Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
catiii
Posts: 3610
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:13 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
I think we can all agree B6’s EWR announcement was a little bit of an attack on everyone.


It wasn’t an “attack” on anyone. It was taking advantage of market conditions to improve their own bottom line. The notion of “attacking” is oversimplifying it.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:09 am

FSDan wrote:
millionsofmiles wrote:
DTWLAX wrote:
Why will B6 add EWR-ATL? DL is not big at EWR and the B6 strategy is to fight DL at JFK, not EWR.


...up till now. Clearly, B6 smells Delta’s blood in the New York area waters.


Construing B6's adds of EWR-SFO/LAX/SAN/LAS/PHX/AUS/SRQ/JAX/CHS as more of an attack on DL than on UA is delusional. The big opportunity here is for B6 to pick up more NJ and Lower Manhattan O&D traffic, which stands to hurt UA as much as (and likely more than) DL.

And if we're talking about blood in the NYC water, look for the wounded beast to be AA.



Does AA still fly to NY? hahaha
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3608
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:43 am

usairways85 wrote:
Wow, now 4 airlines on PHL-SJU (AA, NK, F9, B6)...assuming NK and F9 stay. And the both of them were going up to double daily pre-covid.


What really surprises me is the PHL flying for B6. This may also be a good time to introduce the smaller A220-300 on some of those new routes, at EWR in addition to BOS. UA won't like the fare pressure on J on LAX/SFO-EWR, as while B6 has fewer J seats, its Mint seat and UA Polaris seat are on par with each other, and B6 only needs to fill 16 (10 now with social distancing), versus 48 on the B789 or 44 on the B78X for UA...and not all the B789s are 1-2-1 (the B78X fleet was delivered 1-2-1).
 
tphuang
Posts: 5325
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: JetBlue Network Thread - 2020

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:51 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Looking at the OAG this week, I am surprised by how much Delta is keeping Jfk wide open.

Routes like CLE and RDU with 0 flights for August. Big drawdowns across the board.

UA and DL are leaving their respective hubs wide open for B6 to gain some marketshare


We will see how much further UA and DL cuts for August, but DL's schedule really reflects how weak the Northeast short haul business market is right now. Seems like the transcon stuff is actually coming back faster. With a schedule that offers way more than half of their pre-COVID flights, DL is still only doing 75 a day at LGA/JFK. Hard to see how they go from that to utilizing 80% of their slots anytime soon.

I think B6 should lobby the slot waivers to not extend past November. It's not crazy to think they can fly up to 140x daily by December. Plenty of upsides from LGA slots becoming available, since I can't imagine demand being great in Dec/Jan/Feb. Just say that they are ready to fulfill their slot requirements. I'm sure WN and ULCCs are also willing to end the slot waivers asap. With JFK and EWR all wide open, they really just need about 20 more LGA slots now.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14146
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:51 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
B6 is a bug compared to UA...and they could easily treat them as such if this were any other times. It's a ballsy move by B6 and is going to drain a lot of their cash. I'm surprised their creditors (including the US govt if they took a loan) aren't looking at this with interest and maybe a bit of derision. Let's go blow Uncle Sam's money on trying to build a new hub in the city with the biggest UA hub in their system. It's nuts.


First off, EWR isn’t UA’s biggest hub. Second, creditors love getting paid. Period. Anything that generates money to pay them (like poaching premium traffic) isn’t frowned upon. Third, if you think Treasury post CARES is weighing in on what routes an airline is starting you obviously don’t work at one. Fourth, what makes you think it’s going to “drain a lot of cash?”

Don’t forget the “bug” drove UA out of JFK...


EWR is not now, nor was it ever, UA (or CO's) largest hub. Pre-COVID19, UA was the fourth busiest hub for UA, behind ORD, IAH, and DEN and averaged around 350-400 daily departures, depending on the time of year. In CO days, it was the most profitable of CO's 3 US hubs (IAH and CLE being the other two).


In terms of passenger traffic EWR was their second largest hub for 2019, it has the most widebody flights of any United hub. It has double the number of employees as Denver.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
catiii
Posts: 3610
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:12 pm

STT757 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:

First off, EWR isn’t UA’s biggest hub. Second, creditors love getting paid. Period. Anything that generates money to pay them (like poaching premium traffic) isn’t frowned upon. Third, if you think Treasury post CARES is weighing in on what routes an airline is starting you obviously don’t work at one. Fourth, what makes you think it’s going to “drain a lot of cash?”

Don’t forget the “bug” drove UA out of JFK...


EWR is not now, nor was it ever, UA (or CO's) largest hub. Pre-COVID19, UA was the fourth busiest hub for UA, behind ORD, IAH, and DEN and averaged around 350-400 daily departures, depending on the time of year. In CO days, it was the most profitable of CO's 3 US hubs (IAH and CLE being the other two).


In terms of passenger traffic EWR was their second largest hub for 2019, it has the most widebody flights of any United hub. It has double the number of employees as Denver.


Does that flex based on summer vs winter? Or is it consistently 2nd?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14146
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:16 pm

catiii wrote:
STT757 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:

EWR is not now, nor was it ever, UA (or CO's) largest hub. Pre-COVID19, UA was the fourth busiest hub for UA, behind ORD, IAH, and DEN and averaged around 350-400 daily departures, depending on the time of year. In CO days, it was the most profitable of CO's 3 US hubs (IAH and CLE being the other two).


In terms of passenger traffic EWR was their second largest hub for 2019, it has the most widebody flights of any United hub. It has double the number of employees as Denver.


Does that flex based on summer vs winter? Or is it consistently 2nd?


Sorry, it's third behind ORD and IAH according to United's fact sheet. Not sure when the data was pulled. Click on the hubs for more information.

https://hub.united.com/Corporate-Fact-Sheet/

And here's last years thread about Summer hub departures, even though DEN has more flights EWR squeaked by DEN in terms of number of seats offered. Average seats per flight at EWR were 125.9 per flight vs. 107.7 seats per flight average at DEN. EWR also had more mainline flights.


https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1420611
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:02 pm

STT757 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:

First off, EWR isn’t UA’s biggest hub. Second, creditors love getting paid. Period. Anything that generates money to pay them (like poaching premium traffic) isn’t frowned upon. Third, if you think Treasury post CARES is weighing in on what routes an airline is starting you obviously don’t work at one. Fourth, what makes you think it’s going to “drain a lot of cash?”

Don’t forget the “bug” drove UA out of JFK...


EWR is not now, nor was it ever, UA (or CO's) largest hub. Pre-COVID19, UA was the fourth busiest hub for UA, behind ORD, IAH, and DEN and averaged around 350-400 daily departures, depending on the time of year. In CO days, it was the most profitable of CO's 3 US hubs (IAH and CLE being the other two).


In terms of passenger traffic EWR was their second largest hub for 2019, it has the most widebody flights of any United hub. It has double the number of employees as Denver.


Yes, but by daily departures, it wasn't #2 and that was the metric I was going off, which was included in their investor day presentations last year. Otherwise, yes, I would agree.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:04 pm

catiii wrote:
STT757 wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:

EWR is not now, nor was it ever, UA (or CO's) largest hub. Pre-COVID19, UA was the fourth busiest hub for UA, behind ORD, IAH, and DEN and averaged around 350-400 daily departures, depending on the time of year. In CO days, it was the most profitable of CO's 3 US hubs (IAH and CLE being the other two).


In terms of passenger traffic EWR was their second largest hub for 2019, it has the most widebody flights of any United hub. It has double the number of employees as Denver.


Does that flex based on summer vs winter? Or is it consistently 2nd?


In normal times, it flexes based on seasonal adds. Summer ramp up on TATL pre-COVID is significant, with ATH, PRG, NAP, KEF, OPO, VCE, ARN, GLA joining the regular roster of TATL services (FCO goes daily, etc..). This summer, there would have been PMO, NCE, double daily to FRA, and I think a second MAN flight as well.
 
User avatar
varsity
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 1999 4:51 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:24 pm

tphuang wrote:
AMALH747430 wrote:
Duplicate post. My apologies. My iphone has been acting up this morning. Mods please delete.

If UA could acquire the real estate it would be a good strategic move. I think they’re just fine with their current operation (again they have the only single airport long haul/short haul hub in the NYC area) but with only 3 full service legacy airlines left, that JFK presence would be nice. CO had about the same setup that UA has now (massive EWR presence and hub service to LGA) but the market is now less fragmented and all 3 airlines need some presence at all three airports in my opinion. I think you have the service levels and destinations about right.

As for my earlier post, I was simply clapping back at the notion that UA at EWR would end up like AA at JFK. B6 ate AAs lunch at JFK. There are a lot of posts on this thread and others that constantly talk of UA being at a disadvantage in the NYC market. I do not think that is the case. CO/UA have become NYC’s largest carrier due to their EWR hub. This will be a bigger fight for B6 than taking on AA in the domestic and Caribbean markets from JFK. Add to that, DL has indicated that they still plan on defending their turf and growing at BOS. B6 is going to have to fight a 2 front war here with the two stronger legacies.

