All seems to have gone quiet on this !

https://www.travelandleisure.com/united-airlines-jfk-airport-6746063
“Given our current, too-small-to-be-competitive schedule out of JFK — coupled with the start of the Winter season where more airlines will operate their slots as they resume JFK flying — United has made the difficult decision to temporarily suspend service at JFK,” the airline wrote in the statement provided to T+L.

I wonder how many slots UA would need to achieve their vision. So, the question arises - where will UA get the slots for a 'competitive' portfolio? In this case, B6 (and/or AA via the NEA, and/or NK via the merger) is the most obvious to watch, to see if they will be willing to, and/or required to 'slim' at JFK to accomplish either task. I doubt that they would do so willingly, however - I wonder what other opportunities would present themselves at JFK, for UA. I also wonder how/when services at JFK affected the yields at EWR (and so, how carefully UA would have to cater to JFK).

If they go with earlier plans flights to the hubs were in the plans (I don’t know about IAD), more frequencies to both SFO/LAX. I’d think 5-6 each to SFO/LAX, maybe 3 to ORD,/DEN at least 2 to IAH especially for Latin America connections. ORD/IAH need to be timed well for business travelers. Possibly some weekend/Saturday only to MCO/TPA as the market is huge plus these are maintenance stations.

I would hope they’d start out right, so for ORD it would launch with the appropriate amount of flights and proceeding to the other hubs.

Then we’re back to where will they get gates/lounge

TUSAirliner wrote:

If they go with earlier plans flights to the hubs were in the plans (I don’t know about IAD), more frequencies to both SFO/LAX. I’d think 5-6 each to SFO/LAX, maybe 3 to ORD,/DEN at least 2 to IAH especially for Latin America connections. ORD/IAH need to be timed well for business travelers. Possibly some weekend/Saturday only to MCO/TPA as the market is huge plus these are maintenance stations.

I would hope they’d start out right, so for ORD it would launch with the appropriate amount of flights and proceeding to the other hubs.

Then we’re back to where will they get gates/lounge

ORD and IAH are lower down the priority list as they are already served from LGA. While United did mention serving multiple hubs, that’s more ‘nice to have’ than essential. To justify reopening JFK, they need 10-12 slots to offer SFO and LAX 5-6 daily each, and those slots need to be well-timed and spaced throughout the day, not 3 after 22:00. At the moment those slots don’t exist, so they’re gone indefinitely.

Rajahdhani wrote:

https://www.travelandleisure.com/united-airlines-jfk-airport-6746063
“Given our current, too-small-to-be-competitive schedule out of JFK — coupled with the start of the Winter season where more airlines will operate their slots as they resume JFK flying — United has made the difficult decision to temporarily suspend service at JFK,” the airline wrote in the statement provided to T+L.

I wonder how many slots UA would need to achieve their vision. So, the question arises - where will UA get the slots for a 'competitive' portfolio? In this case, B6 (and/or AA via the NEA, and/or NK via the merger) is the most obvious to watch, to see if they will be willing to, and/or required to 'slim' at JFK to accomplish either task. I doubt that they would do so willingly, however - I wonder what other opportunities would present themselves at JFK, for UA. I also wonder how/when services at JFK affected the yields at EWR (and so, how carefully UA would have to cater to JFK).

Don’t think NK has any JFK slots do they? And why would UA get them from B6/AA when UA is already larger in metro NY than both AA and B6 (which was the whole case for the NEA in the first place). I don’t see it happening. But who knows

I wonder how much potential customer base they've got left:
They ran off any JFK customers, presumably to Delta and AA, save for those who moved to EWR with them (can't be many, or they'd have already been using EWR).
LAX/SFO customers have either accommodated United's shortsighted plan by simply flying with them to Newark, or have changed carriers like the New York customers have.
I'm really not sure United can hope to win back alienated customers who have moved on with life.

