Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:04 am

Considering the fact that this route is profitable for United why haven't they not at least upgauge it to a 77W to better off compete with AA, BA, DL and VS?

They might very well be profitable since they fly smaller 767-300ER
aircraft while the competition is flying larger aircraft.

Please comment.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:09 am

In what way would a 77W "better compete" with the other carriers?
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
avi8
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:36 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:13 am

They are converting all flights to high J 767’s. It allows them to serve a very competitive and important route with enough frequency and business class seats. Five daily flights is decent considering they don’t have a partner at LHR. Then again, they aren’t trying to become BA/AA or DL/VS with 9ish daily flights each.
avi8
 
etoile
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:22 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:14 am

Frequency has value that United can capture.
Most of the gen pop has no idea of the type of aircraft they are flying.
United has better uses for the 77Ws that they operate.
If the route is profitable as you say, why would United reduce the margin by flying larger aircraft?
 
xxcr
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:16 am

having a 77W on the EWR-LHR route would be overkill. having 6 flights with 46J seats is better than having say 2-3 flights with 60J seats. Having more flights gives the customer more flexibility.
 
UA857
Topic Author
Posts: 437
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:19 am

hOMSaR wrote:
In what way would a 77W "better compete" with the other carriers?

Considering the fact that AA flies the 77W on JFK-LHR and they may be generating alot of money from that why can't UA do that I mean isn't EWR-LHR a strong route for UA. I've seen a few other routes out of EWR that were upgauge to a 77W such as: NRT, HKG, TLV and BOM.
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3138
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:38 am

UA857 wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
In what way would a 77W "better compete" with the other carriers?

Considering the fact that AA flies the 77W on JFK-LHR and they may be generating alot of money from that why can't UA do that I mean isn't EWR-LHR a strong route for UA. I've seen a few other routes out of EWR that were upgauge to a 77W such as: NRT, HKG, TLV and BOM.


This is a very overly-simplistic view of things.

The plane has very little to do with it. It's the product inside that matters.

AA's 77Ws have a true F, something UAs' lack. JFK-LHR is one of the most premier routes in the world, and commands a premium and demand for seats in a way EWR doesn't. Now, of course the demand is on the New York-London route, not specifically JFK vs. EWR, but JFK has long been established as the "king" and that's where the majority fly to/from.

Something else worth considering, AA and BA can provide feed on both ends of the route. UA has no such luxury.

Long story short, the fact that AA makes money on JFK-LHR has nothing to do with either A) their aircraft selection save for the products that are available on board, or B) UA's profitability.
Cheers,
Cameron
 
AA94
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:40 am

"Making money" on a route doesn't mean flying the biggest plane or the same plane as your competitors.

UA's strategy is to offer frequency, which they do by offering 4-5 daily flights on the high-Polaris 767 fleet. Upgauging the aircraft to the 77W would likely mean reducing the number of daily frequencies, which actually reduces the number of premium seats available.

Plus, a 767 can't make it to BOM/NRT/TLV from EWR. UA is smart to save the 77W for those routes, while they can comfortably operate LHR with 767s.
 
Fuling
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:41 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:40 am

UA857 wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
In what way would a 77W "better compete" with the other carriers?

Considering the fact that AA flies the 77W on JFK-LHR and they may be generating alot of money from that why can't UA do that I mean isn't EWR-LHR a strong route for UA. I've seen a few other routes out of EWR that were upgauge to a 77W such as: NRT, HKG, TLV and BOM.


Out of the points you mentioned, which of them are comparable to LHR?
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1717
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:53 am

If they feel the need to throw more seats, first they'll convert flights to 772ER as it has similar J class capacity while offering more Y seats.

The fact that they're moving to Hi-J 763s suggesting exactly the otherwise.

People here has to understand not every routes need 77W to be profitable or competitive.

Michael
 
Pinto
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:28 am

United created the 763 "High J" for London. While they are going to be used on other routes LHR was the big one.

The reason for no 77W or even 772 is that the market doesnt need it. United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL. UA relies on demand that ends in LHR or begins in LHR with 17 daily flights in total people have choices to go to other hubs.