I still agree with the Yahoo Finance article I posted. I think B6 sees the opportunity to try something that will be very easy to undo if it gets too hot in the proverbial kitchen.

Nobody in their right mind would think UA at EWR would end up like AA at JFK. B6 simply won't have enough gates at EWR to mount such a challenge. I think they can co-exist pretty nicely with both running a profitable operation, but UA will also have to up their game here For too long, people on NJ side had no choice other than UA. A lot of people on jersey side would consider switching their flying needs to B6 or at least splitting between the two.

I think UA messed up here. Anyone looking at the situation could've seen that B6's obvious move was build up EWR and JFK. They should've settled on some kind of partnership with B6 offering domestic interline and pathway to star alliance along with slots at LGA/DCA in exchange for some slots at JFK and no further incursion into EWR. And now they have to deal with a more crowded EWR.

The skift article misses the point about DL. There is no better time than now for LCCs to take jabs at legacies. This is about B6 taking the fight to JFK rather than playing defensive at BOS. Corporate travel is non-existent in NE at the moment. That's why they made these moves and why DL has cut pretty much every non-hub market out of BOS for several months now. DL will be busy protecting its turf at JFK/LGA before adding back BOS stuff.


This is me. After having been kicked around by CO/UA for years I have been training it out to JFK for years for anything other than Florida. I welcome the opportunity to fly transcon from EWR, and hope MSY gets added to the mix someday.

Pre-COVID I don't know where UA would have gone to restart an operation JFK of this kind of scale. Their space in T-7 was taken over by AS and that whole building was slated to close in the next few years. Of course post-apocalypse who knows what the landscape will be like, if or when any big capital projects will get done.

Regarding any kind of domestic feeder operation, AA tried that with code share on select routes and it didn't seem to help. They ended the agreement and continue to draw down their operation at JFK.
AB3, DC8, DC9, DH7, D10, E90, M80, M88, 320, 321, 330, 722, 737, 733, 734, 738, 747, 744, 757, 752, 753, 772
AA, AF, B6, CO, DL, EA, EI, FI, HP, KM, LX, MS, NW, OP, PA, TW, UA, US, VS, W9, WO, YX
 
stevemat11
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:20 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Mon Jun 22, 2020 8:53 pm

tphuang wrote:
Does the new terminal 1 have preferential access to most of the gates or are they all truly shared. If it's the former, how do they decide which ones have preferential access and which ones are shared? That would seem like the biggest limiting factor to JetBlue or the ULCCs at the moment. Is it still going to have limited opening in 2021? What happens to T A at that time?


Will the new T1 have an FIS for the B6 Caribbean arrivals or will they arrive elsewhere and get repositioned as they do now?
 
catiii
Posts: 3610
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:02 am

stevemat11 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Does the new terminal 1 have preferential access to most of the gates or are they all truly shared. If it's the former, how do they decide which ones have preferential access and which ones are shared? That would seem like the biggest limiting factor to JetBlue or the ULCCs at the moment. Is it still going to have limited opening in 2021? What happens to T A at that time?


Will the new T1 have an FIS for the B6 Caribbean arrivals or will they arrive elsewhere and get repositioned as they do now?


No CBP initially but the briefing book says:

“ The conceptual design was assessed to ensure that itcould also provide for an anticipated 12-gate expansion to 45 group III aircraft gates (domestic) . Efforts to date have focused on ensuring that the 33-gate concept is expandable to 45-gates, with no fatal flaws. The full concept for the terminal expansion remains under development, as does the decision on whether it would include International Arrivals Federal Inspection Services (FIS) and Customs
and Border Protections (CBP) facilities.”

https://www.ewrredevelopment.com/wp-con ... 018_v2.pdf
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:47 am

As odd as it is , I actually think this is smart for B6. I said prior to this I thought mint had a good shot at working from ewr. Some of these routes won't work ,but most I kind of seem why they chose them. Alot of united Dominated higher fares routes that they can probably edge into. Everyone in EWR knows b6 and their reputation is light years ahead of United in the average persons mind. It doesn't help their Network or anything but probably doesn't run a huge risk of burning too much money. Some routes won't work , be prepared for some tweeks and adjustments.

I wouldn't be surprised to see AS have an EWR shrinkage? As much as I would hate to see it. Some routes like PDX, SAN, LAX always seemed weak and B6 will have instant traction with customers. Mint is light years better than Alaska first for lax and SFO and PDX, SAN and SEA will area very competitive product on 320s.

The only positive for United is I feel like united will keep it's 757s longer to ensure lie flat beds on as many on these routes as possible
 
catiii
Posts: 3610
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 6:38 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

The only positive for United is I feel like united will keep it's 757s longer to ensure lie flat beds on as many on these routes as possible


Even better for B6 because the front cabin in the UA 757s is abysmal, with tired and worn seats.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6001
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:34 am

They smell blood in the water with AS essentially leaving the transcon market at JFK for the summer.

Must figure this will give them one last nudge.

A lot of bad blood between these two airlines:

VX

LGA slots to WN

A lot of bad blood
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 112
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 2:50 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
usairways85 wrote:
Wow, now 4 airlines on PHL-SJU (AA, NK, F9, B6)...assuming NK and F9 stay. And the both of them were going up to double daily pre-covid.


What really surprises me is the PHL flying for B6. This may also be a good time to introduce the smaller A220-300 on some of those new routes, at EWR in addition to BOS. UA won't like the fare pressure on J on LAX/SFO-EWR, as while B6 has fewer J seats, its Mint seat and UA Polaris seat are on par with each other, and B6 only needs to fill 16 (10 now with social distancing), versus 48 on the B789 or 44 on the B78X for UA...and not all the B789s are 1-2-1 (the B78X fleet was delivered 1-2-1).


From the PHL side, the move by B6 makes sense. B6 is well-thought-of locally, but they have an extremely limited market, with no service (because of no O&D) to NYC, and BOS is a five carrier bloodbath of yields between 2V, AA, B6, DL, and now F9. Even at FLL, B6 has to fight against AA's PHL-MIA, which AA can throw basically infinite capacity at, both for South Florida O&D and for Caribbean/Latin American connections. Diversifying throughout Florida and Puerto Rico is an easy way to build local experience and loyalty because that's where the demand is right now. (Puerto Rico is also a much bigger VFR market from PHL than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.) It also means throwing elbows around in the restricted real estate of Terminals D and E, the two non-AA domestic terminals at PHL, which have been getting very crowded right up until DL, WN, and UA slashed their flights to the bone in their COVID schedules. The ULCCs are growing but their following is not loyal; B6 can slot in in the market between them and AA and still make money. And if it doesn't work out, they can just as easily draw down the PHL station by reassigning the frames to build/defend BOS and NYC when demand recovers.

In the longer term, and again assuming that this play works for B6, we know that B6 is in the hunt for a PHL-LHR competition remedy slot, so building up the station now serves that interest, both in terms of building PHL FF and in terms of creating connecting feed to bypass JFK and BOS, which will presumably be filling their own A321LRs. On the same sort of timeframe, I wouldn't be surprised to see B6 eventually try to skim some premium traffic away from AA with Mint on PHL-SFO/LAX; AA flies widebodies on those routes in normal times, so there's a market niche to be inhabited.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:15 pm

All true, no reason why MINT can't eventually launch from all the great and rich cities on each coast. As much money in PHL as BOS.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5325
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 4:57 pm

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:
usairways85 wrote:
Wow, now 4 airlines on PHL-SJU (AA, NK, F9, B6)...assuming NK and F9 stay. And the both of them were going up to double daily pre-covid.


What really surprises me is the PHL flying for B6. This may also be a good time to introduce the smaller A220-300 on some of those new routes, at EWR in addition to BOS. UA won't like the fare pressure on J on LAX/SFO-EWR, as while B6 has fewer J seats, its Mint seat and UA Polaris seat are on par with each other, and B6 only needs to fill 16 (10 now with social distancing), versus 48 on the B789 or 44 on the B78X for UA...and not all the B789s are 1-2-1 (the B78X fleet was delivered 1-2-1).


From the PHL side, the move by B6 makes sense. B6 is well-thought-of locally, but they have an extremely limited market, with no service (because of no O&D) to NYC, and BOS is a five carrier bloodbath of yields between 2V, AA, B6, DL, and now F9. Even at FLL, B6 has to fight against AA's PHL-MIA, which AA can throw basically infinite capacity at, both for South Florida O&D and for Caribbean/Latin American connections. Diversifying throughout Florida and Puerto Rico is an easy way to build local experience and loyalty because that's where the demand is right now. (Puerto Rico is also a much bigger VFR market from PHL than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.) It also means throwing elbows around in the restricted real estate of Terminals D and E, the two non-AA domestic terminals at PHL, which have been getting very crowded right up until DL, WN, and UA slashed their flights to the bone in their COVID schedules. The ULCCs are growing but their following is not loyal; B6 can slot in in the market between them and AA and still make money. And if it doesn't work out, they can just as easily draw down the PHL station by reassigning the frames to build/defend BOS and NYC when demand recovers.