AA737-823 wrote:

I wonder how much potential customer base they've got left:
They ran off any JFK customers, presumably to Delta and AA, save for those who moved to EWR with them (can't be many, or they'd have already been using EWR).
LAX/SFO customers have either accommodated United's shortsighted plan by simply flying with them to Newark, or have changed carriers like the New York customers have.
I'm really not sure United can hope to win back alienated customers who have moved on with life.

Part of the reason United left JFK in the first place (2015) is that there was barely any JFK-originating customer base left. United bet that West Coast corporate customers were blindly loyal and would follow to EWR, and some did, but many did not.

Prior to the merger, United was an afterthought in New York, and post-merger, the primary NY point of sale customer base was already loyal to CO and accustomed to EWR. That's not to say United had no New York-based loyalty prior to the merger, but since bankruptcy United's JFK operation was always heavier on the West Coast point of sale.

Zero doubt in my mind they’re waiting on the Justice Department to make B6 give up JFK slots as part of the NK merger.

I think United has come to grips with not being at JFK. they have EWR and IAD on the east coast as Hubs and they're still flying to Europe from EWR/ ORD/ IAH/ DEN/ SFO and LAX. I don't think they could be doing much better at JFK, So I guess Smisek had a good Idea when he pulled United out of JFK, Passengers can still get downtown by train and public transportation.

strfyr51 wrote:

I think United has come to grips with not being at JFK. they have EWR and IAD on the east coast as Hubs and they're still flying to Europe from EWR/ ORD/ IAH/ DEN/ SFO and LAX. I don't think they could be doing much better at JFK, So I guess Smisek had a good Idea when he pulled United out of JFK, Passengers can still get downtown by train and public transportation.

Downtown and parts of Midtown aren't a problem. But going any further uptown or to Queens or Brooklyn becomes a major inconvenience. Further, I'd wager the Downtown passengers are taking car services, while the majority of those going north of Houston Street are taking a train. Meanwhile, JFK has simple routes to Midtown, Downtown, Queens, Brooklyn and easy connections to Uptown and even Metro-North.

This is not to say United were wrong for exiting JFK. Some things just don't work, and United couldn't make it work.

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

They hadn't flown to LHR in a long time. The only routes UA flew out of JFK per-merger were LAX, JFK and IAD on UAX

The JFK transcons survived on corporate travel and we all know it's half of what it was 3 years ago. Conventional wisdom from analysts and even CEOs is that it will recover to 70% of 2019 levels....at best. Seems that deploying assets in more sustainable markets and letting AA,DL & B6 brawl it out makes the most sense near to medium term.

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

Kirby would do backflips to reacquire today what Smisek basically ceded to Delta for nothing... sadly United had been circling the drain at JFK for about a decade before that. Even still the 2007-2015 era UA operation at JFK is probably smaller than what United would like to have. United has stated that they are prepared to sustain losses at JFK to regain a foothold but I agree with others that anything substantial will probably have to wait for a slot divestiture, as cobbling together random slots here and there seems futile.

Italianflyer wrote:

The JFK transcons survived on corporate travel and we all know it's half of what it was 3 years ago. Conventional wisdom from analysts and even CEOs is that it will recover to 70% of 2019 levels....at best. Seems that deploying assets in more sustainable markets and letting AA,DL & B6 brawl it out makes the most sense near to medium term.

The problem is that UA was historically stronger on the SFO route rather than the more competitive LAX flight, and SFO has not recovered particularly well.

UA444 wrote:

Zero doubt in my mind they’re waiting on the Justice Department to make B6 give up JFK slots as part of the NK merger.

I'm not sure they'll be forced to. NK doesn't fly to JFK so B6 isn't getting any additional slots through this acquisition.

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

Except that Smisek was CEO of United at the time of the JFK pull-out. IOW, you're confusing him with the rest of CO.

And BTW, in case you've forgotten, it's now well more than 12 years since the merger announcement. When I learned that that Smisek was going to lead the merged company, I felt "gut-punched." In just a handful of months, he was destroying CO and now he would likely destroy the merged UA, too.

The stench of Smisek's regime is far from over. The happiest day I can recall at the merged UA/CO was the day it was announced that Smisek had been forced out due to ethics (bribery) allegations. That he was never charged is still a source of some conversations.