Also as someone said it is a waste of a long haul plane. A 763 can only do Europe out of EWR and so putting a 772 or 77W on that route means that is one Asian route that gets cut or downsized. Look at all the new route announced out of EWR, they are all 763s.
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:18 am

The new high-J planes are almost 70% of some type of upgraded seat, which gives passengers a ton of options to choose based on their budget which results in very good numbers for UA...and a bonus is that there are only 15 middle seats on the entire plane. They can focus on the highest paying connecting passengers as well as the local O&D, while pushing lower yielding connections through other hubs with less premium heavy planes.

Yes, UA can put 777's on the route, but this option is more profitable and is good for corporate travel. This would probably also lead to less frequency, which would just leave them with excess LHR slots they would then move to a less lucrative route.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4899
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:40 am

UAL is putting the Right Airplane on the Right route with the Right frequency, If the operation is working? Then why would they want to change it? What AA and DL do? Might be good for their operation, But it doesn't mean it's good for UA. Heck! I drive 2 GMC trucks at my house. Does that make me wrong because they're not Ford or Ram? No! It's because I drive what I wanted and Bought,
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 5:47 am

Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

Jeremy
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13208
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:03 am

Pinto wrote:
United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL.

...and yet, DL is consistently far more profitable than UA.

So let's not pretend that the "high premium" strategy is some manner of panacea.



SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

:checkmark: :checkmark:
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
KFTG
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:04 am

UA857 wrote:
Please comment.

Please apply here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/company/career/default.aspx
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8267
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:46 am

The OP's question is inherently flawed, and clearly they haven't looked at a seat map recently.

United's hi-J 763s have the same number of Polaris seats as their 77Ws (60J) but with about 200 fewer economy seats. Putting a 77W on the route would not add any additional premium capacity but would flood the market with low yield economy capacity where they would be competing with the likes of Norwegian for price conscious flyers. That would almost certainly be a recipe to make less money, which is why they are refurbishing aircraft into the hi-J configuration in the first place.

United's strategy on the route is very clear: lots of premium passengers and relatively few economy passengers. Consider this: once United move to 5x hi-J 763 they will offer more Polaris seats on EWR-LHR than Delta and Virgin offer Delta One/Upper Class combined on JFK-LHR, despite VS/DL being 7x daily compared to 5x daily for UA. That is more business class but quite literally hundreds of fewer economy class passengers. So long as United can fill 300 J seats per day then they are sitting very pretty.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 607
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:05 am

UA857 wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
In what way would a 77W "better compete" with the other carriers?

Considering the fact that AA flies the 77W on JFK-LHR and they may be generating alot of money from that why can't UA do that I mean isn't EWR-LHR a strong route for UA. I've seen a few other routes out of EWR that were upgauge to a 77W such as: NRT, HKG, TLV and BOM.


Putting aside TLV, the other 77W routes out of EWR are all at a length where the stage length requires a 777 (or something larger than a 767) and the 77W is an efficient machine.

In the 767s, they can offer a competitive, high-J w/ Polaris seating product. I just flew in this last week, the plane was packed, both front and back. While maybe they can fill a few more back seats if they went with a 77W (or a Polaris-outfitted 77E), there's really no need as they have better uses for those planes and on such a competitive market for even Y passengers, can sacrifice some of those to AA/BB, DL/VS or DY.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:38 am

UA857 wrote:
Considering the fact that this route is profitable for United why haven't they not at least upgauge it to a 77W to better off compete with AA, BA, DL and VS?

They might very well be profitable since they fly smaller 767-300ER
aircraft while the competition is flying larger aircraft.

Please comment.


Ah these amateur posts....EWR-LHR is about frequency and UA has it with 5 x daily. It is also about consistency, and UA is adding high density Polaris equipped (new Polaris) cabins and standardizing the service on 767-300ERs. Are these planes new? No. Will they have the latest version of Polaris? Yes. The 77W is better used in other markets (long haul) where the need for added seats and cargo lift are the priority over frequency. UA will use the larger aircraft it has where multiple flights / frequencies just don't work economically. The 77W out of EWR flies to BOM, NRT, and TLV. The HKG route is shifting back to a 772ER because of the drop in demand to Hong Kong. The 77W flying to HKG will be allocated to GRU instead. To BOM, UA needs to offer a product that can better compete with EK (even if EK requires a stop in DXB). NRT is about connections through ANA, and TLV is a highly profitable, rich market for UA (and before that, CO) and has been for years. Plus, UA has to compete with LY and the 787-9 product it now has in the market.

NYC-LHR isn't about the newest plane. It is about maximizing profit in a market where demand for business class seats on a relatively short sector is generally strong on a consistent basis. That's why BA flies higher density business class 747-400s out of JFK.
 