In the longer term, and again assuming that this play works for B6, we know that B6 is in the hunt for a PHL-LHR competition remedy slot, so building up the station now serves that interest, both in terms of building PHL FF and in terms of creating connecting feed to bypass JFK and BOS, which will presumably be filling their own A321LRs. On the same sort of timeframe, I wouldn't be surprised to see B6 eventually try to skim some premium traffic away from AA with Mint on PHL-SFO/LAX; AA flies widebodies on those routes in normal times, so there's a market niche to be inhabited.


Interesting perspective. I have no idea what kind of reputation B6 has in PHL, so it's good to hear they are at least not unknown in the locale market. I think the likelihood of these new routes all working out is pretty low, but I like the idea of them trying these type of exploratory efforts in PHL against a weakened AA and F9 as the larger ULCC. The gain from laying the ground work here seems to be more worth it than some of the other focus city ideas that they apparently had prior to COVID like BNA and LAS, which seemed like suicidal missions into places with a dominant WN, plenty of ULCCs and much smaller local markets.

We've seen JetBlue start at NYC, build into BOS from scratch, attempt to build something at IAD/DCA that really hasn't worked out and also had a very successful mini-focus city operation at EWR before now expanding it to a larger operation. It would seem to me that for a carrier like B6, they can't survive on price sensitive customers alone like ULCCs. So they need to have some level of loyalty in whatever cities they are trying to build. EWR has been successful due to its reputation in NYC. DCA was much less profitable, despite being about the same size, because it's further away from New York and Boston.

I'm under the impression that there are a lot of people in central/southern Jersey and Eastern PA that are willing to fly out of either EWR or PHL. So at least from that perspective, it seems like a larger operation at EWR would also help their brand awareness at PHL. I don't expect anything more than maybe a 20 flight operation at PHL until EWR buildup is much further along. Are they wasting an opportunity while AA is suffering and international travel is down? Probably, but EWR right now is a place I'm confident they can buildup successfully, so they should concentrate on that.
 
T5towbar
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:20 pm

catiii wrote:
stevemat11 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Does the new terminal 1 have preferential access to most of the gates or are they all truly shared. If it's the former, how do they decide which ones have preferential access and which ones are shared? That would seem like the biggest limiting factor to JetBlue or the ULCCs at the moment. Is it still going to have limited opening in 2021? What happens to T A at that time?


Will the new T1 have an FIS for the B6 Caribbean arrivals or will they arrive elsewhere and get repositioned as they do now?


No CBP initially but the briefing book says:

“ The conceptual design was assessed to ensure that itcould also provide for an anticipated 12-gate expansion to 45 group III aircraft gates (domestic) . Efforts to date have focused on ensuring that the 33-gate concept is expandable to 45-gates, with no fatal flaws. The full concept for the terminal expansion remains under development, as does the decision on whether it would include International Arrivals Federal Inspection Services (FIS) and Customs
and Border Protections (CBP) facilities.”

https://www.ewrredevelopment.com/wp-con ... 018_v2.pdf



The expansion from 33 Gates (which the terminal is designed for mainline aircraft - including B6 190's) to 45 gates is UAX E145/170 operations. AC; AA; and UAX flies 170's and UAX flies the 145, and the AC flies the CR2. The question is - if AC ever flies the YVR on the 787, that would require a shutdown adjacent gate. So I can't speculate what would happen. I looked at the terminal a while ago, and it looks like 73/32 Gates. (Is the 321/752 a Group III or Group IV aircraft?) B6 has 2 Douglas SuperTugs to move their aircraft from Terminal B (for their Caribbean flights) back to A, so a FIS is not really needed in the new terminal. Most of the international stuff is pre clear anyway, except YQB for UAX.
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
 
T5towbar
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 7:29 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
As odd as it is , I actually think this is smart for B6. I said prior to this I thought mint had a good shot at working from ewr. Some of these routes won't work ,but most I kind of seem why they chose them. Alot of united Dominated higher fares routes that they can probably edge into. Everyone in EWR knows b6 and their reputation is light years ahead of United in the average persons mind. It doesn't help their Network or anything but probably doesn't run a huge risk of burning too much money. Some routes won't work , be prepared for some tweeks and adjustments.

I wouldn't be surprised to see AS have an EWR shrinkage? As much as I would hate to see it. Some routes like PDX, SAN, LAX always seemed weak and B6 will have instant traction with customers. Mint is light years better than Alaska first for lax and SFO and PDX, SAN and SEA will area very competitive product on 320s.

The only positive for United is I feel like united will keep it's 757s longer to ensure lie flat beds on as many on these routes as possible


I see that happening, where B6's flights will be more popular than AS offerings to LAX/SFO. Who will be the number two West Coast Carrier - B6 or AS? This will be fun to see.

UA can just put a extra 787 on the routes if needed........
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
 
tphuang
Posts: 5325
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:22 pm

T5towbar wrote:
catiii wrote:
stevemat11 wrote:

Will the new T1 have an FIS for the B6 Caribbean arrivals or will they arrive elsewhere and get repositioned as they do now?


No CBP initially but the briefing book says:

“ The conceptual design was assessed to ensure that itcould also provide for an anticipated 12-gate expansion to 45 group III aircraft gates (domestic) . Efforts to date have focused on ensuring that the 33-gate concept is expandable to 45-gates, with no fatal flaws. The full concept for the terminal expansion remains under development, as does the decision on whether it would include International Arrivals Federal Inspection Services (FIS) and Customs
and Border Protections (CBP) facilities.”

https://www.ewrredevelopment.com/wp-con ... 018_v2.pdf



The expansion from 33 Gates (which the terminal is designed for mainline aircraft - including B6 190's) to 45 gates is UAX E145/170 operations. AC; AA; and UAX flies 170's and UAX flies the 145, and the AC flies the CR2. The question is - if AC ever flies the YVR on the 787, that would require a shutdown adjacent gate. So I can't speculate what would happen. I looked at the terminal a while ago, and it looks like 73/32 Gates. (Is the 321/752 a Group III or Group IV aircraft?) B6 has 2 Douglas SuperTugs to move their aircraft from Terminal B (for their Caribbean flights) back to A, so a FIS is not really needed in the new terminal. Most of the international stuff is pre clear anyway, except YQB for UAX.


https://www.ewrredevelopment.com
Pardon my ignorance here, but it says in this document that the initial opening will have 21 gates (by late 2021) and will be expanded to 33 gates later (Is that for 2022 or 2023?). And its expandable to 45 category III gates. It also mentioned 3 wide body capable gates there.

How many gates were UA & AA using in terminal A before COVID? I'd imagine B6 and ULCCs here would want to take over as much gate access at the new terminal before UA can expand into Terminal 1. Also, I'd imagine AA probably wouldn't be able to hold as many gates in the T1 with their lower usage rate.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:18 pm

tphuang wrote:
T5towbar wrote:
catiii wrote:

No CBP initially but the briefing book says:

“ The conceptual design was assessed to ensure that itcould also provide for an anticipated 12-gate expansion to 45 group III aircraft gates (domestic) . Efforts to date have focused on ensuring that the 33-gate concept is expandable to 45-gates, with no fatal flaws. The full concept for the terminal expansion remains under development, as does the decision on whether it would include International Arrivals Federal Inspection Services (FIS) and Customs
and Border Protections (CBP) facilities.”

https://www.ewrredevelopment.com/wp-con ... 018_v2.pdf



The expansion from 33 Gates (which the terminal is designed for mainline aircraft - including B6 190's) to 45 gates is UAX E145/170 operations. AC; AA; and UAX flies 170's and UAX flies the 145, and the AC flies the CR2. The question is - if AC ever flies the YVR on the 787, that would require a shutdown adjacent gate. So I can't speculate what would happen. I looked at the terminal a while ago, and it looks like 73/32 Gates. (Is the 321/752 a Group III or Group IV aircraft?) B6 has 2 Douglas SuperTugs to move their aircraft from Terminal B (for their Caribbean flights) back to A, so a FIS is not really needed in the new terminal. Most of the international stuff is pre clear anyway, except YQB for UAX.


https://www.ewrredevelopment.com
Pardon my ignorance here, but it says in this document that the initial opening will have 21 gates (by late 2021) and will be expanded to 33 gates later (Is that for 2022 or 2023?). And its expandable to 45 category III gates. It also mentioned 3 wide body capable gates there.

How many gates were UA & AA using in terminal A before COVID? I'd imagine B6 and ULCCs here would want to take over as much gate access at the new terminal before UA can expand into Terminal 1. Also, I'd imagine AA probably wouldn't be able to hold as many gates in the T1 with their lower usage rate.


AA had 7 (way too many for their operation), UA had 16 regional gates.

It will open with 21 gates initially (the double loaded pier I believe) and then the North and South piers will open later.