But if you want to blame Smisek, well, there is plenty of blame to go around. Though pulling out of JFK was Smisek's foolish decision, there's plenty of blame for Tilton in the years leading up to the UA/CO merger, too.

But lets' move on, shall we? May 2010 was over 12 years ago!

The slots would be because of the Jet Blue/American issue. Judge is to decide any day

I am still shocked they don't fly PS 757s at peak Business Travel times a couple times a day to SFO and LAX. It seems strange surrendering the premium O&D from Long Island and Connecticut that on a workday would be a several hour drive to EWR.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

Huh??

There's a merger, plus a domestic alliance where concentration of assets in NYC (with JFK being the largest such point) is a point of legal contention, that's actively being decided now.

While there's a chance that B6 may squeak away with minimal divestitures since NK doesn't have a JFK operation, there's a considerable possibility that they won't.

Velocirapture wrote:

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

Except that Smisek was CEO of United at the time of the JFK pull-out. IOW, you're confusing him with the rest of CO.

And BTW, in case you've forgotten, it's now well more than 12 years since the merger announcement. When I learned that that Smisek was going to lead the merged company, I felt "gut-punched." In just a handful of months, he was destroying CO and now he would likely destroy the merged UA, too.

The stench of Smisek's regime is far from over. The happiest day I can recall at the merged UA/CO was the day it was announced that Smisek had been forced out due to ethics (bribery) allegations. That he was never charged is still a source of some conversations.

But if you want to blame Smisek, well, there is plenty of blame to go around. Though pulling out of JFK was Smisek's foolish decision, there's plenty of blame for Tilton in the years leading up to the UA/CO merger, too.

But lets' move on, shall we? May 2010 was over 12 years ago!

while I don't doubt that Tilton didn't do much? He was a caretaker to set up a merger and leave. and? that he did. Tilton wasn't an airline man. so I know he wasn't going to lead United anywhere. Unfortunately? Neither was Smisek and He ws on his way out when he arrived abd for a LOT of stupid stuff. it was his Idea to move the WHQ to Houston and he started right away setting that up. Itr wasn't until the UAL Inc. Board put their foot down that things started to change because by then we had moved into the Willis Tower. and the BOD made the statement that th Name on the door would be United and the home town would be Chicago come hell or High Water. there were SCO guys who had all kinds of dreams about going back to Houston and a lot of them Beat feet back there. But? a lot more stayed on board. But it more than that. the S-CO pilots tried to Usurp the seniority and got the smack down, the Mechanics couldn't transfer to IAH and Keep their Seniority at first. they sent a CO VP out to SFO to close the Turbine shop and sell the Overhaul functions. But when he got there and saw all the contract work they were doing in the Turbine shop he refused to shut it down or sell it, As United had repair and overhaul certifications that Continental lacked. Not only for engines but airframes and Landing as well. CO didn't do any overhauls and other than once when Smisek went out to see the Maintenance Operations Center. The Machine shop alone is worth more than some airlines. when United builds an engine, the engine comes ready to hang, no part swapping except the nose cowl. and if the Nose cowl needs replacing? then we have a shop for that too. Since Smisek got shown the door United has been Progressing from a run of the mill airline into an aggressive Killer of an airline but still they're living up tro the potential we always had. I'm not surprised one bit at what they're doing because it's about doggone time they got a killer instinct.. Im damn proud of my 34 years at United. We did have some rough roads for sure but they've come a LONG way,

how many times is an airline allowed to go back into an airport and sell its slots?

Italianflyer wrote:

The JFK transcons survived on corporate travel and we all know it's half of what it was 3 years ago. Conventional wisdom from analysts and even CEOs is that it will recover to 70% of 2019 levels....at best. Seems that deploying assets in more sustainable markets and letting AA,DL & B6 brawl it out makes the most sense near to medium term.

Exactly, did UA make any money flying out of JFK last time round? Seems like leisure routes are the place to be at the moment.

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

Huh??

