codc10 wrote:tphuang wrote:codc10 wrote:I make no reference to terminal space or co-location, or redevelopment.
The argument of the near-impossibility of UA growth at JFK presupposes a 100% return of JFK operations at peak times (e.g., transatlantic push). That's not going to happen for some time, and when it does, the airport is going to look a bit different, with BA/AA co-located and additional T4 development. Even still, we won't see 11x JFK-LHR every day, or the same level of frequency to other EU hubs, that we saw in 2019 and the years leading up to it. So, there will unquestionably be space available to house a United operation of fewer than 20 daily flights, spread throughout the day. United has also told pilots it currently has access to approximately 14 daily slot pairs at JFK, but at the moment there is no business case for operating any greater frequency than what has been scheduled, and the stated priority right now is to rebuild the transcontinental franchise before moving to domestic connectivity.
While BA is planning to vacate T7 once the T8 work is complete, there is no timetable for the closure/demolition of the current facility and the JetBlue T5 expansion has not been funded. So, T7 remains a viable home for UA ... until it isn't. At least at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, there is ample space to house as large of a United operation as it cares to schedule.
Finally, my post contemplates a time where slot waivers at LHR expire, and airlines return to the use-it-or-lose-it rule. I don't see that happening any time in the next year or so; the pressure from BA will be too great.
As for the JV flying, I would not propose additional frequencies, but a possible restructuring of the LH Group airlines could see some reallocation of flying. Internationally, JFK is the most preferred NYC airport from foreign points of sale, so it makes sense for the foreign JV carriers to operate JFK service where greater JFK demand is inbound, not the inverse. Market dynamics post-COVID, especially transatlantic, could change that calculus. For instance, projections are US point-of-sale demand to Europe will far exceed inbound EU-USA for 2021 and into 2022. Co-brand credit card relationships and FF bases at the dominant POS influence JV flying decisions.
So you are making the argument that airlines will operate their LHR due to use it or lose it rule. But somehow, airlines won't use their JFK slots when slot waiver ends?
You are saying that UA has told its pilots that it has access to 14 pairs. Is that permanent slots or temporary slots that has been granted due to slot waiver? I would imagine the latter. Regardless, it's presumptuous to think that 20 permanent slots will all be available for UA once slot waiver is over. The fact is B6, DL and AA have all brought back flights much quicker at JFK than LGA. They should be able to meet the 80% slot usage rule if slot waiver goes away by end of October. If there are permanent slots becoming available during peak times, you can bet that UA will not be the only carrier fighting for them. Who is giving up JFK peak hour slots? That's not to say UA can't get 20 slots at times they want. It just isn't that straight forward. And certainly, JFK losing its slot constraint would probably be the best thing for UA.
LH is already have trouble finding places to operate its flights. So, it's going to solve that problem by flying even less to JFK after it has invested a lot of money there?
T-7 isn't a viable home for UA. jetBlue will demolish T-7 on time unless there is evidence otherwise. They have already told their crew members that they plan for an up to 240 flight operation at JFK. You think T-5 is big enough to support that?
LHR and JFK slot waivers are not tied. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that LHR slot waivers will remain in force longer than the same at JFK for precisely the reason that there will be greater demand for 100% utilization driven by the domestic market, and US carriers (UA's desire to grow its slot portfolio at JFK is clear evidence of this). On the other hand, BA has neither the equipment nor the business case to operate 100% of its LHR slot portfolio, shy of scheduling dozens of shorthaul flights to squat (as it has in the past) at a loss. There's also tremendous environmental pressure to avoid this practice. Thus, I suspect LHR slot waivers will be more permissive, and perhaps longer-lasting, than JFK.
The biggest 3 slot holders at JFK are all at a position where they can meet the 80% slot usage requirement when slot waiver goes away. The most likely airline to not meet its slot usage requirement was AA. That went away once it partnered up with B6. Now, they are adding back some flights and leasing some slots to B6 that it cannot operate. Where is this abundance of permanet slot becoming available for UA to claim?
Again, I'm sure UA can get some slots from airlines that no longer intend to fly TATL. There really isn't any evidence that the 3 primary domestic carriers will give them up any of the prime hour slots.
Again, this all goes out of the window if JFK slot constraint goes away. It could happen, but then UA still has the terminal issue.
Who told you they don't have funding for it? I haven't read any article that says their partners/investors have went busto or pulled out of the project.
Has the JFK Millenium Partners bond issuance taken place yet? I haven't seen it. Can you find evidence of it? At the start of the project, that was a 2020-2021 target. No doubt it has slipped.
You will note I did not say anyone has "pulled out." But if the bond isuance hasn't taken place, the project isn't funded. And that pushes everything back, probably years.
That's because we were in the biggest cash crunch in airline industry. We are almost out of it. JetBlue is back operating as 2% less capacity this June vs 2019. A delay to start of T-6 project does not mean a delay to T-7 demolition. It would actually probably be better for T-6/7 construction to be going on at the same time.
B6 is in the midst of a huge NYC expansion over the next 2 years, because it's getting a bunch of AA slots. It will need all the space it can get. It doesn't have any other terminal projects. If UA is basing its business case at JFK on the possibility that B6 will not tear down T-7, it should probably rethink it.
I'm sure there will be a news coming out on B6's JFK redevelopment plan very soon. If B6 does delay T6/7 construction until after 2023, then good for UA.