I believe everyone with the exception of DL, G4, and SY will be in the new terminal. Maybe it will look something like this gates wise;

AA- 7
AC- 3
AS- 2-3
B6- 8
F9- 3
NK- 3
UA- 6-7
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14146
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:31 pm

I drove by the new Terminal One site today, very busy on that site and the adjacent CONRAC facility. The piers look very far along but the min head house of the structure is still just steel beams.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:51 pm

    catiii wrote:
    slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

    The only positive for United is I feel like united will keep it's 757s longer to ensure lie flat beds on as many on these routes as possible


    Even better for B6 because the front cabin in the UA 757s is abysmal, with tired and worn seats.


    100% true so we might see them leave lax/sfo but even a worm out 757 with lie flat seats is way nicer to have on other west coast flights then more slim seat 737s. Flyers to SEA/PDX/SAN could all still appreciate lie flat and nice monitors on those long flights. Helps them stay competitive.

    Unlikely but maybe united will consider a minor refurbishment like new appolstry on the 757s? That is what seems so tired , and the plane helps them remain competitive against AS and B6 on routes that have alot more competition than years past. Passengers will have alot more N/S choices on some of these routes , united got some of the highest fare premiums of of EWR for years but this is gonna sting needing to compete on routes they use to run monopolies. Look at routes like PDX and SAN and before that DEN and LAS somehow united had zero competition and premiums for N/S were insane, not gonna be the case.

    Honestly this is the best opportunity ever presented to penetrate the EWR fortress hub and B6 is the airline to do it. Southwest and frontier have tried but they don't have the brand recognition. JetBlue will be a welcome site for alot of united fliers to actually see a N/S option showing.

    AS could really get hurt by this. B6 will be very attractive to flyers I think and united has the loyalty and mileage plan etc. AS is just an airline with pretty low market presence in the northeast. Lack of lie flat seats is gonna hurt them on LAX And SFO we might see some rediculously good deals coming for flyers
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:00 pm

    jfklganyc wrote:
    T5towbar wrote:
    Nicknuzzii wrote:
    So theoretically how big can B6 grow to in EWR? I can definitely see possibly UA subleasing their T1 gates to B6 to make a quick penny. (UA has confirmed they have gate and lounge space in T1)


    Not happening. And especially after last weeks announcement, UA won't be doing B6 any favors. The issue for B6 growth shouldn't be gate space. (they should get a fair number of gates) In normal times, the issue would be peak hour slots. if all the carriers were operating their normal schedules, but these aren't normal times. So they should be able to run their planned schedule.

    The full UA operation cannot fit into Terminal C. Right now it can. The only reason A2 was abandoned is because there are no UAX 145's. They got sent to IAD (C5).
    There has been a few UAX 170/75 that has returned, and I think that the 550's are returning??. So as things stand, everything can fit in C1 & C2, with the exception of some widebodies that come to C3 (and some that come into B3 - notably FRA). I miss all of the wide bodies that come into B2 & B3. Now it is a ghost town.


    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR. If anything, it needs more physical gate space to operate the same, or a smaller number of flights, since there will be fewer 50-seaters in service coming out of this crisis, and will require larger gates than the ERJ-optimized parking positions at the current Terminal A.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.
     
    Nicknuzzii
    Posts: 1233
    Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:10 pm

    codc10 wrote:
    jfklganyc wrote:
    T5towbar wrote:

    Not happening. And especially after last weeks announcement, UA won't be doing B6 any favors. The issue for B6 growth shouldn't be gate space. (they should get a fair number of gates) In normal times, the issue would be peak hour slots. if all the carriers were operating their normal schedules, but these aren't normal times. So they should be able to run their planned schedule.

    The full UA operation cannot fit into Terminal C. Right now it can. The only reason A2 was abandoned is because there are no UAX 145's. They got sent to IAD (C5).
    There has been a few UAX 170/75 that has returned, and I think that the 550's are returning??. So as things stand, everything can fit in C1 & C2, with the exception of some widebodies that come to C3 (and some that come into B3 - notably FRA). I miss all of the wide bodies that come into B2 & B3. Now it is a ghost town.


    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.


    So if United goes through with their plan to be 30% smaller next summer their avg. departures per day from EWR will be in the 290 range. It would make 0 financial sense for UA to have a split operation nor would it make sense for the Port Authority to allow this. If UA does elect to “slot” squat I believe the FAA might come in, again.
     
    tphuang
    Posts: 5325
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Tue Jun 23, 2020 11:35 pm

    Nicknuzzii wrote:
    codc10 wrote:
    jfklganyc wrote:

    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.


    So if United goes through with their plan to be 30% smaller next summer their avg. departures per day from EWR will be in the 290 range. It would make 0 financial sense for UA to have a split operation nor would it make sense for the Port Authority to allow this. If UA does elect to “slot” squat I believe the FAA might come in, again.


    So let's say we get to next fall when T1 opens up initially and Ua is average 200 to 250 departures a day. At this point, B6 is flying 60 departures a day and NK/F9 are at around 40 departures in total.

    Is Port Authority going to tell B6/NK/F9 to not add more flights because UA already leased space in T1? Or is it going to continue all the gates as CUTE gates and allow the LCCs add more flights?

    LCCs are not going to wait for business and international LH travel to come back before they take over unused gates and "time slots". And PA isn't going to allow UA just squat on CUTE gates they are not using.
     
    N649DL
    Posts: 987
    Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:40 am

    Nicknuzzii wrote:
    codc10 wrote:
    jfklganyc wrote:

    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.


    So if United goes through with their plan to be 30% smaller next summer their avg. departures per day from EWR will be in the 290 range. It would make 0 financial sense for UA to have a split operation nor would it make sense for the Port Authority to allow this. If UA does elect to “slot” squat I believe the FAA might come in, again.


    If UAL stays below the 300 flight range (especially with the opening of the largest UA Club of all time) then consolidation only makes sense to Terminal C. And I really do think B6 will need more than 8 gates with the type of operation they're trying to propose. Likely in the range of 10-12 gates in T-1 at EWR. F9 and NK will also want to gobble up quite a few gates as well. Plus don't forget, as embarrassing at the WN exit was from A-1 at EWR, they could always try to return with B6 trying to even the score. Right now between B6/NK/F9 & they're trying to have an LCC footprint at EWR to chop away from UAL in general. AC needing 3 gates? Doubt it, IMHO. Plus I wouldn't count out some Int'l carriers (EG: SAS, LH, or BA) to be there as well for departures only where they can host their clubs and use B for Customs only (never know.)

    DL is likely to stay in B-1 as they have the new SkyClub, clean & new check-in and Security facilities and will likely want to use gate 40 as a tow-in gate. DL's facilities in Terminal B are on point at the moment (for what it is, if you haven't been to the new SkyClub in B, then you haven't lived compared to the decrepit UA club situation in C. ) Plus DL itself might want to try a few new routes out of EWR once COVID ends such as a return to BOS, and trying out SEA/LAS/AUS or back to CDG/AMS. I still hold hope out for DL as EWR flights are always packed and they're constantly in "experiment" mode like with launching EWR-RDU/BOS and launching the A220 from there as well.
     
    slcdeltarumd11
    Posts: 4795
    Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:13 am

    I can't see southwest returning to EWR. They like to make money and bombed in Newark. If anything it will be more competitive and harder. They spent a good amount on advertising but I think never really developed much of a reputation or a large enough local fan base. B6 is a long established highly regarded brand in NY,NJ, CT the brand is known even to non flyers.

    United will be smaller for a very short time period , but I have to think their long term plans are a larger EWR and it's a still a main if not the main focus of the airline with pretty high average fares and the perfect geographical position for a connection hub to Europe. Long term united has to be all in on Newark it's their best card. United will certainly suffer from customers having a choice here on some routes , but I don't see this changing their plans much. Good for customers at Newark, not large enough to threaten united as a hub.
     
    Nicknuzzii
    Posts: 1233
    Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:33 am

    Southwest should be embarrassed (And I believe they are) that they pulled out of EWR. Not only because they left the largest domestic airport in the region but because of the carriers that flooded in to fill the void. Last year it was only UA and WN on EWR - AUS, now it is UA, NK, and B6. F9 also quickly launched a slew of EWR routes following WN’s departure. I think WN’s lack of success at EWR comes from 2 things. 1, it was not sold as an NYC destination, why? Who thought this was a good idea? 2, people located in the region don’t frequently check WN’s website, they use Google flights and other sites. No one goes out of their way for WN.

    On the other hand, the PANYNJ should not be playing any games with gate usage and slots. NK is already suing the DOT over 16 “slots.” Now if UA leaves 100+ open I think there will be serious issues.

    Finally, for DL, I definitely see NK moving out of those gates. Does UA move in? I don’t think they would be willing to spend the money on a stupid lease. DL could possibly try some more routes to secondary hubs or even being back routes such as AMS/CDG on KL or AF metal.
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:48 am

    Nicknuzzii wrote:
    codc10 wrote:
    jfklganyc wrote:

    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.


    So if United goes through with their plan to be 30% smaller next summer their avg. departures per day from EWR will be in the 290 range. It would make 0 financial sense for UA to have a split operation nor would it make sense for the Port Authority to allow this. If UA does elect to “slot” squat I believe the FAA might come in, again.


