VC10er wrote:

Brazil is probably one of the most unknown of gems. Northern Brazil is extremely fabulous, not that far and under served.
It seems there for UA to take even if it starts as thrice weekly?
What comes first the advertising, resort or nonstop air service? VARIG’s “air-pass” was amazing (5 cities one fare) so I wonder if United can set up something similar with Azul.
I agree re: AA. Things have finally changed and UA is enjoying being preferred over AA right now. So take advantage (no pun) of their marketplace position and start feeding GIG, SCL & EZE from EWR with one A321XLR each and potentially up-gage as the flier base grows. Oddly NOT ONE aircraft flies NYC-RIO nonstop- not even 3x a week. If UA brought back the old MVD tag it could possibly add more bodies?
Just sayin’!!!
I have not checked the UA route map, but I thought they already flew Santiago and Lima (or is it just from IAH?)
Thx

IAH-SCL and IAH-LIM are daily EWR- LIM start 10/30

VC10er wrote:

Brazil is probably one of the most unknown of gems. Northern Brazil is extremely fabulous, not that far and under served.
It seems there for UA to take even if it starts as thrice weekly?
What comes first the advertising, resort or nonstop air service? VARIG’s “air-pass” was amazing (5 cities one fare) so I wonder if United can set up something similar with Azul.
I agree re: AA. Things have finally changed and UA is enjoying being preferred over AA right now. So take advantage (no pun) of their marketplace position and start feeding GIG, SCL & EZE from EWR with one A321XLR each and potentially up-gage as the flier base grows. Oddly NOT ONE aircraft flies NYC-RIO nonstop- not even 3x a week. If UA brought back the old MVD tag it could possibly add more bodies?
Just sayin’!!!
I have not checked the UA route map, but I thought they already flew Santiago and Lima (or is it just from IAH?)
Thx

Not much market from NYC for secondary Brazil. Not happening anytime soon. Brazil travel remains depressed. Some secondary markets are finally starting to get Miami flights back but very slowly.

NYC-GIG/SCL/EZE are bulk markets. The economics are not there to fly them with an A321. That will bleed money.

American Airlines flies JFK-GIG.

Deliveries of A321XLR's are a year or more (in UAs case) away. Secondary Brazil has generally not worked, or marginally, at best, mostly from MIA. Not sure what you mean about UA "enjoying being preferred over AA right now" and if that references the specific market in Brazil or something else.

GIG is served, seasonally, on AA from JFK and GIG is overwhelmingly a VFR/Leisure route. The 321XLR is likely too small for the 10+ hour stage lengths that EWR-SCL/EZE and GIG are. UA has flown EWR-EZE on and off since 2012 and pulled it twice.

The only thing that will drive US-Brazil traffic to increase to levels not seen in years is a rebound in the Brazilian economy.

VC10er wrote:

Rio de Janeiro (Santos Dumont)

I can’t comment on UA’s XLR route plans, but I can tell you that Santo Dumont’s 4300ft runway will not support long range flights with the XLR.

Thanks for all the feedback.
I am here to learn!!!
It is curious that a smaller aircraft with a premium configuration would lose money? (I’m NOT disagreeing! I’m only curious as to why) I would have figured a FULL A321XLR vs an 85% full 763 would have made money.
I searched and searched for a Rio nonstop from NYC and I thought AA flew the route but I could not find it? I will have to look again.
Another thing that defies my small brain is: A metro area of tens of millions cannot fill 2 aircraft? But Edinburgh can?!? Aren’t they both leisure dominant markets?
I would “assume” SCL and EZE would have a greater percentage of business fliers?
Yes, I figured SDU’s runway might have been too short if the aircraft was packed to the gills!
Thanks again.?

VC10er wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback.
I am here to learn!!!
It is curious that a smaller aircraft with a premium configuration would lose money? (I’m NOT disagreeing! I’m only curious as to why) I would have figured a FULL A321XLR vs an 85% full 763 would have made money.
I searched and searched for a Rio nonstop from NYC and I thought AA flew the route but I could not find it? I will have to look again.
Another thing that defies my small brain is: A metro area of tens of millions cannot fill 2 aircraft? But Edinburgh can?!? Aren’t they both leisure dominant markets?
I would “assume” SCL and EZE would have a greater percentage of business fliers?
Yes, I figured SDU’s runway might have been too short if the aircraft was packed to the gills!
Thanks again.?

I think it depends on the market. A small aircraft with a big premium class that you can fill with paying customers is more profitable (like transcons, when the market isn't too saturated.), but CO used 752's because they didn't have widebodies, so they explored new markets. Some of them, I'm sure were hard to get a full J cabin of paying customers (Bristol, Norwich), others were great.

cosyr wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback.
I am here to learn!!!
It is curious that a smaller aircraft with a premium configuration would lose money? (I’m NOT disagreeing! I’m only curious as to why) I would have figured a FULL A321XLR vs an 85% full 763 would have made money.
I searched and searched for a Rio nonstop from NYC and I thought AA flew the route but I could not find it? I will have to look again.
Another thing that defies my small brain is: A metro area of tens of millions cannot fill 2 aircraft? But Edinburgh can?!? Aren’t they both leisure dominant markets?
I would “assume” SCL and EZE would have a greater percentage of business fliers?
Yes, I figured SDU’s runway might have been too short if the aircraft was packed to the gills!
Thanks again.?

I think it depends on the market. A small aircraft with a big premium class that you can fill with paying customers is more profitable (like transcons, when the market isn't too saturated.), but CO used 752's because they didn't have widebodies, so they explored new markets. Some of them, I'm sure were hard to get a full J cabin of paying customers (Bristol, Norwich), others were great.

Cargo also plays a big part in quite a few of these routes.

VC10er wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback.
I am here to learn!!!
It is curious that a smaller aircraft with a premium configuration would lose money? (I’m NOT disagreeing! I’m only curious as to why) I would have figured a FULL A321XLR vs an 85% full 763 would have made money.
I searched and searched for a Rio nonstop from NYC and I thought AA flew the route but I could not find it? I will have to look again.
Another thing that defies my small brain is: A metro area of tens of millions cannot fill 2 aircraft? But Edinburgh can?!? Aren’t they both leisure dominant markets?
I would “assume” SCL and EZE would have a greater percentage of business fliers?
Yes, I figured SDU’s runway might have been too short if the aircraft was packed to the gills!
Thanks again.?

GIG is a leisure market in general. There are some exceptions like IAH-GIG which is driven by Petrobras. That is why IAH-GIG works so well.

I think what needs to be pointed out as well is that UA does like to compartmentalize hubs. EWR-EZE is no doubt a bigger local market than IAH-EZE and roughly the same distance, but IAH-EZE obviously works better for UA. A huge part of that is because UA has designated IAH the Latin America hub (minus the Caribbean) so it will always be favored for new Latin American markets. Its a similar concept with EWR and Europe or SFO and Asia.

As for further expansion to Latin America, I agree Northern Brazil is breathtaking, but I don't really see UA wanting to expand there. Most of those markets are very MIA/MCO (and to a lesser degree BOS) centric and fare premiums are garbage. GYE, CLO, CTG, and MDE are really the only other markets I could see UA going into that they currently are not. There are also some smaller markets like FRS they could try, but Im not holding my breath.

VC10er wrote:

Brazil is probably one of the most unknown of gems. Northern Brazil is extremely fabulous, not that far and under served.
It seems there for UA to take even if it starts as thrice weekly?
What comes first the advertising, resort or nonstop air service? VARIG’s “air-pass” was amazing (5 cities one fare) so I wonder if United can set up something similar with Azul.
I agree re: AA. Things have finally changed and UA is enjoying being preferred over AA right now. So take advantage (no pun) of their marketplace position and start feeding GIG, SCL & EZE from EWR with one A321XLR each and potentially up-gage as the flier base grows. Oddly NOT ONE aircraft flies NYC-RIO nonstop- not even 3x a week. If UA brought back the old MVD tag it could possibly add more bodies?
Just sayin’!!!
I have not checked the UA route map, but I thought they already flew Santiago and Lima (or is it just from IAH?)
Thx

Problem with NE Brazil is that it continues to be a less than safe destination (with the associated perceptions about it) and, while the beaches are gorgeous, its infrastructure is not up to par, for the most part, with what the American tourist expects. I would also add that for the average US East Coast-based traveler, it is much cheaper and closer to vacation in the equally if not finer Caribbean - with much better infrastructure. Face it, the bulk of the Brazil-US market originates in the Brazil POS. US leisure travel to Brazil will not move the needle. A rebound of the Brazilian economy will.

With AA flying 777s daily to EZE and 3x w to SCL from JFK, not sure United has much of a chance to attract the corporate traveler (the bread and butter out of JFK to deep South America) to EWR to fly out for 11 hours on an A321. GIG may be a different story altogether.

In May, both American and Delta pulled down their China flying from October 2022-March 2023. Last month, DL went a step further and pulled PDX/MSP-HND and PDX-ICN. When I checked United's website, all of their pre-COVID Asia flights are still there. For context, UA has yet to resume nonstop SFO-PVG/HKG/PEK/CTU/KIX, ORD-PEK/PVG, IAD-PEK/HND, EWR-PEK/PVG/HKG/HND, DEN/HNL-NRT, LAX-PVG/HND. Why is United keeping a full schedule to Asia while its competitors have pulled theirs down?

rjbesikof wrote:

In May, both American and Delta pulled down their China flying from October 2022-March 2023. Last month, DL went a step further and pulled PDX/MSP-HND and PDX-ICN. When I checked United's website, all of their pre-COVID Asia flights are still there. For context, UA has yet to resume nonstop SFO-PVG/HKG/PEK/CTU/KIX, ORD-PEK/PVG, IAD-PEK/HND, EWR-PEK/PVG/HKG/HND, DEN/HNL-NRT, LAX-PVG/HND. Why is United keeping a full schedule to Asia while its competitors have pulled theirs down?

I don't know if it's the reason, but it's probably good for keeping a good relationship with China and the businesses that contract with UA.

dcajet wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Brazil is probably one of the most unknown of gems. Northern Brazil is extremely fabulous, not that far and under served.
It seems there for UA to take even if it starts as thrice weekly?
What comes first the advertising, resort or nonstop air service? VARIG’s “air-pass” was amazing (5 cities one fare) so I wonder if United can set up something similar with Azul.
I agree re: AA. Things have finally changed and UA is enjoying being preferred over AA right now. So take advantage (no pun) of their marketplace position and start feeding GIG, SCL & EZE from EWR with one A321XLR each and potentially up-gage as the flier base grows. Oddly NOT ONE aircraft flies NYC-RIO nonstop- not even 3x a week. If UA brought back the old MVD tag it could possibly add more bodies?
Just sayin’!!!
I have not checked the UA route map, but I thought they already flew Santiago and Lima (or is it just from IAH?)
Thx

Problem with NE Brazil is that it continues to be a less than safe destination (with the associated perceptions about it) and, while the beaches are gorgeous, its infrastructure is not up to par, for the most part, with what the American tourist expects. I would also add that for the average US East Coast-based traveler, it is much cheaper and closer to vacation in the equally if not finer Caribbean - with much better infrastructure. Face it, the bulk of the Brazil-US market originates in the Brazil POS. US leisure travel to Brazil will not move the needle. A rebound of the Brazilian economy will.

With AA flying 777s daily to EZE and 3x w to SCL from JFK, not sure United has much of a chance to attract the corporate traveler (the bread and butter out of JFK to deep South America) to EWR to fly out for 11 hours on an A321. GIG may be a different story altogether.

I agree with all your points regarding NE Brazil. But that’s why I pondered what needs to happen first: building an infrastructure and build resorts (“and they will come”) start great tourism advertising now to start the influx of money to fund infrastructure and/or start convenient and affordable flights. Depending on the city (Fortaleza or Salvador etc) it’s not that far. My positing was spurred on the premise that an A321XLR can open it all up with a right sized airplane. As for crime, that has sadly plagued Brazil for most of my life. But there are very dangerous places in the Caribbean where one doesn’t want to stray off the resort also. It’s ALL chicken or egg.

As for UA gaining a larger share of the market, am I wrong to say “by not starting service because AA/DL/other has it cornered, that UA will never grow in such competitive markets?” (nothing ventured?)
Maybe there is just too much “lower” hanging fruit in many other global markets to create a new market?
If I was younger I would want to be the Bugsy Siegel of NE Brasil. It’s currently a yet fairly undiscovered (but wonderful and affordable) for sun, fun and nature chasers!

rjbesikof wrote:

In May, both American and Delta pulled down their China flying from October 2022-March 2023. Last month, DL went a step further and pulled PDX/MSP-HND and PDX-ICN. When I checked United's website, all of their pre-COVID Asia flights are still there. For context, UA has yet to resume nonstop SFO-PVG/HKG/PEK/CTU/KIX, ORD-PEK/PVG, IAD-PEK/HND, EWR-PEK/PVG/HKG/HND, DEN/HNL-NRT, LAX-PVG/HND. Why is United keeping a full schedule to Asia while its competitors have pulled theirs down?

The odds of those UA China flights operating are 0% minus SFO-PVG.

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcBPErqXoAE ... name=large

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.

Yeah, they can't have it both ways. The FAA should liberalize slots at JFK, but not EWR? Nice try.

What they should have done instead was throw more of a fit about the FAA granting so many exemptions and not enforce existing slot rules.

intotheair wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.

Yeah, they can't have it both ways. The FAA should liberalize slots at JFK, but not EWR? Nice try.

What they should have done instead was throw more of a fit about the FAA granting so many exemptions and not enforce existing slot rules.

Exact thoughts.

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcBPErqXoAE ... name=large

Didn't the FAA (+Schumer) create slots out of thin air for B6 years ago?

intotheair wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.

Yeah, they can't have it both ways. The FAA should liberalize slots at JFK, but not EWR? Nice try.

What they should have done instead was throw more of a fit about the FAA granting so many exemptions and not enforce existing slot rules.

What slots at EWR? IIRC, the slots at EWR went away in 2013(?).

Velocirapture wrote:

What slots at EWR? IIRC, the slots at EWR went away in 2013(?).

Yes, I'm well aware that EWR is a Level 2 airport, which technically isn't slot-controlled, but still restricted, and if UA had its way, it would want EWR brought back to a Level 1 slot-controlled airport. UA made some noise about that fairly recently.

They.Should.Have.Never.Left.JFK.In.The.First.Place.

You can’t have it both ways UA. UA abandoned JFK several years ago because profits (?) at that station weren’t so good - then several years later they come back and now want more slots? It just doesn’t work that way.

And to top it all off - if they can’t get what they want by October - they’re going to leave JFK again ?!?!

Reminds me of employees that leave and come back several times to the same company - sometimes you just have to say “no.”

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

Reuters now has a writeup:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... ce=twitter

Question: what's stopping UA from taking back the slots that they supposedly are still leasing to DL?

intotheair wrote:

Reuters now has a writeup:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... ce=twitter

Question: what's stopping UA from taking back the slots that they supposedly are still leasing to DL?

It depends on how long the lease term is for. United never had it's OWN terminalat JFK. they always shared a terminal with another airline when the UA/co merger happened the CEO Jeff Smisek wanted United to move everything to EWR as that was where People Express and CO after them were. United Did fly 747's out of EWR as well. there was a morning 747 and an evening 747. I was a mecanic on the terminal at SFO and the afternoon arrival from EWR was flight 34 which continued on to Hawaii from SFO. I think UA35 went eastbound to EWR. Once the Pacific division was bought from Pan Am the 747's only went as far east as ORD until the 747-400's started flying in the pacific. but I lost track of EWR as I went to Maintenance Control and had to get used to working rotating shifts. Something I truly regret as it's 0400 and I'm still up!! And worse than that? I'm not sleepy!

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcBPErqXoAE ... name=large

United and its 2014-era c-suite have themselves to blame for the mess they made out of JFK. Quitting JFK when they did was simply absurd. Even though UA's PS service had devolved into a sub par product at the time, not competitive relative to Delta One, Mint, and AA Flagship, they had 6 daily flights to LAX and 7 to SFO. Today, they're back in with the same mediocre product on aging 757s with a handful of flights each day, with no lounge, operating from a dated terminal that is less than a year from closing, and no great options for a new home at JFK for some time. The FAA can't manufacture slots that don't exist. My sense is UA will again give up on JFK.

strfyr51 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Reuters now has a writeup:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... ce=twitter

Question: what's stopping UA from taking back the slots that they supposedly are still leasing to DL?

It depends on how long the lease term is for. United never had it's OWN terminalat JFK. they always shared a terminal with another airline when the UA/co merger happened

https://www.airporthistory.org/kennedy-ua.html

never is a long time.


But... just a fun article. I get your point about the modern era.

intotheair wrote:

Reuters now has a writeup:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... ce=twitter

Question: what's stopping UA from taking back the slots that they supposedly are still leasing to DL?

A contract and the likely exposure to substantial money damages for breach?