There's a merger, plus a domestic alliance where concentration of assets in NYC (with JFK being the largest such point) is a point of legal contention, that's actively being decided now.

While there's a chance that B6 may squeak away with minimal divestitures since NK doesn't have a JFK operation, there's a considerable possibility that they won't.

The B6 acquisition of NK will not result in major divestitures in NYC, at least not at JFK. LGA, maybe. That doesn't solve UA's problem at JFK. If the NEA unravels through legal means, again, nothing to divest. B6 and AA just using their slots, though optimized (and that's probably more the issue than their actual commercial tie up). If NEA unravels, it won't be B6 relinquishing anything at JFK. AA, maybe, but whatever it would be, not likely to give UA what it needs at JFK to have relevance.

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

Huh? UA was never all that big at JFK, and pre-merger with CO, it had already reduced JFK to LAX, SFO, and IAD. NRT, HKG, LHR, CCS, SEA, ORD, SJU, EZE, GRU, were all cut / moved etc...well before UA and CO merged. PMUA at its peak of JFK-LHR had 3 x daily on 767-300ERs. It dwindled down to a single 772 before it was cut. The transition from the 762s to the PS configured 757s in 2003 and into 2004 were a bit deal, and a game changer, but the product aged quickly.cThe way UA left JFK the first time was idiotic. The second time was out of necessity.

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

UA were never 'big' at JFK to begin with. Pre-merger they were basically LAX and SFO only on 757s, a far cry from their peak days in T7 when they had a large point-to-point operation (They were really never a 'hub', let alone a 'focus city'), JFK was just a 'large' station with a crew base.

Even from the beginning, UA were the smallest at JFK when they were the 'main' tenant of the old T9, with the co-tenants of T9 (DL then BN, NW, AA, etc) allocated to the smaller concourse over the years. UA wasn't even utilising the whole of their old T9 concourse when they moved out for T7 in 1991.

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

Huh??

There's a merger, plus a domestic alliance where concentration of assets in NYC (with JFK being the largest such point) is a point of legal contention, that's actively being decided now.

While there's a chance that B6 may squeak away with minimal divestitures since NK doesn't have a JFK operation, there's a considerable possibility that they won't.

No reason for the "huh" routine. I've read plenty of posts where people politely disagree with you without the "I know more than you" response.

11725Flyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

Huh??

There's a merger, plus a domestic alliance where concentration of assets in NYC (with JFK being the largest such point) is a point of legal contention, that's actively being decided now.

While there's a chance that B6 may squeak away with minimal divestitures since NK doesn't have a JFK operation, there's a considerable possibility that they won't.

No reason for the "huh" routine. I've read plenty of posts where people politely disagree with you without the "I know more than you" response.

No one needs you to play content police. The poster in question understands that there was no slight intended, simply confusion at the arrived conclusion; he also uses the same response himself, just two posts above yours.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

Huh??

There's a merger, plus a domestic alliance where concentration of assets in NYC (with JFK being the largest such point) is a point of legal contention, that's actively being decided now.

While there's a chance that B6 may squeak away with minimal divestitures since NK doesn't have a JFK operation, there's a considerable possibility that they won't.

The B6 acquisition of NK will not result in major divestitures in NYC, at least not at JFK. LGA, maybe. That doesn't solve UA's problem at JFK. If the NEA unravels through legal means, again, nothing to divest. B6 and AA just using their slots, though optimized (and that's probably more the issue than their actual commercial tie up). If NEA unravels, it won't be B6 relinquishing anything at JFK. AA, maybe, but whatever it would be, not likely to give UA what it needs at JFK to have relevance.

It's not the NEA unraveling that would be of concern, it's what would be the price (if any) to keep it intact, should the merger go through.

No one can yet definitively state the answer to that, one way or another; because while the two may be viewed separately in the current context, the alliance is guaranteed to be challenged should preliminary approval be granted for the merger.

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Huh??

There's a merger, plus a domestic alliance where concentration of assets in NYC (with JFK being the largest such point) is a point of legal contention, that's actively being decided now.