    I don't think UA will be 30% smaller in terms of daily departures next summer. The 30% number is more likely related to *capacity*, measured in ASMs, which would not be hard to imagine with a smaller China portfolio, less TPAC flying, and reduced EU service. Even with fewer departures than Summer 2019, Summer 2021 could well require more actual gate space because CR5s, E75s and mainline occupy more real estate than ERJs, which will be exiting the fleet at an accelerated rate in the post-COVID environment. For instance, UA's A-2 facility could be reconfigured from 16 ERJ contact gates to 10 or fewer at mainline size. There were already plans to run some mainline flights from A-2 this summer at peak times, and a few gates had been marked for 737s (in each case blocking an adjacent gate).

    The other important part is that United has exclusive use of the entirety of Terminal C and most of the A-2 gates pursuant to long-term lease, along with some PANYNJ "preferential use" gates in A-2 that are contiguous to the UA leasehold. Those contracts don't go away simply because the airline has reduced service as a result of financial hardship. As for T1, it will be a full common-use facility, and airlines will be allocated gates on a "use-it-or-lose-it" basis, no doubt based on pre-COVID traffic. Other space, like ticket counters, lounges, bag rooms and other operational space are leased to airlines, and again United will the largest portion of that square footage.

    Finally, EWR is not slot-restricted, and will likely be below airfield capacity (or at least below 2019 levels) for a few years. There would be no reason for the FAA to "step in" any more so than it already has by essentially retiring the WN peak-hour capacity after it left the market.

    UA will likely exceed 290 departures next summer from EWR (it will be over 200 next month), with a more mainline/large RJ-heavy mix (even with fewer widebodies), that will not fit under one roof at Terminal C. We can dispense with this pipe dream that United is going to cede its exceptionally valuable EWR position to competitors. It's even more ridiculous to believe that the Port Authority will aid in essentially evicting its largest airline tenant (in the aggregate, across all PA facilities), with the highest cumulative lease payments, from its crown jewel operation in the region.

    Now, were United headed toward a certain Chapter 11, perhaps I might feel differently about it. But that's not the case, and I'd again solicit a response to my earlier inquiry... if it is reasonable to propose that UA should lose gates/real estate on the basis of its COVID-related service cuts at EWR, why aren't people suggesting the same for AA at JFK T8 (by far the largest gate/slot squat in the USA) or Delta at LGA/JFK, which will have similarly reduced operations in the near future?
     
    T5towbar
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:01 am

    codc10 wrote:
    jfklganyc wrote:
    T5towbar wrote:

    Not happening. And especially after last weeks announcement, UA won't be doing B6 any favors. The issue for B6 growth shouldn't be gate space. (they should get a fair number of gates) In normal times, the issue would be peak hour slots. if all the carriers were operating their normal schedules, but these aren't normal times. So they should be able to run their planned schedule.

    The full UA operation cannot fit into Terminal C. Right now it can. The only reason A2 was abandoned is because there are no UAX 145's. They got sent to IAD (C5).
    There has been a few UAX 170/75 that has returned, and I think that the 550's are returning??. So as things stand, everything can fit in C1 & C2, with the exception of some widebodies that come to C3 (and some that come into B3 - notably FRA). I miss all of the wide bodies that come into B2 & B3. Now it is a ghost town.


    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR. If anything, it needs more physical gate space to operate the same, or a smaller number of flights, since there will be fewer 50-seaters in service coming out of this crisis, and will require larger gates than the ERJ-optimized parking positions at the current Terminal A.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.



    I almost forgot about the "United Tax" that the State of NJ was to impose on UA about either more cost of landing fees or fuel. I can't recall which one. This is what Jill Kaplan was lobbying / fighting Trenton over. UA was the only carrier that was supposed to contribute mightily for the construction of the PATH extension with a "tax", since UA is the biggest carrier here. I'm not sure what became of it. Plus they had to knock down one of Chelsea's buildings near the South Checkpoint for the terminal.

    If you look at the terminal diagram, you can see that they are designed and optimized for mainline (B737 / A32 type gates.) The two gates on each of the far ends could probably be widebody gates. The way things look, UA could run a 16 gate for 145's or a combination (170/737) within a 9 gate footprint at the top of the alley. We were presently running that type of Ops within a 10 gate footprint which is what all of the gates in the present Terminal A is. And I'm quiet sure that more 170's or 550's will be replacing 145's, they will still need room to accommodate them, since even at 75%, it still won't be enough to run everything at C.

    I forgot about DL's investment over at B-1. They built a new lounge and entry area around the same time that BA built a new lounge. That's probably why they are not moving.


    At peak times, UAX was a 21 gate operation, not 16.

    I was just over there today at the construction, and they are pouring concrete over the top of the alley area portion, for the ramp area and the adjacent hardstand where "Lindy" used to be.
    A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
     
    Nicknuzzii
    Posts: 1233
    Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:10 am

    T5towbar wrote:
    codc10 wrote:
    jfklganyc wrote:

    I dont think UA has a say in future gates at all

    They have an abandoned banjo in Terminal A

    B6 is expanding. Plain and simple. F9 and NK are expanding too.

    This isn’t Atlanta. Gate use doesn’t get run by the big airline for approval. As of now, UA has no need for gates beyond Terminal C. That may change down the road...but other airlines are making moves now


    Nobody is looking to June 2020, pretty much Month 0 in the post-COVID world, as any sort of predictor of gate allocation in the 2021 and beyond timeframe.

    United already has significant leased space in T1, and will be its largest tenant. I don't understand why people have such a hard time wrapping their heads around this fact. The Port Authority may be a difficult organization to work with, but United traffic contributes the lion's share of PFCs for the region (more than any other airline) and it knows who butters its bread. Over the years, United has gotten *mostly* everything it wants. UAL is by no means planning a retreat from EWR. If anything, it needs more physical gate space to operate the same, or a smaller number of flights, since there will be fewer 50-seaters in service coming out of this crisis, and will require larger gates than the ERJ-optimized parking positions at the current Terminal A.

    It seems to be some sort of bizarre A.net fantasy that the PANYNJ will "punish" United by kicking it out of T1, or culling gate space based on one month of schedule reductions during the worst catastrophe ever to befall the industry. I don't see people clamoring for the PANYNJ to reallocate AA's JFK slots (since it is clear American will never fully utilize them) or suggesting that Delta might have gate space clawed back in forthcoming projects due to post-COVID service reductions at JFK/LGA. This is just irrational, IMO.



    I almost forgot about the "United Tax" that the State of NJ was to impose on UA about either more cost of landing fees or fuel. I can't recall which one. This is what Jill Kaplan was lobbying / fighting Trenton over. UA was the only carrier that was supposed to contribute mightily for the construction of the PATH extension with a "tax", since UA is the biggest carrier here. I'm not sure what became of it. Plus they had to knock down one of Chelsea's buildings near the South Checkpoint for the terminal.

    If you look at the terminal diagram, you can see that they are designed and optimized for mainline (B737 / A32 type gates.) The two gates on each of the far ends could probably be widebody gates. The way things look, UA could run a 16 gate for 145's or a combination (170/737) within a 9 gate footprint at the top of the alley. We were presently running that type of Ops within a 10 gate footprint which is what all of the gates in the present Terminal A is. And I'm quiet sure that more 170's or 550's will be replacing 145's, they will still need room to accommodate them, since even at 75%, it still won't be enough to run everything at C.

    I forgot about DL's investment over at B-1. They built a new lounge and entry area around the same time that BA built a new lounge. That's probably why they are not moving.


    At peak times, UAX was a 21 gate operation, not 16.

    I was just over there today at the construction, and they are pouring concrete over the top of the alley area portion, for the ramp area and the adjacent hardstand where "Lindy" used to be.


    Thanks for sharing this info. I know we are a long way out but any word on any dates for an opening? Such as Q2 or Q3 2021? Also, anything on which carriers will use terminal 1?
     
    N649DL
    Posts: 987
    Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:11 am

    Nicknuzzii wrote:
    Southwest should be embarrassed (And I believe they are) that they pulled out of EWR. Not only because they left the largest domestic airport in the region but because of the carriers that flooded in to fill the void. Last year it was only UA and WN on EWR - AUS, now it is UA, NK, and B6. F9 also quickly launched a slew of EWR routes following WN’s departure. I think WN’s lack of success at EWR comes from 2 things. 1, it was not sold as an NYC destination, why? Who thought this was a good idea? 2, people located in the region don’t frequently check WN’s website, they use Google flights and other sites. No one goes out of their way for WN.

    On the other hand, the PANYNJ should not be playing any games with gate usage and slots. NK is already suing the DOT over 16 “slots.” Now if UA leaves 100+ open I think there will be serious issues.

    Finally, for DL, I definitely see NK moving out of those gates. Does UA move in? I don’t think they would be willing to spend the money on a stupid lease. DL could possibly try some more routes to secondary hubs or even being back routes such as AMS/CDG on KL or AF metal.