Interesting. I look at this more as a tactic to bleed slots off of Jetblue with the pending merger.
Lot of 3D chess we are not always privvy to see.

Either way, UA has to do what’s best for United.

sldispatcher wrote:

Interesting. I look at this more as a tactic to bleed slots off of Jetblue with the pending merger.
Lot of 3D chess we are not always privvy to see.

Either way, UA has to do what’s best for United.

I think this is the right take. What will be interesting is how they respond if they don’t get what they want.

SFOtoORD wrote:

sldispatcher wrote:

Interesting. I look at this more as a tactic to bleed slots off of Jetblue with the pending merger.
Lot of 3D chess we are not always privvy to see.

Either way, UA has to do what’s best for United.

I think this is the right take. What will be interesting is how they respond if they don’t get what they want.

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

I think what people forget is that the current UA management, unlike the low-rent C-suite team of eight years ago, doesn't view this on a granular, route-by-route basis. If you do, then the JFK routes are almost certainly losing money.

The reason Kirby thinks pulling out of JFK in the first place was the wrong decision is that having JFK service adds a lot of value to the network as a whole. It was effectively a loss leader. We can debate EWR vs. JFK vs. LGA until we're blue in the face, but there are some people who prefer JFK no matter what. Some of those people are/were high-value UA customers. It's been reported that UA lost a number of corporate contracts after pulling out of JFK to AA, notably Disney. Kirby has made the point on several occasions that UA getting back into JFK is more important than whether individual routes are in the black or not. He would know – he was at AA when all of that went down, after all.

On the other hand, the EWR transcons must be printing money hand over fist. Nearly all of the EWR-LAX/SFO flights are now on international widebodies with high fares, PP sold as a separate cabin, and high load factors. I'm sure UA would love to see that at JFK as well.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcBPErqXoAE ... name=large

United and its 2014-era c-suite have themselves to blame for the mess they made out of JFK. Quitting JFK when they did was simply absurd. Even though UA's PS service had devolved into a sub par product at the time, not competitive relative to Delta One, Mint, and AA Flagship, they had 6 daily flights to LAX and 7 to SFO. Today, they're back in with the same mediocre product on aging 757s with a handful of flights each day, with no lounge, operating from a dated terminal that is less than a year from closing, and no great options for a new home at JFK for some time. The FAA can't manufacture slots that don't exist. My sense is UA will again give up on JFK.

I would support UA and go a bit further to JFK for my west coast trips. However, I will not do that for a 757 ride. I often book the 787-10 or the 777-300 from EWR. It’s hard to beat now when one considers the brand new United Club. I would not mind going to the Alaska club if the flight was operated by 777/787/767 (all Intercontinental ac)
They should (me, the CEO thinks) should over index as much as possible and put the right aircraft on the route. (the peeps who know, WILL KNOW the difference)

Can someone clue me in on:

787-10HGW?
(High Gross Weight???)

And if modified, how much would the projected range increase hopefully be?

Thanks zills!

VC10er wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Things dont look too hot for JFK service.

Not sure the argument that FAA should create more slots out of thin air and potentially cause further congestion at the airport is a good one to make.

I also suspect the financial performance of these flights has been far lower than anticipated. They launched with fanfare using premium config 763s, and swapped down to 757 since.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcBPErqXoAE ... name=large

United and its 2014-era c-suite have themselves to blame for the mess they made out of JFK. Quitting JFK when they did was simply absurd. Even though UA's PS service had devolved into a sub par product at the time, not competitive relative to Delta One, Mint, and AA Flagship, they had 6 daily flights to LAX and 7 to SFO. Today, they're back in with the same mediocre product on aging 757s with a handful of flights each day, with no lounge, operating from a dated terminal that is less than a year from closing, and no great options for a new home at JFK for some time. The FAA can't manufacture slots that don't exist. My sense is UA will again give up on JFK.

I would support UA and go a bit further to JFK for my west coast trips. However, I will not do that for a 757 ride. I often book the 787-10 or the 777-300 from EWR. It’s hard to beat now when one considers the brand new United Club. I would not mind going to the Alaska club if the flight was operated by 777/787/767 (all Intercontinental ac)
They should (me, the CEO thinks) should over index as much as possible and put the right aircraft on the route. (the peeps who know, WILL KNOW the difference)

United's return to JFK was predicated on adequately serving business / corporate demand in the NY area and cater to flyers who use JFK. The problem is that business travel hasn't recovered to pre-pandemic levels and probably won't. The use of aging planes isn't the issue. Most don't care, and don't notice. DL is flying equally old 767 and 757s on many transcons out of JFK. The issue is that UA has nothing to offer the JFK originated customer. No lounge (yes, the AS lounge is nice, but it is not theirs), a mediocre premium cabin that is the old CO BusinessFirst one, not a Polaris seat. United's on board product in the premium cabin is crap. The schedule doesn't appeal. UA won't put a 777/787 on a JFK turn unless it is for an irrops originating at LAX/SFO. UA is as good as gone from JFK if they can't find a way to get more frequency and a good place to operate those flights out of JFK, given that T7 will close and the options for them are very limited.

intotheair wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

I think what people forget is that the current UA management, unlike the low-rent C-suite team of eight years ago, doesn't view this on a granular, route-by-route basis. If you do, then the JFK routes are almost certainly losing money.

The reason Kirby thinks pulling out of JFK in the first place was the wrong decision is that having JFK service adds a lot of value to the network as a whole. It was effectively a loss leader. We can debate EWR vs. JFK vs. LGA until we're blue in the face, but there are some people who prefer JFK no matter what. Some of those people are/were high-value UA customers. It's been reported that UA lost a number of corporate contracts after pulling out of JFK to AA, notably Disney. Kirby I has made the point on several occasions that UA getting back into JFK is more important than whether individual routes are in the black or not. He would know – he was at AA when all of that went down, after all.

On the other hand, the EWR transcons must be printing money hand over fist. Nearly all of the EWR-LAX/SFO flights are now on international widebodies with high fares, PP sold as a separate cabin, and high load factors. I'm sure UA would love to see that at JFK as well.

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

Are UA’s current slots at JFK permanent or temporary? I seem to recall the slots became available due to COVID waivers. Could UA be forced to leave JFK since the airlines that took the waiver are now reclaiming these slots?

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

codc10 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

I thought UA was able to obtain a couple permanent slots from a partner, but not enough to have a robust operation. Is that true or are 100% of their slots the temporary exemptions?

cosyr wrote:

codc10 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

I thought UA was able to obtain a couple permanent slots from a partner, but not enough to have a robust operation. Is that true or are 100% of their slots the temporary exemptions?

Are you thinking of the Air New Zealand slots that United got at LHR?

United at JFK is entirely using Covid waiver slots. Unless something changes, they are out in eight weeks.

cosyr wrote:

codc10 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

I thought UA was able to obtain a couple permanent slots from a partner, but not enough to have a robust operation. Is that true or are 100% of their slots the temporary exemptions?

Correct... the 4 slot pairs UA is using are due to the waiver. I do not know which carrier they are derived from, though.

For those who would say, "United should just lease JFK slots from a *A partner"... comparatively very few JFK slots are held by *A members, and for most of those, JFK is a flagship/strategic route. The *A carriers at JFK are all foreign flags, with single-digit numbers of slot pairs, and many of their departure slots don't work for a transcon. So, that's not really an option.

Compare that to LHR, where *A carriers (LH in particular) have a much more robust slot portfolio.

codc10 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

Thank you for that succinct review.

This is a game being played, albeit high stakes.

Another complication in the EWR/JFK situation: https://liveandletsfly.com/newark-new-york-airport/

This seems like it could cause some minor sales problems for UA, particularly from 3rd party agents.

codc10 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

You make it sound like United is getting evicted after IATA S22 ends. Even United isn't saying that. They say it's all about not getting incremental growth slots.

But even if United was getting evicted, which they're not, it's not as though they entered JFK or this business plan with permanent slots/leases. There have been slots for sale/lease available at JFK since September, 2020. There are plenty of reasons why United may have thought they could've done better and waited for the FAA Santa Claus or for a better option, but there have been available JFK slots.

Will BOS see any wide body expansion, transcon or upgrade on LHR?

dfwfanboy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

Probably retreat for the time being with some plan to be able to go back in when the timing/numbers are right

I can't imagine they're doing well at all right now with a bare-bones schedule and still not as much business traffic as there was back pre-covid.
But some day the demand may be there. It may be less shortsighted a move now than it was in 2014, but there is still potential UA wouldn't want to exclude itself from.

cosyr wrote:

I hope you're right, and I hope this is an empty threat, because if UA leaves JFK again, they will have to start again at zero, having abandoned the airport twice. Not a good look when you're trying to convince Port Authority and the FAA of anything. I think they need to be prepared to lose money on a few flights a day, in order to play the long game.