Pinto
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:24 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
United's hi-J 763s have the same number of Polaris seats as their 77Ws (60J) but with about 200 fewer economy seats. .


The "High J" has 45 + 1 held for a pilot
The 772 has 49 + 1 held for a pilot
The 77W has 60 eith 0 held for a pilot

There is a difference if 15 J seats...
 
jayunited
Posts: 2767
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:57 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Pinto wrote:
United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL.

...and yet, DL is consistently far more profitable than UA.

So let's not pretend that the "high premium" strategy is some manner of panacea.



SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

:checkmark: :checkmark:


Where was it determined that JFK-LHR is profitable for all airlines?
According to OAG BA's LHR-JFK-LHR is the billion dollar route there was no mention of AA, DL, VS,JFK-LHR flights or UA's EWR-LHR. People just assume because this is a billion dollar route for BA everyone else flying JFK-LHR must be making money as well. But where is the proof of that? Another thing that wasn't completely clear was if OAG was only calculating flights on BA metal only, or their billion dollar calculation is a result of a combination between BA and AA metal on this route.

Personally I have no idea whether UA makes a dime on their EWR-LHR route, Scott Kirby claims we do he also claimed in the past when the first high J 763 rolled out UA had secured more corporate contracts in NYC and we needed more premium seats to LHR from EWR. At a town hall meeting earlier this year again Kirby claims (again I have no proof) that UA at both EWR and SFO sells between 85%-90% of all premium seats the remainder are filled with either upgrades or non revs and demand continues to grow for premium seats in certain markets especially at EWR which is why the high J 763 are here and why UA launched this layout on our EWR-LHR route.

I think it is safe to assume no one on this site works in revenue management so no one can say with absolute certainty if EWR-LHR is profitable and even if some one did work in revenue management we would be able to post definitive results on this site. I think we all are just assuming AA, DL, VS, and UA are profitable on our individual routes to LHR from JFK or EWR.
 
catiii
Posts: 3515
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:35 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
The OP's question is inherently flawed, and clearly they haven't looked at a seat map recently.



Go read the other threads the OP has started. This is tame.
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:04 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Pinto wrote:
United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL.

...and yet, DL is consistently far more profitable than UA.

So let's not pretend that the "high premium" strategy is some manner of panacea.



SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

:checkmark: :checkmark:



Have you seen the fares they charge for EWR-LHR-EWR in J, let alone last minute?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13208
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:12 am

WorldFlier wrote:
SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

Have you seen the fares they charge for EWR-LHR-EWR in J, let alone last minute?

A better question would be:
Why do you assume that the advertised public fare is indicative of the fares most commonly paid? ....they aren't.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:30 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

Have you seen the fares they charge for EWR-LHR-EWR in J, let alone last minute?

A better question would be:
Why do you assume that the advertised public fare is indicative of the fares most commonly paid? ....they aren't.


Do you honestly think EWR-LHR is not (very) profitable for United? I mean seriously. I'm sure it is as profitable for BA as United.
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:53 pm

WorldFlier wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
Have you seen the fares they charge for EWR-LHR-EWR in J, let alone last minute?

A better question would be:
Why do you assume that the advertised public fare is indicative of the fares most commonly paid? ....they aren't.


Do you honestly think EWR-LHR is not (very) profitable for United? I mean seriously. I'm sure it is as profitable for BA as United.


This is an assumption. You literally have nothing that indicates one way or another whether it’s profitable.

Jeremy
 
WorldFlier
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:01 pm

SESGDL wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
A better question would be:
Why do you assume that the advertised public fare is indicative of the fares most commonly paid? ....they aren't.


Do you honestly think EWR-LHR is not (very) profitable for United? I mean seriously. I'm sure it is as profitable for BA as United.


This is an assumption. You literally have nothing that indicates one way or another whether it’s profitable.

Jeremy


You're right, other than the published fares. Which was shot down.

As I only have two data points:

1) Published fares.
2) Difficulty getting upgraded, which means the seats up front are either sold or there are tons of GS using upgrades on the route.

I can tell you right now that I know for a fact that EWR-SFO and EWR-LHR are very profitable compared to say EWR-SEA and EWR-FRA (similar lengths) because the fares are very much higher on the former than the latter.

Maybe few people pay "published fares" but without other data, I think I can safely make that argument.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13208
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:53 am

SESGDL wrote:
WorldFlier wrote:
Do you honestly think EWR-LHR is not (very) profitable for United? I mean seriously. I'm sure it is as profitable for BA as United.

This is an assumption. You literally have nothing that indicates one way or another whether it’s profitable.

:checkmark: :checkmark:


WorldFlier wrote:
but without other data, I think I can safely make that argument.

....and THAT, is what's known as a fallacious conclusion. Anecdotal too. ;)


See the following projection for an example of BA's operations between LHR and N.America... by your assumption, the likes of JFK/EWR/LAX/SFO should be at the top of the list, when in fact, they actually depict lower average yields than the likes of SAN, MSY, and BNA:

Image

Not surprising, seeing as BA is the only game in town for a nonstop to LHR in those locations, and can justify high fares THROUGHOUT the aircraft-- not just a few people paying outrageous last-minute premium fares, but the rest of those premium seats filled with corporations flying at a fraction of the advertised fare + the Y cabin filled with bottom-barrel discounts due to direct competition.

That's not to say those NY/CA routes aren't profitable, if that profitable is consistent, and to what extent that profit may be if it exists; it's to simply show you, that you (and really ANYONE who isn't in accounting or yield management) doesn't know that with any real degree of accuracy.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:05 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Heck! I drive 2 GMC trucks at my house. Does that make me wrong because they're not Ford or Ram? No! It's because I drive what I wanted and Bought,

Two trucks? That's pretty bad. Some people would say owning and driving two trucks makes you 'wrong' because of your large ecological footprint compared to most others on this planet.

Personally I think am lucky to live in the Netherlands where one can easily do without a car, let alone two cars. As a 45 year old I have never owned a car. All my transportation comes from walking, cycling or taking public transport. Working in the city where I live helps a lot though.

As an aviation enthusiast I am all for flying. But I wish society as a whole would cut down severely on car traffic. It would improve the quality of living in our neighbourhoods greatly.

:bigthumbsup:
 
flyingisthebest
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:10 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 6:32 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Pinto wrote:
United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL.

...and yet, DL is consistently far more profitable than UA.

So let's not pretend that the "high premium" strategy is some manner of panacea.



SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

:checkmark: :checkmark:



But Delta’s hubs are in Monopoly Markets with far less competition than United’s hubs. You only need to see it’s hubs in Atlanta/Minneapolis-St Paul/Detroit/Salt Lake City face very little foreign or Domestic competition v United hubs face extremely high competition like San Francisco or Chicago with massive local and International competition.

Delta can charge more in it’s near monopoly hubs v Inited competing with all the domestic/international carriers.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5912
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:03 pm

With regard to AA and the 77W

Please keep in mind, AA used to have much higher frequency on the JFK LHR route.

They have retrenched significantly over the years.

When LHR opened up to all carriers and routes, AA took several JFK frequencies and moved them to other (more important to AA) hubs.

In UAs case, there is no hub more important than EWR for LHR slots.

While AA has the larger plane, they have fewer flights and an overall diminished presence in the NY market.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1746
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:08 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Pinto wrote:
United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL.

...and yet, DL is consistently far more profitable than UA.

So let's not pretend that the "high premium" strategy is some manner of panacea.



SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

:checkmark: :checkmark:


Focusing on the premium passengers doesn’t mean or imply they are the most profitable. The point being UAs strategy based off their hubs is targeting capturing more premium O/D.
 
FourCHZ
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 8:22 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:11 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Heck! I drive 2 GMC trucks at my house. Does that make me wrong because they're not Ford or Ram? No! It's because I drive what I wanted and Bought,

Two trucks? That's pretty bad. Some people would say owning and driving two trucks makes you 'wrong' because of your large ecological footprint compared to most others on this planet.

Personally I think am lucky to live in the Netherlands where one can easily do without a car, let alone two cars. As a 45 year old I have never owned a car. All my transportation comes from walking, cycling or taking public transport. Working in the city where I live helps a lot though.

As an aviation enthusiast I am all for flying. But I wish society as a whole would cut down severely on car traffic. It would improve the quality of living in our neighbourhoods greatly.

:bigthumbsup:

Spare me. Why don't you go to a non aviation web site if you want to spend time patting yourself on your back.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 969
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Thu Sep 26, 2019 10:35 pm

FourCHZ wrote:
Spare me. Why don't you go to a non aviation web site if you want to spend time patting yourself on your back.

I don’t understand your answer. Why would I go to a non aviation website? I love aviation. What I don’t like are the millions and millions of cars on our roads. I don’t pat myself on my back for not owning a car. I am just lucky that I can do without one. I just replied to someone who drives two trucks of a certain brand and asks if that makes him wrong. I only remarked that some people would say owning and driving two trucks makes him 'wrong' because of his large ecological footprint compared to most others on this planet. You seem to have a problem with that, which I don’t get. Sorry.
 
eurotrader85
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:45 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:50 am

MartijnNL wrote:
FourCHZ wrote:
Spare me. Why don't you go to a non aviation web site if you want to spend time patting yourself on your back.

I don’t understand your answer. Why would I go to a non aviation website? I love aviation. What I don’t like are the millions and millions of cars on our roads. I don’t pat myself on my back for not owning a car. I am just lucky that I can do without one. I just replied to someone who drives two trucks of a certain brand and asks if that makes him wrong. I only remarked that some people would say owning and driving two trucks makes him 'wrong' because of his large ecological footprint compared to most others on this planet. You seem to have a problem with that, which I don’t get. Sorry.


He can't drive both trucks at the same time so where is the increased ecological footprint? At best the comment was wildly off topic.

Star Alliance has been working to get more 'hub' connection through LHR T2 for a while, but it is a work in progress. It is obviously a tough task with it being a OW fortress. Here is a crazy thought, once the route is deemed to have the demand that it can profitably raise capacity on the route-i.e. it makes sense, the rational persons at UA might think to up-gauge capacity on one of their five a day.
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4781
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Fri Sep 27, 2019 12:19 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
With regard to AA and the 77W

Please keep in mind, AA used to have much higher frequency on the JFK LHR route.

They have retrenched significantly over the years.

When LHR opened up to all carriers and routes, AA took several JFK frequencies and moved them to other (more important to AA) hubs.

In UAs case, there is no hub more important than EWR for LHR slots.

While AA has the larger plane, they have fewer flights and an overall diminished presence in the NY market.

Er....they have a metal neutral JV with BA, let's not ignore that together they DOMINATE the market on LON-NYC.

AA LHR-JFK x 4
BA LHR-JFK x 8
ONEWORLD Total = 12

DL LHR-JFK x 2
VS LHR-JFK x 6 (now 5)
JV Total = 8

BA LHR-EWR x 2
VS LHR-EWR x 1
UA LHR-EWR x 5
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5912
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:12 pm

They used to run 6 daily JFK LHR.

BA had similar frequency.

As DL/VS have grown, AA shrunk
 
User avatar
chepos
Posts: 7274
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:37 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
They used to run 6 daily JFK LHR.

BA had similar frequency.

As DL/VS have grown, AA shrunk


BA/AA operate as one on the route, just like VS/DL do. BA/AA are still larger than VS/DL on LHR-JFK, despite your best efforts to deny that. Surely you understand the concept of a metal neutral JV? Or to make a point are you trying to say we should look at DL/VS together but look at AA on JFK-LHR as operating the route as a solo entity (without BA)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fly the Flag!!!!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:53 pm

Longhornmaniac wrote:
UA857 wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
In what way would a 77W "better compete" with the other carriers?

Considering the fact that AA flies the 77W on JFK-LHR and they may be generating alot of money from that why can't UA do that I mean isn't EWR-LHR a strong route for UA. I've seen a few other routes out of EWR that were upgauge to a 77W such as: NRT, HKG, TLV and BOM.


This is a very overly-simplistic view of things.

The plane has very little to do with it. It's the product inside that matters.

AA's 77Ws have a true F, something UAs' lack. JFK-LHR is one of the most premier routes in the world, and commands a premium and demand for seats in a way EWR doesn't. Now, of course the demand is on the New York-London route, not specifically JFK vs. EWR, but JFK has long been established as the "king" and that's where the majority fly to/from.

Something else worth considering, AA and BA can provide feed on both ends of the route. UA has no such luxury.

Long story short, the fact that AA makes money on JFK-LHR has nothing to do with either A) their aircraft selection save for the products that are available on board, or B) UA's profitability.


To add to this, unless you're intending to get to/from a part of NYC much closer to EWR than JFK, the tunnels are over capacity already, making travel around Newark a nightmare. The best physically located major airport in NYC is LGA, but you can't take any seriously-sized plane in and out of there. In the wake of the 737 MAX, A321 (X)LR, and 797, maybe there'll be a compelling case to take numerous narrowbodies to Gatwick or Lutton, then eventually the 3rd runway at LHR. That said, I'd rather close LGA, lengthen the runways, and reopen after the war zone that is the interior is redone.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2367
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:46 pm

flyingisthebest wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Pinto wrote:
United isn't Delta or America, UA focuses on the premium side of customers. Just look at the J to Y ratio compare to AA or DL.

...and yet, DL is consistently far more profitable than UA.

So let's not pretend that the "high premium" strategy is some manner of panacea.



SESGDL wrote:
Where was it determined that EWR-LHR is profitable? Not doubting that it is but is this just being assumed without any data to back it up?

:checkmark: :checkmark:



But Delta’s hubs are in Monopoly Markets with far less competition than United’s hubs. You only need to see it’s hubs in Atlanta/Minneapolis-St Paul/Detroit/Salt Lake City face very little foreign or Domestic competition v United hubs face extremely high competition like San Francisco or Chicago with massive local and International competition.

Delta can charge more in it’s near monopoly hubs v Inited competing with all the domestic/international carriers.


You make valid points but there's no use arguing with some people. Especially certain ones known for throwing out insults. United has been doing pretty much everything right for the past couple of years but gets no recognition for it. I fly over 75,000 miles a year on Delta. They are fine but they are not the holy grail that some around here make them out to be. Especially if you are on the receiving end of one of their 15+ hour delays.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:15 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
They used to run 6 daily JFK LHR.

BA had similar frequency.

As DL/VS have grown, AA shrunk


AA had 6 x daily JFK-LHR before the JV was significantly expanded (around the time IB and Finnair were included in the scope). AA had 2 morning departures. They dropped to 4 (at times AA just had 3 x daily JFK-LHR) but some of that is capacity control. Together AA/BA have the most seats including the highest number of premium seats in the market, particularly given that BA flies a lot of 744s JFK-LHR.
 
chonetsao
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:55 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:19 pm

skipness1E wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
With regard to AA and the 77W

Please keep in mind, AA used to have much higher frequency on the JFK LHR route.

They have retrenched significantly over the years.

When LHR opened up to all carriers and routes, AA took several JFK frequencies and moved them to other (more important to AA) hubs.

In UAs case, there is no hub more important than EWR for LHR slots.

While AA has the larger plane, they have fewer flights and an overall diminished presence in the NY market.

Er....they have a metal neutral JV with BA, let's not ignore that together they DOMINATE the market on LON-NYC.

AA LHR-JFK x 4
BA LHR-JFK x 8
ONEWORLD Total = 12

DL LHR-JFK x 2
VS LHR-JFK x 6 (now 5)
JV Total = 8

BA LHR-EWR x 2
VS LHR-EWR x 1
UA LHR-EWR x 5


I thought BA had more than 8 flights to JFK from LHR...don't have any means to check at this moment. Just from my impression that I thought BA was much bigger in JFK...
 
Arion640
Posts: 3058
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sat Sep 28, 2019 6:07 pm

chonetsao wrote:
skipness1E wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
With regard to AA and the 77W

Please keep in mind, AA used to have much higher frequency on the JFK LHR route.

They have retrenched significantly over the years.

When LHR opened up to all carriers and routes, AA took several JFK frequencies and moved them to other (more important to AA) hubs.

In UAs case, there is no hub more important than EWR for LHR slots.

While AA has the larger plane, they have fewer flights and an overall diminished presence in the NY market.

Er....they have a metal neutral JV with BA, let's not ignore that together they DOMINATE the market on LON-NYC.

AA LHR-JFK x 4
BA LHR-JFK x 8
ONEWORLD Total = 12

DL LHR-JFK x 2
VS LHR-JFK x 6 (now 5)
JV Total = 8

BA LHR-EWR x 2
VS LHR-EWR x 1
UA LHR-EWR x 5


I thought BA had more than 8 flights to JFK from LHR...don't have any means to check at this moment. Just from my impression that I thought BA was much bigger in JFK...


The Oneworld total should actually be 14 because of LGW-JFK and LCY-JFK.
 
flybry
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:26 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:09 am

I think United was dumb to sell their JFK-LON authority to Delta when they did and pull out of the JFK-LHR market completely. Just like pulling out of JFK to LAX and SFO.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3532
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:34 am

UA is pretty smart here...they are targeting higher-yield J passengers by having 46 J seats for sale per flight. Then it's 22 premium economy, 52 economy plus, and only 41 economy passengers. UA is intentionally not targeting lower yielding passengers.

BTW, for JFK-LHR, BA only does 7 daily flights as one of the flights now operates to and from LGW.

As for the B77W that used to go to HKG, that's now going to PVG instead. Another B77W rotation is being added for GRU, along with making EWR-TLV all B77W as B77W/B78X was too little capacity.
 
United1
Posts: 4153
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:38 am

flybry wrote:
I think United was dumb to sell their JFK-LON authority to Delta when they did and pull out of the JFK-LHR market completely. Just like pulling out of JFK to LAX and SFO.


Actually think it was a pretty smart move at the time...not very long after UA sold JFK-LON to DL the US and UK reached an open skies agreement. UA could have re-entered the market at any time they wished after that point as UA retained their slots at LHR. Was a good way to monetize an asset before it lost quite a lot of its value.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:44 am

I kind of find it funny that looking at JFK-LHR, it's like Bermuda II all over again: two American carriers and two British Carriers.

EWR-Heathrow however, has only United from the U.S., competing with a daily British Airways and Virgin Atlantic from the other side of the pond. And while the number of seats is overall less at EWR, United controls a higher percent of the seats in that market, meaning the loyal FF's of Star Alliance in the tri-state area (but especially northern New Jersey) will enjoy the frequency that UA offers. Frequency is key, but a sharp eye needs to be kept out for trends in First Class. The bean counters know how to do this, and the minute UA finds that traffic, they will adapt to it.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15111
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:00 am

I suspect Brexit will affect the J - seat demand on US and other airlines from the NYC area.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4260
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:40 am

I do not know what UA is doing to take advantage of the massive growth of Manhattan’s west side, from “Billionaire’s Row” near Columbus Circle to the river, Hudson Yards, and the entire Financial District and mostly around 1 World Trade Center as well as the NJ side expansion of the Hudson which is now an enormous skyline of skyscrapers that didn’t exist 15 years ago. Add to that the unbelievable fast and easy surface transportation via Corp car or Uber. On the worst day and time the Holland tunnel ads half an hour. 7 out of 10 trips by car to EWR is with my company driver, Hecham, I am pulling up to Premier Access at TC in 20 to 25 minutes. The Polanski skyway is gorgeous just to look at, even at 65 MPH.
I fly out of EWR 2x a month minimum. At almost anytime of day and I have not had a Van Wyk experience in over 10 years.

I have been invited to, and went to one, United event near the marina. Basically a free food and wine event for locals (business locals and residents) there were some short speeches from United NYC area VPs who extolled the virtues of having the most premium seats by 1 airline in the NYC area etc, future things to look forward to including more United events with food, wine and entertainment. There will be hundreds of thousands of business people to draw upon along with the extremely wealthy. What a pond United has to fish from! And I’m not including the big and mid level executives living west of the airport.

Last, I have been flying UA to LHR since 1991. And CO also (although nothing was more uncomfortable than the CO BF seats) and a United refurbished 763 is gorgeous inside. NOBODY BUT US WOULD EVER KNOW that the airplane they are on was built when GHW Bush was President! They are almost as beautiful as a 787.
In fact flying to LHR on UA then catching a connection on a Star Alliance parter is SO EASY! Be it LH, LX, LOT, SINGAPORE, THAI, etc etc it is a breeze. The ONLY issue is: if you want to maintain GS status, you must fly US metal.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
huhang17
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:12 am

Re: United's EWR-Heathrow Routes

Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:47 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
UA is pretty smart here...they are targeting higher-yield J passengers by having 46 J seats for sale per flight. Then it's 22 premium economy, 52 economy plus, and only 41 economy passengers. UA is intentionally not targeting lower yielding passengers.

BTW, for JFK-LHR, BA only does 7 daily flights as one of the flights now operates to and from LGW.

As for the B77W that used to go to HKG, that's now going to PVG instead. Another B77W rotation is being added for GRU, along with making EWR-TLV all B77W as B77W/B78X was too little capacity.


The seats map is very good for UA's EWR-LHR, but the 767 fleets are too old(20 years old above), 787 with more J seats/ premium economy is better!

Who is online

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