    Remember that UA (CO) traded slots at EWR to WN to merge with UA in 2010 (to which WN took UA's old gates in Terminal A) and then bounced less than a decade later. Embarrassing in the respect that they didn't seem to try terribly hard over the years, but still seemed quite in demand. I know many in NJ (including my Sister who used to fly them out of HOU when she lived there, and now lives back in NJ) and are bummed that WN is out of EWR. It seemed yearly that WN was always switching up the EWR network with zero strategy. They seemed to be always more focused on LGA.

    At least B6 stuck it in there to expand right now. What gates they're going to use in the interim, ya got me haha.

    With regards to DL, Terminal B in B-1 is basically their properly as a result that they took over the ex-NW gates in the same concourse when they merged. The gate areas are a dump but they build out a new security area in 2010-2011, a new SkyClub which opened in 2017, and new check-in areas on the middle level that opened circa 2014. Not a bad space to have, they just don't care much about the gate areas or restrooms apparently. **FYI: Pay the fee to go to the SkyClub over sitting by DL's gates at EWR. It's well worth your time lol.

    DL only swapped out gates to NK and UA (IIRC, 2016ish) when they weren't using them fully. I'm not even sure if gate 40 is fully functional or if it's just a tow-in gate at this point. UA had to use a bus system for 1, perhaps 2 gates out of B-1 back to the other terminals so I doubt they'll go back there. If anything, I could see DL dismantling or using 1-2 gates for overnight tow-in space when this is all said and done. I honestly don't see them leaving B, but then again, there is the ex-NW club which remains vacant and a bit of a waste of space at this point. So ya never know.
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:39 am

    T5towbar wrote:
    I almost forgot about the "United Tax" that the State of NJ was to impose on UA about either more cost of landing fees or fuel. I can't recall which one. This is what Jill Kaplan was lobbying / fighting Trenton over. UA was the only carrier that was supposed to contribute mightily for the construction of the PATH extension with a "tax", since UA is the biggest carrier here. I'm not sure what became of it. Plus they had to knock down one of Chelsea's buildings near the South Checkpoint for the terminal.

    At peak times, UAX was a 21 gate operation, not 16.


    Re: fuel tax, it passed the NJ Senate and Assembly, but I think it died at Phil Murphy's desk. I don't believe it ever went into effect. The GSE shop (bldg 331) and Chelsea (330) are in the way of T1 RON parking and taxilanes.

    As for UAX, was this at A-2 alone? Or inclusive of the A-1 (original UAL) gates? Or back when UAX used all of C-2?
     
    N649DL
    Posts: 987
    Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:51 am

    codc10 wrote:
    T5towbar wrote:
    At peak times, UAX was a 21 gate operation, not 16.


    At A-2 alone? Or inclusive of the A-1 (original UAL) gates? Or back when UAX used all of C-2?


    I'm not sure if they could make that rotunda 21 gates in A-2 (Excuse me: A-2, sorry brain fart). Recall it belonged to USAir in the early 1990s. Perhaps maybe 18 at the most out of that satellite? I honestly have no idea, but impressive if CO or UA could stretch it up to 21 gates haha.

    Recall US had a feeder network in 2000-2001 out of the A-3 gates & UA used to hold in a 747SP to NRT & a 777 to LHR out of A-1 (near the IAD express gates at EWR) so you never know.
    Last edited by N649DL on Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
     
    tphuang
    Posts: 5325
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:53 am

    codc10 wrote:
    UA will likely exceed 290 departures next summer from EWR (it will be over 200 next month), with a more mainline/large RJ-heavy mix (even with fewer widebodies), that will not fit under one roof at Terminal C. We can dispense with this pipe dream that United is going to cede its exceptionally valuable EWR position to competitors. It's even more ridiculous to believe that the Port Authority will aid in essentially evicting its largest airline tenant (in the aggregate, across all PA facilities), with the highest cumulative lease payments, from its crown jewel operation in the region.

    Well you said it. Over 200 next month! We will see. That would be double their totals from July and way more than what DL operates between JFK and LGA for August. Especially impressive considering Europe is not lifting its ban on US residents.

    As for your other comments, why would PA need to evict its largest airlines tenant? Just allocate those gates based upon usage. If B6/F9/NK are using their gates more aggressively than other airlines, then they should be allowed to use other CUTE gates when the preferred airline is not using them. And those airlines should lose their preferred access to those gates if they keep up the low usage.

    As for the lease payments part, you make it sound like other airlines won't pay their share if they end up flying more. Other airlines would love the privilege of paying more lease payments to have a fortress hub at EWR.
    Now, were United headed toward a certain Chapter 11, perhaps I might feel differently about it. But that's not the case, and I'd again solicit a response to my earlier inquiry... if it is reasonable to propose that UA should lose gates/real estate on the basis of its COVID-related service cuts at EWR, why aren't people suggesting the same for AA at JFK T8 (by far the largest gate/slot squat in the USA) or Delta at LGA/JFK, which will have similarly reduced operations in the near future?

    AA alright gave back a bunch of slots at JFK. What more do you want them to do?

    As for DL, they should definitely give up their slots if they are not meeting their slot usage requirements. There will be plenty of LCCs looking for more LGA slots if DL doesn't want to use its.

    Remember that UA (CO) traded slots at EWR to WN to merge with UA in 2010 (to which WN took UA's old gates in Terminal A) and then bounced less than a decade later. Embarrassing in the respect that they didn't seem to try terribly hard over the years, but still seemed quite in demand. I know many in NJ (including my Sister who used to fly them out of HOU when she lived there, and now lives back in NJ) and are bummed that WN is out of EWR. It seemed yearly that WN was always switching up the EWR network with zero strategy. They seemed to be always more focused on LGA.

    At least B6 stuck it in there to expand right now. What gates they're going to use in the interim, ya got me haha.

    WN kept changing strategies because their performance was horrible. B6 stuck to their schedule, because EWR performed as well as LGA/JFK.

    Based on the performance data I've seen, only B6 and NK will stick around in expansion mode long term at EWR outside from UA. F9 will come and go. AC will be about the same size as it was before. AA will stick with its hub routes and possibly even cut 1 or 2 hubs. DL is going to not bring back the lower performing ones anytime soon.
     
    N649DL
    Posts: 987
    Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:57 am

    tphuang wrote:
    codc10 wrote:
    UA will likely exceed 290 departures next summer from EWR (it will be over 200 next month), with a more mainline/large RJ-heavy mix (even with fewer widebodies), that will not fit under one roof at Terminal C. We can dispense with this pipe dream that United is going to cede its exceptionally valuable EWR position to competitors. It's even more ridiculous to believe that the Port Authority will aid in essentially evicting its largest airline tenant (in the aggregate, across all PA facilities), with the highest cumulative lease payments, from its crown jewel operation in the region.

    Well you said it. Over 200 next month! We will see. That would be double their totals from July and way more than what DL operates between JFK and LGA for August. Especially impressive considering Europe is not lifting its ban on US residents.

    As for your other comments, why would PA need to evict its largest airlines tenant? Just allocate those gates based upon usage. If B6/F9/NK are using their gates more aggressively than other airlines, then they should be allowed to use other CUTE gates when the preferred airline is not using them. And those airlines should lose their preferred access to those gates if they keep up the low usage.

    As for the lease payments part, you make it sound like other airlines won't pay their share if they end up flying more. Other airlines would love the privilege of paying more lease payments to have a fortress hub at EWR.
    Now, were United headed toward a certain Chapter 11, perhaps I might feel differently about it. But that's not the case, and I'd again solicit a response to my earlier inquiry... if it is reasonable to propose that UA should lose gates/real estate on the basis of its COVID-related service cuts at EWR, why aren't people suggesting the same for AA at JFK T8 (by far the largest gate/slot squat in the USA) or Delta at LGA/JFK, which will have similarly reduced operations in the near future?

    AA alright gave back a bunch of slots at JFK. What more do you want them to do?

    As for DL, they should definitely give up their slots if they are not meeting their slot usage requirements. There will be plenty of LCCs looking for more LGA slots if DL doesn't want to use its.

    Remember that UA (CO) traded slots at EWR to WN to merge with UA in 2010 (to which WN took UA's old gates in Terminal A) and then bounced less than a decade later. Embarrassing in the respect that they didn't seem to try terribly hard over the years, but still seemed quite in demand. I know many in NJ (including my Sister who used to fly them out of HOU when she lived there, and now lives back in NJ) and are bummed that WN is out of EWR. It seemed yearly that WN was always switching up the EWR network with zero strategy. They seemed to be always more focused on LGA.

    At least B6 stuck it in there to expand right now. What gates they're going to use in the interim, ya got me haha.

    WN kept changing strategies because their performance was horrible. B6 stuck to their schedule, because EWR performed as well as LGA/JFK.

    Based on the performance data I've seen, only B6 and NK will stick around in expansion mode long term at EWR outside from UA. F9 will come and go. AC will be about the same size as it was before. AA will stick with its hub routes and possibly even cut 1 or 2 hubs. DL is going to not bring back the lower performing ones anytime soon.


    I could honestly see AA and BA having clubs and splitting gates out of EWR T-1. Someone said 7 gates for AA, and that seems right. I could maybe see AA adding LAX or (hard maybe) BOS or DCA back in the distant future, but they clearly want frequency out of EWR to the hubs at this point. And they do that well right now, much like DL. Recall how AA almost made EWR-ORD almost all American Eagle routing and then randomly added back to mainline 738 consistently within the last few years.

    **FYI: I say this only as AA seems to only retreat from T-8 at JFK, which is a tragedy. It might seem like B6 and DL will be the heads of the whole NYC market come future times, IMHO. I don't mean to urinate all over the NYC market but it's plain and simple: if you and own 2 of the 3 NYC airports in some capacity, they you're good shape. UA fell asleep recently and focused on only one part of the regional market. And honestly, that could bite them in the ass compared to what B6 is up to, just saying.
    Last edited by N649DL on Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:09 am

    tphuang wrote:
    As for your other comments, why would PA need to evict its largest airlines tenant? Just allocate those gates based upon usage. If B6/F9/NK are using their gates more aggressively than other airlines, then they should be allowed to use other CUTE gates when the preferred airline is not using them. And those airlines should lose their preferred access to those gates if they keep up the low usage.

    As for the lease payments part, you make it sound like other airlines won't pay their share if they end up flying more. Other airlines would love the privilege of paying more lease payments to have a fortress hub at EWR.


    That's not the way things work at most airports in the USA, and certainly not at EWR. With about four exceptions, United's EWR gates are not common-use; United has various leases for its space, most of which are exclusive (the entirety of Terminal C, and most of A-2) and those leases do not have use requirements. The preferential-use gates occupied by United are at A-2, and most of the equipment (including jetbridges) are owned/operated by United. The gates don't become up for grabs simply because United has temporarily reduced its schedule during the biggest crisis in airline history, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that United would consider leasing space to its direct competitors to enable expansion.

    AA alright gave back a bunch of slots at JFK. What more do you want them to do?

    As for DL, they should definitely give up their slots if they are not meeting their slot usage requirements. There will be plenty of LCCs looking for more LGA slots if DL doesn't want to use its.


    The situations are directly analogous. Most gates in the AA/DL JFK/LGA portfolios are exclusive-use. If we are calling for United to cede unused space to competitors, as if it were business as usual, during an unprecedented industry crisis, then the same should be true for each of the US3, at all of their hubsites, since nobody is operating a full schedule at the moment.
    Last edited by codc10 on Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
     
    T5towbar
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:12 am

    Construction was pushed back a bit. They were still doing some work during the lockdown, but it wasn't as busy as a normal days from what I can see. Construction was exempt from the NJ Governor's lockdown orders, as most of other construction was affected. IMHO, 3rd or 4th Quarter of '21??

    Gate 40 was a tow in gate situation. PITA.!! I think that was a situation/agreement with DL (due to the leaving of JFK), so UA had use of that gate for one or two summers. UA won't be coming back to B-1. Bank on that.

    I didn't know that Sun Country and Allegiant still flew here. I know I see some of their aircraft from time but not lately before COVID19.
    to time, but not that often. I think that DL will let them use their excess gates since they don't have a busy operation like F9 and NK. Maybe that's why they will be heading to the new terminal. Some people speculated that AC may use the B-1 gates, but I doubt that since AC would like to be close to UA since they are Star partners. Maybe WestJet, with their seasonal YYC flight can come to B?

    WN blamed the MAX situation for leaving EWR. But I think that WN could not run their efficient operation due to the constant GDP's which affect their system. The flow gets metered...... and they had peak time slots to add to the mix. But doesn't LGA has constant GDP's like EWR?

    BTW: A2 is not completely empty........ B6 has their BMU here. They shuttle their bags to A1 and A3. A1 BMU situation was horrible. It kept breaking down constantly. I'm surprised it worked for WN.
    A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
     
    T5towbar
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:06 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:31 am

    codc10 wrote:
    T5towbar wrote:
    I almost forgot about the "United Tax" that the State of NJ was to impose on UA about either more cost of landing fees or fuel. I can't recall which one. This is what Jill Kaplan was lobbying / fighting Trenton over. UA was the only carrier that was supposed to contribute mightily for the construction of the PATH extension with a "tax", since UA is the biggest carrier here. I'm not sure what became of it. Plus they had to knock down one of Chelsea's buildings near the South Checkpoint for the terminal.

    At peak times, UAX was a 21 gate operation, not 16.


    Re: fuel tax, it passed the NJ Senate and Assembly, but I think it died at Phil Murphy's desk. I don't believe it ever went into effect. The GSE shop (bldg 331) and Chelsea (330) are in the way of T1 RON parking and taxilanes.

    As for UAX, was this at A-2 alone? Or inclusive of the A-1 (original UAL) gates? Or back when UAX used all of C-2?



    I thought that nonsense bill failed. It as something that UA didn't need to pay since they pay more for PFC's than any other airline within the 3 PA airports.
    (I also forgot about Bldg. 331 being torn down too.)

    UAX had 5 gates on the "C-4" hardstand: 130 Victory thru Zulu. Making a total of 5 E145 gates. We ran a bus service from Gate 130 to the hardstand.

    The other original UA gates 16 & 17 was swapped with B6 for Gates 21 & 22, with the condition that B6 kept their BMU in A-2 which is much better than anything in A-1. Otherwise, the rest of their operation moved to A-1. That move finally consolidated the UAX operation at A-1.
    A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
     
    slcdeltarumd11
    Posts: 4795
    Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:38 am

    I'm not convinced F9 is in EWR for the long haul. It's a pretty high cost airport and very delay prone in winter. EWR just isn't their normal city, I guess we can see how it goes. I give JetBlue alot more potential on any routes. I could see frontier exit, even if this a slow bleed. They are not one to chaulk up loses for future potential or slots/gates.

    JetBlue is willing to build something, I don't think frontier is or even wants to. Spirit who knows I guess we need to see how they do with new routes.

    JetBlue can win over alot of I hate united travellers but i fly them because it's non stop. EWR I think has millions of those people. I could see them developing a real loyal following out of EWR.
    Last edited by slcdeltarumd11 on Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:44 am

    T5towbar wrote:
    UAX had 5 gates on the "C-4" hardstand: 130 Victory thru Zulu. Making a total of 5 E145 gates. We ran a bus service from Gate 130 to the hardstand.

    The other original UA gates 16 & 17 was swapped with B6 for Gates 21 & 22, with the condition that B6 kept their BMU in A-2 which is much better than anything in A-1. Otherwise, the rest of their operation moved to A-1. That move finally consolidated the UAX operation at A-1.


    Right, I was confused by the mention of 21 gates... couldn't imagine that many at A-2... but inclusive of the C130 hardstand operation, now that makes sense. I know that "ugly stepchild" setup has been mothballed, but is it gone permanently? If so, good riddance!

    I know for years, prior to making the move, UA had been trying to cajole B6 into trading out of the A-2 gates, but B6 always resisted because of that bag room. I did not know they kept it!
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 3:52 am

    tphuang wrote:
    Well you said it. Over 200 next month! We will see. That would be double their totals from July


    And was a misread... 200 departures by year-end is a *target*, but by no means has anything beyond July actually been planned. UA will be at around 100-125 EWR departures in July. August could see UA exceed 150 based on demand, but nothing filed yet. Still, a far cry from the dozen or so flights just a few weeks ago.

    UA will have a few airports over 200 departures in July, though... DEN, ORD, IAH.
     
    UALifer
    Posts: 83
    Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:35 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:34 am

    codc10 wrote:
    tphuang wrote:
    As for your other comments, why would PA need to evict its largest airlines tenant? Just allocate those gates based upon usage. If B6/F9/NK are using their gates more aggressively than other airlines, then they should be allowed to use other CUTE gates when the preferred airline is not using them. And those airlines should lose their preferred access to those gates if they keep up the low usage.

    As for the lease payments part, you make it sound like other airlines won't pay their share if they end up flying more. Other airlines would love the privilege of paying more lease payments to have a fortress hub at EWR.


    That's not the way things work at most airports in the USA, and certainly not at EWR. With about four exceptions, United's EWR gates are not common-use; United has various leases for its space, most of which are exclusive (the entirety of Terminal C, and most of A-2) and those leases do not have use requirements. The preferential-use gates occupied by United are at A-2, and most of the equipment (including jetbridges) are owned/operated by United. The gates don't become up for grabs simply because United has temporarily reduced its schedule during the biggest crisis in airline history, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that United would consider leasing space to its direct competitors to enable expansion.

    AA alright gave back a bunch of slots at JFK. What more do you want them to do?

    As for DL, they should definitely give up their slots if they are not meeting their slot usage requirements. There will be plenty of LCCs looking for more LGA slots if DL doesn't want to use its.


    The situations are directly analogous. Most gates in the AA/DL JFK/LGA portfolios are exclusive-use. If we are calling for United to cede unused space to competitors, as if it were business as usual, during an unprecedented industry crisis, then the same should be true for each of the US3, at all of their hubsites, since nobody is operating a full schedule at the moment.


    Exactly. There are very few major airports that actually allocate gates based on gate usage (SEA and SFO come to mind). Gates are leased and airports can't just arbitrarily decide that they're going to reallocate exclusive-use gates to another carrier when someone else has a lease on the gate. That would be like a landlord evicting you from your apartment in a high demand building because you're not there all the time, even though you continue to pay for it.
     
    Jerseyguy
    Posts: 2183
    Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 12:05 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:25 am

    It appears that United may be starting to react on some of the new EWR routes... Jetblue and United have lowered fares between Newark and Austin to $26 from $49 (Basic Economy) and United has lowered its standard economy to $60 from $84. Jetblue has remained at $84 for standard economy (aka Blue) Spirit is still selling its Newark-Austin at $49. This is just a look at the next couple month September thru November using monthly calendars. So it looks that United may have been the one to start to react because they lowered their standard economy.and Jetblue has not. I looked at LAS seeing if it was due to the 3 airline competition with Spirit and EWR-LAS appears to be the original price.
     
    tphuang
    Posts: 5325
    Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:10 pm

    codc10 wrote:

    That's not the way things work at most airports in the USA, and certainly not at EWR. With about four exceptions, United's EWR gates are not common-use; United has various leases for its space, most of which are exclusive (the entirety of Terminal C, and most of A-2) and those leases do not have use requirements. The preferential-use gates occupied by United are at A-2, and most of the equipment (including jetbridges) are owned/operated by United. The gates don't become up for grabs simply because United has temporarily reduced its schedule during the biggest crisis in airline history, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that United would consider leasing space to its direct competitors to enable expansion.

    Nobody is talking about Terminal C or even A-2. They are talking about CUTE gate access in the new terminal 1. If CUTE gates are not being used and the preferred carriers are not using them, other airlines should be allowed to use that. And if they don't meet their usage requirements, they should no longer have preferred access to them. I just don't see how AA could continue to use up 7 gates if it becomes CUTE. And if UA operation can mostly fit in Terminal C, they should not be holding half of the gates at the new terminal 1 and not allowing other carriers to use them.

    The situations are directly analogous. Most gates in the AA/DL JFK/LGA portfolios are exclusive-use. If we are calling for United to cede unused space to competitors, as if it were business as usual, during an unprecedented industry crisis, then the same should be true for each of the US3, at all of their hubsites, since nobody is operating a full schedule at the moment.


    Terminal 1 is not exclusive use to UA. They are CUTE gates. AA & DL terminal at JFK also have plenty of other carriers in there. DL actually has to battle other carriers for space at T4. As for other hubs around the country, the non-hub carriers can add as many flights as they want in the CUTE gates. I doubt they will be forced to stop flying them when the hub carrier resumes activity.

    codc10 wrote:
    tphuang wrote:
    Well you said it. Over 200 next month! We will see. That would be double their totals from July


    And was a misread... 200 departures by year-end is a *target*, but by no means has anything beyond July actually been planned. UA will be at around 100-125 EWR departures in July. August could see UA exceed 150 based on demand, but nothing filed yet. Still, a far cry from the dozen or so flights just a few weeks ago.

    UA will have a few airports over 200 departures in July, though... DEN, ORD, IAH.


    I mean that's fine. We will find out what the numbers look like. It's quite clear by this point that Northeast business market demand is extremely weak. Which is the reason DL has only scheduled in 75 flights a day in August at LGA (there will be another cut later). UA faces the same problem at EWR that DL has a at LGA. Until business and international LH comes back, it will be hard for them to run anything close to what they had before. You see LCCs adding stuff at EWR because leisure and VFR traffic is coming back a lot quicker.

    I fully expect UA's middle of country hubs to come back faster than the coastal hubs which rely on the international traffic. It's possible that with B6/ULCCs expanding at EWR, Kirby will add things back faster at EWR. We will see. JetBlue's moves at JFK certainly hasn't pushed DL to bring back JFK any faster. It's middle of the country hubs are all under pressure from WN, so it can't exactly neglect them.

    Jerseyguy wrote:
    It appears that United may be starting to react on some of the new EWR routes... Jetblue and United have lowered fares between Newark and Austin to $26 from $49 (Basic Economy) and United has lowered its standard economy to $60 from $84. Jetblue has remained at $84 for standard economy (aka Blue) Spirit is still selling its Newark-Austin at $49. This is just a look at the next couple month September thru November using monthly calendars. So it looks that United may have been the one to start to react because they lowered their standard economy.and Jetblue has not. I looked at LAS seeing if it was due to the 3 airline competition with Spirit and EWR-LAS appears to be the original price.


    We will see what happens on some of these routes. I think F9 will be in and out of these places if they don't meet some performance criteria. NK seems pretty determined to battle these places out in normal circumstances. But if they are stuck the middle of a fare war between B6 and UA on some of these routes, I don't know if they will stick it out in the current demand environment.
     
    User avatar
    jfklganyc
    Posts: 6001
    Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 1:43 pm

    “ I mean that's fine. We will find out what the numbers look like. It's quite clear by this point that Northeast business market demand is extremely weak. Which is the reason DL has only scheduled in 75 flights a day in August at LGA (there will be another cut later). UA faces the same problem at EWR that DL has a at LGA. Until business and international LH comes back, it will be hard for them to run anything close to what they had before. You see LCCs adding stuff at EWR because leisure and VFR traffic is coming back a lot quicker.”

    Bingo
     
    codc10
    Posts: 2897
    Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:05 pm

    tphuang wrote:
    Nobody is talking about Terminal C or even A-2. They are talking about CUTE gate access in the new terminal 1. If CUTE gates are not being used and the preferred carriers are not using them, other airlines should be allowed to use that. And if they don't meet their usage requirements, they should no longer have preferred access to them. I just don't see how AA could continue to use up 7 gates if it becomes CUTE. And if UA operation can mostly fit in Terminal C, they should not be holding half of the gates at the new terminal 1 and not allowing other carriers to use them.


    If we are talking theoretically, then yes, I agree that CUTE gates *should* have a use requirement, and an airline should not be permitted to squat on gates. But, at T1, only the gates themselves will be CUTE, and there will still be airline-specific leaseholds (for which United's space is substantial), and gates allocated to air carriers on a preferential-use basis. The use requirement on the T1 gates is going to be lower than most would expect (something like average of 3 daily turns).

    My discussion on this topic is aimed at the idea the Port Authority will be allocating T1 gates principally on the basis of capacity ratios in the post-COVID environment, especially Summer 2020, which is nonsensical. This is an aberration, and while it will take time to get back to 100%, we aren't going to see United suddenly pushed out of T1 because of a temporary reduction in flying necessitated by the pandemic. No chance, and, as I mentioned, most of those gate allocation issues have already been agreed upon, at least in principle.

    The other notion, generally unsupported by evidence, is that United squats on gates at EWR, exclusive or not. During normal times, United is usually between 5 and 6 departures per gate, per day, some gates more than others, reflective of the regional/mainline narrow/mainline wide/international arrival mix. That means its usage rate is generally better than DL at JFK (more comparable operation) but not as much as DL at LGA (higher-frequency, smaller aircraft), and several-fold better than AA at JFK. It's roughly equivalent to B6 at JFK T5.

    Terminal 1 is not exclusive use to UA. They are CUTE gates. AA & DL terminal at JFK also have plenty of other carriers in there. DL actually has to battle other carriers for space at T4. As for other hubs around the country, the non-hub carriers can add as many flights as they want in the CUTE gates. I doubt they will be forced to stop flying them when the hub carrier resumes activity.


    AA allocates space to other carriers in T8 at its discretion, as it is under an exclusive-use arrangement for that terminal, and while T4 is technically CUTE, virtually all DL gates at T4 are at least preferential-use, and some exclusive. CUTE gates are not the free-for-all you seem to think they are, though. If the space is already assigned to an airline, it is incumbent on the airline to maintain a service level for that gate/time to remain preferential or exclusive. Generally, in the case of the NY airports, these are reviewed at long intervals (not month-to-month) and are often part of the horse-trading between airlines and the Port (e.g., part of a negotiation for tenant projects, improvements, capital investments made by an airline, etc.). In other words, it's not considered in a vacuum.
     
    User avatar
    jetblastdubai
    Posts: 1977
    Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

    Re: Major Expansion B6 at EWR and JFK

    Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:10 pm

    tphuang wrote:

    Which is the reason DL has only scheduled in 75 flights a day in August at LGA (there will be another cut later). UA faces the same problem at EWR that DL has a at LGA. .


    The big difference between UA @ EWR and DL @ LGA/JFK is that DL controls slots and new competitors that didn't have service before can't just come in and add flights and threaten DL's market share. DL can sit back and add back flights when it fits their timetable as long as they're not forced to use or lose their slots.

    United faces the dilemma that there there are other carriers that are in a position to act faster, with less risk, and can literally walk right in the front door at EWR and add flights where they wish and there's nothing UA can do about it.

    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