While AA was the initial beneficiary of UA's slide, they didn't capitalize on UA's ultimate demise at JFK, DL and B6 gained the most from UA's departure. And now we see AA making some of the same mistakes UA made at JFK and who is capitalizing DL.

Looking at UA's history at JFK our operation began tanking in mid 2001. Its started out slow but continued to gain speed as UA accelerated towards bankruptcy. UA absolutely gutted JFK in bankruptcy and never had a plan on how to make JFK profitable again. The slide to UA's ultimate demise at JFK continued all the way until Smisek pulled the plug. I'm not giving Smisek a free pass but there is a lot of blame to go around, a lot of people are responsible for UA leaving JFK after 65 years of continuous service. It was death by 1,000 cuts spread out over many years, looking at UA slow death it could almost qualify as torture, hypothetically speaking of course.

A token presence at JFK will not help UA which is why I suspect Kirby hasn't made a push to get back into JFK even though slots are available in the morning and evening. If UA were to go back to JFK it would have to be with force meaning a nothing less than a major line station or a focus hub.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United p.s. Question

Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:36 pm

STT757 wrote:
A different decision from the same era was the retirement of the pre merger CO 762s, regardless of whether or not CO should have ordered those instead of 763s or more 764s they were great from a passenger perspective

They were 2000/ 2001 builds that I think would have been perfect for Transcons. If UA still had them today they could drop the 757s on the EWR-LAX/SFO flights offering all wide body service mixing in the 762s with 78J, 77Ws, 772s.

They could have come up with a good high J, premium Y, Y+ configuration.


I get what you are saying but the 762s even those 2001 builds had a much higher operating cost than the 752s even though they had a similar seating capacity.

This isn't a fair comparison but if you were to compare the 762s to the 772s, 77W, and even the 78Js the 762s would have the highest operating cost out of all those widebodies.

Today a UA 752 on a normal routing needs 56,000 pounds of fuel for EWR-SFO, 772s use around 73,000 pounds and a 78J is around 64,000 pounds. While I'm not sure how much fuel a 762 would need for the same route I know it would be a lot more than the 752 and perhaps more than the 78J requires. However, keep in mind the 78Js has over 300 seats on board and the 64,000 pounds of fuel is with a full passenger cabin. Could UA have kept those planes around absolutely we could have but at what cost?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos