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.

lx2iah wrote:

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 ?!?!

MDC862 wrote:

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

lx2iah wrote:

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

RyanairGuru wrote:

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.

You don’t get it do you? Norse Atlantic are doing the same as Norwegian, using later slots than the ‘optimal’ Trans Atlantic flights. Finding slots for a 10pm or 11pm departure is easy enough.

That’s totally different to needing ~10 slots throughout the day, optimally timed for business passengers. The only airlines with the scale at JFK to provide those sorts of slots are B6, DL and AA, all of whom would not be keen to facilitate greater premium transcon competition.

I did wonder whether B6 and UA could do a deal that neither would like, with more EWR gates for B6 in return for some JFK slots (and maybe 2 gates at Terminal 5) for UA. Neither would have wanted to give that up, but also wanted what the other had. As it is, it looks like B6 are picking up a decent number of gates in the new Terminal A, so I can’t see the happening now.

After that, it’s hard to see what else UA had to offer. DCA slots? Gates at SFO? I can’t see them giving up LHR slots, having picked up the NZ slots for their own growth. The fact that none of United’s hubs are slot controlled, albeit subject to level 2 restrictions, means that they don’t have much to trade.

dfwfanboy wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

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.

You don’t get it do you? Norse Atlantic are doing the same as Norwegian, using later slots than the ‘optimal’ Trans Atlantic flights. Finding slots for a 10pm or 11pm departure is easy enough.

That’s totally different to needing ~10 slots throughout the day, optimally timed for business passengers. The only airlines with the scale at JFK to provide those sorts of slots are B6, DL and AA, all of whom would not be keen to facilitate greater premium transcon competition.

I did wonder whether B6 and UA could do a deal that neither would like, with more EWR gates for B6 in return for some JFK slots (and maybe 2 gates at Terminal 5) for UA. Neither would have wanted to give that up, but also wanted what the other had. As it is, it looks like B6 are picking up a decent number of gates in the new Terminal A, so I can’t see the happening now.

After that, it’s hard to see what else UA had to offer. DCA slots? Gates at SFO? I can’t see them giving up LHR slots, having picked up the NZ slots for their own growth. The fact that none of United’s hubs are slot controlled, albeit subject to level 2 restrictions, means that they don’t have much to trade.

I get it. In another thread, the poster I responded to has said over and over again that zero slots have been sold at jfk lately. Zero. Also asserted that United has done all in its power to get slots.
Slots have been sold/leased, including a 6pm departure Norse slot and a 9pm NZ if you look at their flights.

If you read what I wrote, I don’t disagree that it’s tough to find 10 premium time slots at jfk. But United is the reason they don’t have those slots now. They sold them. United also has some pretty great things to trade if they truly wanted premium slots at JFK again in a trade, just like the one United did when they leased their JFK slots.
Dca slots: AA
Ewr gate: B6
LGA slots: DL or B6

Of course DL, B6, or AA aren’t going to sell premium jfk slots to united without gaining a competitive advantage somewhere else just like United is trying to get a competitive advantage for free with the FaA.

codc10 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

I get it. In another thread, the poster I responded to has said over and over again that zero slots have been sold at jfk lately. Zero. Also asserted that United has done all in its power to get slots.
Slots have been sold/leased, including a 6pm departure Norse slot and a 9pm NZ if you look at their flights.

If you read what I wrote, I don’t disagree that it’s tough to find 10 premium time slots at jfk. But United is the reason they don’t have those slots now. They sold them. United also has some pretty great things to trade if they truly wanted premium slots at JFK again in a trade, just like the one United did when they leased their JFK slots.
Dca slots: AA
Ewr gate: B6
LGA slots: DL or B6

Of course DL, B6, or AA aren’t going to sell premium jfk slots to united without gaining a competitive advantage somewhere else just like United is trying to get a competitive advantage for free with the FaA.

How did Norse and NZ get these slots?

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

MDC862 wrote:

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

strfyr51 wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

Hmmmm, can you say jeff?

By the time UAL left jfk we only had a few flights out of there. 747's to NRT and 767's to LAX and SFO.

cosyr wrote:

So we know that at the end, UA was only flying to LAX/SFO from JFK, and they traded those last slots to DL in exchange for slots at EWR (where they got screwed by slots being eliminated at EWR almost immediately after.) but back in 1999, they were flying to a dozen destinations from JFK (and I'm guessing that's not even the peak).http://www.departedflights.com/JFK99intro.html

Guessing it has something to do with bankruptcy, but where did the rest of those slots go between 2000 and 2015?

strfyr51 wrote:

AS JFK is, Has Been, and will always be the premier east coast Gateway in the USA.

SFOtoORD wrote:

codc10 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

How did Norse and NZ get these slots?

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

dfwfanboy wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Norse was part of the transaction for the former NAI assets (including 787s) and the NZ 9pm is not a particularly economical westbound transcon departure time.

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Which just makes the point that there isn’t some set of slots United could acquire to further their JFK operation.

