floridaflyboy wrote:TYWoolman wrote:This is just a power play to get more slots due to the NEA soon going to litigation. imo.
Sure could be. And not a bad time to make a play, I suppose. I'm just surprised by their stated timeline that they'd leave JFK by the end of October if they don't get more slots. That's only a month and a half away. I can't imagine any court or government agency moving that quickly.
Slots are allocated based on IATA seasons: northern summer is March-October, winter is October-March. The FAA slot usage exemption for JFK is due to expire at the end of October. Also note the DOJ case against the AA/B6 NEA is going to a bench trial in about 3 weeks.
ScottB wrote:If the flights are performing as well as hoped, there would be no reason to leave JFK again. Even if United can't pick up more slots quickly to improve frequency, it would still make sense to play the long game and continue to operate the flights if they were performing reasonably well.
Right now, United is using slots sourced from other carriers who have opted out due to FAA-authorized exemptions from usage requirements. These are not United-held slots. When those exemptions expire at the end of S22, the incumbent slot holders are again subject to the same "use-it-or-lose-it" requirements as before. Apparently, those operators wish to return to their prior slot holdings. If the incumbent carrier wants back in at JFK, United has no right to those slots, so they cannot "play the long game and continue to operate the flights," as you say.
I believe there is some ulterior PR motive here, given the AA/B6 dispute with the DOJ and impending B6/NK merger, as United is jockeying to benefit from a slot divestiture. But at its root, there is truth to the notion that United's return to JFK was always temporary subject to the reacquisition of permanent slots, which hasn't happened.
ScottB wrote:Strategically, United should be on the same page as Delta if they want more slots at JFK. The worst-case scenario for UA with respect to JFK (and EWR as well) would be for AA and B6 to be permitted to continue with the NEA with no concessions. DL is unlikely to be the beneficiary of any potential concessions by AA & B6 since they are the largest carrier at LGA and neck-and-neck with B6 for largest at JFK. Slot/gate concessions at JFK would go to new/limited entrants at the airport, and with only four slot pairs, UA falls into that category. If the NEA is voided by the courts, UA benefits as well: AA's market position in NYC isn't viable, so it's likely they would seek to reduce their slot holdings at JFK and LGA.
So, you get the picture. There is strategic advantage to United publicly painting AA/B6 as anti-consumer and serving as an effective obstacle to competiton. If this was to be an "internal" memorandum, it would not have nearly the wide release (including newswires like Reuters) it's garnered. And there is more to come over the next few weeks. United sees itself as the best-positioned US carrier to benefit from an AA/B6 divestiture at JFK. NK has to take a back seat due to the B6 merger. Southwest doesn't want in; they cut bait at Newark for reasons that would also be huge factors at Kennedy. JFK really isn't a fit for any of the ULCCs. Who's left?
Delta, on the other hand, already has incumbent positions at BOS and JFK/LGA, and doesn't stand to gain slots, so there's no reason for it to take an activist position.
MIflyer12 wrote:floridaflyboy wrote:
Sure could be. And not a bad time to make a play, I suppose. I'm just surprised by their stated timeline that they'd leave JFK by the end of October if they don't get more slots. That's only a month and a half away. I can't imagine any court or government agency moving that quickly.
This is the 'We tried.
They wouldn't let us succeed.' corporate communications cover strategy. I second the suggestion that the downgauging suggests that load factors and yields aren't what they wanted. This might also suggest that people fly UA out of EWR more because they like the convenience of EWR than because they like UA's product(s). That will give the people in HQ something to think on.
It *suggests* it, but you really don't know. Loads are good, yields are mediocre, but that's the story with mostly all transcons right now. There is more to the story than perceived underperformance.
United has always been willing to take on considerable losses if it means rebuilding its JFK franchise, which it views to be a long-term strategic play. Scott Kirby has basically said as much in investor calls, and United absolutely does not want to leave. If it is forced to do so, there will be kicking, screaming, lawsuits and every conceivable measure undertaken to retain service. They will not cut and run at JFK just because a few flights aren't "performing well"... that's the small-ball philosophy that led to previous management closing JFK in the first place. JFK hemorrhaged money early on, in the midst of the pandemic, when United re-entered with 767 service, but the company knew that was going to be the case all along, and was ready to absorb whatever losses came. That's still the case today.
There are more forces at play here, stay tuned.