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

You make it sound like United is getting evicted after IATA S22 ends. Even United isn't saying that. They say it's all about not getting incremental growth slots.

But even if United was getting evicted, which they're not, it's not as though they entered JFK or this business plan with permanent slots/leases. There have been slots for sale/lease available at JFK since September, 2020. There are plenty of reasons why United may have thought they could've done better and waited for the FAA Santa Claus or for a better option, but there have been available JFK slots.

Evicted? No. But United does not hold permanent JFK slots for its use. At the end of S22, the exemptions expire. Without permanent slots or some usage agreement (which there might well be… that’s not public information) United has to drop its flights. This isn’t rocket science.

Premium transcontinental-viable slots? Nope. We’ve been through this before. United isn’t interested in 10pm JFK departure slots, or whatever else was in the Norwegian slot portfolio. Who’s selling to UA? American? Delta? JetBlue? BA? Good luck with that. Lufthansa and it’s three slot pairs? Where, pray tell?

codc10 wrote:

Evicted? No. But United does not hold permanent JFK slots for its use. At the end of S22, the exemptions expire. Without permanent slots or some usage agreement (which there might well be… that’s not public information) United has to drop its flights. This isn’t rocket science.

United holds 50 permanent JFK slots, just not for their own use since they leased them to Delta though.


Source (on the first part): https://cms.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... tail_0.pdf

ADent wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Evicted? No. But United does not hold permanent JFK slots for its use. At the end of S22, the exemptions expire. Without permanent slots or some usage agreement (which there might well be… that’s not public information) United has to drop its flights. This isn’t rocket science.

United holds 50 permanent JFK slots, just not for their own use since they leased them to Delta though.


Source (on the first part): https://cms.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... tail_0.pdf

Hence my deliberate inclusion of the words "for its use". For all intents and purposes, these slots are untouchable to United.

codc10 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

United, under Kirby and Nocella, is unequivocallly prepared to lose money at JFK to build its presence. When the slot exemptions expire at the conclusion of the IATA S22 season, United loses its right to operate flights using those slots. Simple as that. If United is unable to secure slots by way of some other arrangement (as they claim in this "leaked" memorandum), they can't fly to JFK anymore. It's not about gates, lounges, hard product, 757s, Jeff Smisek, meal service, or anything else.

There seems to be some perception that United is "threatening" to leave JFK because of financial underperformance. That is not the case.

You make it sound like United is getting evicted after IATA S22 ends. Even United isn't saying that. They say it's all about not getting incremental growth slots.

But even if United was getting evicted, which they're not, it's not as though they entered JFK or this business plan with permanent slots/leases. There have been slots for sale/lease available at JFK since September, 2020. There are plenty of reasons why United may have thought they could've done better and waited for the FAA Santa Claus or for a better option, but there have been available JFK slots.

Evicted? No. But United does not hold permanent JFK slots for its use. At the end of S22, the exemptions expire. Without permanent slots or some usage agreement (which there might well be… that’s not public information) United has to drop its flights. This isn’t rocket science.

Premium transcontinental-viable slots? Nope. We’ve been through this before. United isn’t interested in 10pm JFK departure slots, or whatever else was in the Norwegian slot portfolio. Who’s selling to UA? American? Delta? JetBlue? BA? Good luck with that. Lufthansa and it’s three slot pairs? Where, pray tell?

I'm sure UA knows the amazing leverage they have in the NYC area to barter for better timed slots at JFK whether via LGA slots or access to EWR gates. To say nothing of their plenty of other slots/gates they have in places like Heathrow, DCA, or Chicago where plenty of carriers would like to bargain with them.

Their decision not to use those is probably smart, but it is a choice and should be regarded as such. It's hard to make this "we're fully committed to JFK but we can't get what we want" argument when United is arguably holding the best bartering hand of any airline to get what they want at JFK. They're just choosing to try to get them for free via the FAA rather than give up their other valuable assets.

Per Star... it's not really my job to tell United how to bargain with Star (whether it's AV, a company they actually owned via default a few years ago, Copa, or LH Group) or nearly any Asian carrier right now, but it's not as though the Asian carriers are utilizing their slots right now or likely for the next Year+. Copa has decent time slots at JFK and would be an obvious candidate to move to EWR for the right price.

If United gets free premium time slots at JFK by whining to the FAA, good for them. But United isn't really "committed to JFK" unless they're willing to gradually grow their JFK slot portfolio over time like most other airlines have done via acquisition or natural organic growth, just like United did before they gradually sold off their JFK business.

dfwfanboy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

You make it sound like United is getting evicted after IATA S22 ends. Even United isn't saying that. They say it's all about not getting incremental growth slots.

But even if United was getting evicted, which they're not, it's not as though they entered JFK or this business plan with permanent slots/leases. There have been slots for sale/lease available at JFK since September, 2020. There are plenty of reasons why United may have thought they could've done better and waited for the FAA Santa Claus or for a better option, but there have been available JFK slots.

Evicted? No. But United does not hold permanent JFK slots for its use. At the end of S22, the exemptions expire. Without permanent slots or some usage agreement (which there might well be… that’s not public information) United has to drop its flights. This isn’t rocket science.

Premium transcontinental-viable slots? Nope. We’ve been through this before. United isn’t interested in 10pm JFK departure slots, or whatever else was in the Norwegian slot portfolio. Who’s selling to UA? American? Delta? JetBlue? BA? Good luck with that. Lufthansa and it’s three slot pairs? Where, pray tell?

I'm sure UA knows the amazing leverage they have in the NYC area to barter for better timed slots at JFK whether via LGA slots or access to EWR gates. To say nothing of their plenty of other slots/gates they have in places like Heathrow, DCA, or Chicago where plenty of carriers would like to bargain with them.

Their decision not to use those is probably smart, but it is a choice and should be regarded as such. It's hard to make this "we're fully committed to JFK but we can't get what we want" argument when United is arguably holding the best bartering hand of any airline to get what they want at JFK. They're just choosing to try to get them for free via the FAA rather than give up their other valuable assets.

Per Star... it's not really my job to tell United how to bargain with Star (whether it's AV, a company they actually owned via default a few years ago, Copa, or LH Group) or nearly any Asian carrier right now, but it's not as though the Asian carriers are utilizing their slots right now or likely for the next Year+. Copa has decent time slots at JFK and would be an obvious candidate to move to EWR for the right price.

If United gets free premium time slots at JFK by whining to the FAA, good for them. But United isn't really "committed to JFK" unless they're willing to gradually grow their JFK slot portfolio over time like most other airlines have done via acquisition or natural organic growth, just like United did before they gradually sold off their JFK business.

I generally subscribe to the notion that UA is negotiating in public, attempting to secure “free” slots that would likely shake loose from the AA/B6 proceedings.

But if your conclusion is that United hasn’t “tried hard enough” to secure JFK slots simply on the basis that to date they have not, in fact, obtained use of permanent slots after the exemption period, that’s a pretty facile and circular argument. To paraphrase Robin Williams in Awakenings, “if you were right, I would agree with you.”

codc10 wrote:

But if your conclusion is that United hasn’t “tried hard enough” to secure JFK slots simply on the basis that to date they have not, in fact, obtained use of permanent slots after the exemption period, that’s a pretty facile and circular argument. To paraphrase Robin Williams in Awakenings, “if you were right, I would agree with you.”

When you hold United’s deck of bargaining cards and NZ + Norse Atlantic get JFK slots while you’re looking… yeah, they just don’t care enough to pay for them. Plenty of airlines at JFK would trade United for JfK slots if United was actually willing to trade valuable assets. Which again, I don’t think they should, but it just shows JFK actually isn’t that valuable to them to bargain with their key assets that aa, dl, and b6 would want.

dfwfanboy wrote:

codc10 wrote:

But if your conclusion is that United hasn’t “tried hard enough” to secure JFK slots simply on the basis that to date they have not, in fact, obtained use of permanent slots after the exemption period, that’s a pretty facile and circular argument. To paraphrase Robin Williams in Awakenings, “if you were right, I would agree with you.”

When you hold United’s deck of bargaining cards and NZ + Norse Atlantic get JFK slots while you’re looking… yeah, they just don’t care enough to pay for them. Plenty of airlines at JFK would trade United for JfK slots if United was actually willing to trade valuable assets. Which again, I don’t think they should, but it just shows JFK actually isn’t that valuable to them to bargain with their key assets that aa, dl, and b6 would want.

How did NZ and Norse get slots?