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

What’s your point? That they should run 6 more flights a day at 9 pm in slots that aren’t available? Unless they are buying Norwegian out of bankruptcy? Especially since no one can say where NZ got their slots.

dctraynr wrote:

I think United has a point in their memo/letter. While it seems like an obvious double standard asking for a capacity increase at JFK while lobbying for level 3 slot controls at EWR, JFK is able to routinely handle more hourly traffic than their slot allocation is based on.

JFK's slot allocation is based on an airport throughput rate of 81 operations per hour. In reality, the published AARs/ADRs for multiple runway configurations add up to throughput rates of closer to 90 operations per hour on average. JFK is routinely able to maintain an AAR in the 40-54 range, even in IFR. The ADR fluctuates depending on arrival runway usage, but throughout the day, the currently published rates are capable of handling the peaks and valleys of the daily operation, even with slightly increased throughput (7-10 more operations per hour). Obviously, SWAP days are a different story. All bets are off for the NYMETS on those days. GDPs, etc. take over for the normal slot-controlled schedule.

EWR is clearly scheduled to it's maximum capacity day-to-day, as evidenced by routine holding and volume GDPs, even on VFR days. LGA isn't far behind, but has slightly more slack in the schedule. Look at EWR's demand chart on any given weekday, and you'll see nearly 40 arrivals per hour through the entire day with very little recovery room. JFK is also busy, but there is more opportunity throughout the day for recovery, and demand is rarely at/above capacity for 3+ hours at a time, except on SWAP days. JFK is routinely able to land 2 runways during both VFR and IFR periods, keeping it's AAR above 40 most of the time. The airport is also capable of changing configuration to prioritize departures as necessary when departure demand spikes arise. JFK is slotted noticeabley below its published throughout capability, and I see no reason why a few operations per hour can't be added.

dfwfanboy wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

It’s almost like other carriers that United explicitly mentions operate transcons between 830p-10pm all year and consider it part of their portfolio…

but why let facts bother this convo


Google flights is too easy to check, I guess

What’s your point? That they should run 6 more flights a day at 9 pm in slots that aren’t available? Unless they are buying Norwegian out of bankruptcy? Especially since no one can say where NZ got their slots.

That UA could build their portfolio over time like every other carrier does instead of whining to the faa.
Two great slot times became available over the last two years and United failed to get them. You really think Norse cares about taking off at 6pm vs midnight? Of course not, UA just doesn’t want to pay for premium slots. They want them for free or they’re leaving jfk. You don’t have to buy Norwegian out of bankruptcy to get a decent slot time from a ULCC that could likely care less. But you still have to pay them for it.
Which, again, good for UA; they have probably the best hub in America across the river but all this whining about premium jfk slots after they sold their own is just strange.

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

splitterz wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

drerx7 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

Velocirapture wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

splitterz wrote:

From a network perspective, IAH connects poorly to all those cities mentioned when compared to DEN or ORD.

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You realize DEN is more RJ heavy than IAH right?

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

That is too broad of a generalization. Connects poorly from where to where?

The double daily is part pilot shortage and part traffic numbers rebounding. Prior to covid TPA for example was up to 4x daily at its most robust. All except PDX mentioned have direct nonstop competition as well....CVG may be only ua now.

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

Velocirapture wrote:

bigb wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

A traveler won't only be looking at connections from IAH to those cities; DEN and ORD have connections, too. So, it's best - more complete - to look at it from a network-wide perspective.

Not buying it… IAH has been regional/RJ heavy with United for a very long time. With the crew shortage at regionals industry wide, United has undergo a major shift on reallocating mainline to cover markets that the were covered previously network wide.

On top of that, IAH is gate constraint at times for mainline metal with the amount of construction that is taking place and gate realignments.

You can chose to believe anything that you want to - or not believe as you want.

One of my ex-relatives travels a lot for his IT business (I keep telling him they can afford their own airplane, but that's another story). He prefers connections in IAH during the winter time due to weather concerns at ORD and DEN (his trips are frequently booked late, so the forecasts are generally accurate). The point is, he has a choice. UAL's network is quite good, though not perfect. But hey, who's network is perfect?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

You realize DEN is more RJ heavy than IAH right?

Absolutely….. There are markets near DEN that need those RJs. United also trying to grow Denver as well.

They are growing IAH as well. It’s seat count is way up even if it’s frequencies are not. Many markets are shifting to all mainline as opposed to RJs or mix. It’s just a different growth pattern.

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m shocked to see that IAH has only 2 daily flights to a lot of cities. I know many flights have been upgauged, but it seems it has come at the expense of schedule flexibility for passengers. For example, PHL, CVG, MSP, TPA, PDX, DTW, etc. only have 2 flights a day.

IAH-MEM also down to just 2x daily, IIRC that was 5-6x daily in 2019.

That’s because it’s all mainline instead of all RJ.

It’s the same with the others. Instead of 3x RJ, they are 2x mainline.

Opus99 wrote:

EWR-JNB again being operated by a 787-10

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

jetskipper wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

No, there are “United” stations that have mainline service that are ground handled by United Ground Express, DHS or American Eagle. They just have to be trained and familiar with the United ground service manual.

Opus99 wrote:

EWR-JNB again being operated by a 787-10

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?