While there's a chance that B6 may squeak away with minimal divestitures since NK doesn't have a JFK operation, there's a considerable possibility that they won't.

The B6 acquisition of NK will not result in major divestitures in NYC, at least not at JFK. LGA, maybe. That doesn't solve UA's problem at JFK. If the NEA unravels through legal means, again, nothing to divest. B6 and AA just using their slots, though optimized (and that's probably more the issue than their actual commercial tie up). If NEA unravels, it won't be B6 relinquishing anything at JFK. AA, maybe, but whatever it would be, not likely to give UA what it needs at JFK to have relevance.

It's not the NEA unraveling that would be of concern, it's what would be the price (if any) to keep it intact, should the merger go through.

No one can yet definitively state the answer to that, one way or another; because while the two may be viewed separately in the current context, the alliance is guaranteed to be challenged should preliminary approval be granted for the merger.

I don't disagree. It seems the more likely scenario is the DoJ will block the B6/NK merger, and will raise the issue of the industry's woes as a factor, meaning the operational issues that have come with the massive ramp up of travel demand since the pandemic eased, and the numerous issues that have cascaded onto the traveling public as a result. The merger is, frankly, bad business, for B6. They are paying a huge premium, and clearly stepped in to try and disrupt a combination that likely would have been easier to get through the DoJ, and that was the original NK/F9 tie-up. B6 wants the pilots and planes that NK has, and will spend huge sums of money over a long period of time to harmonize the fleets, routes, and staff and given JetBlue's strong underperformance when it comes to running smoothly, there are likely to be concerns as to how much further the NK integration would disrupt B6's existing operation. But yes, the NEA and the B6/NK combo, even without big chunks of overlap in the NEA markets between B6 and NK, will be problematic for the regulators as they review it.

Either way, back to United, there's not much room for United at JFK to run a competitive operation. If AA decides to sell off slots should the NEA be too costly to preserve as a consequence of the B6/NK merger going through, then yes, UA seems like the logical purchaser of those slots, but AA, even with its fits and starts at JFK, would be essentially, at that point, writing off JFK for good with a sale of any of its slots. I don't see this happening, outside of a major economic downturn.

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

Huh? UA was never all that big at JFK, and pre-merger with CO, it had already reduced JFK to LAX, SFO, and IAD. NRT, HKG, LHR, CCS, SEA, ORD, SJU, EZE, GRU, were all cut / moved etc...well before UA and CO merged. PMUA at its peak of JFK-LHR had 3 x daily on 767-300ERs. It dwindled down to a single 772 before it was cut. The transition from the 762s to the PS configured 757s in 2003 and into 2004 were a bit deal, and a game changer, but the product aged quickly.cThe way UA left JFK the first time was idiotic. The second time was out of necessity.

Don't forget not only did pre merger United pull all their international flying from Kennedy, they also sold their NY-London rights to Delta. Delta from the day they purchased Pan Am's Trans-Atlantic routes did not have rights to fly to London. DL didn't start flying JFK - London until 2006 when they bought United's rights for $21 million. DL initial launched JFK-LGW before Bermuda II went away.

https://www.flightglobal.com/delta-scoops-new-york-london-rights/69213.article

The dismantling of United's Kennedy operation was a pre-merger United initiative that Smisek just continued.

I hope United can find a way back, I share with others the opinion that the quick withdrawal might be opportune posturing to play up to the Feds should a divestiture from a number of ways becomes available. If the perimeter rule at LGA were to be relaxed , like DCA, to allow some Trans-Cons I would say United would never return to Kennedy. I don't see the Port Authority doing that voluntarily.

In the interim I think United has a couple of things they could do, for instance expanding United's bus connections from EWR. United operates landline from Denver to Fort Collins and Breckenridge, they also have bus connections at EWR to ABE. They could expand the bus connections from EWR to Westchester County (HPN), Continental used to fly EWR-HPN with ER3s. The current drive from HPN to EWR in current traffic is 1 hour. They could even operate dedicated connection buses from downtown Brooklyn to EWR that use the HOV Bus lanes. People seem to think that because Kennedy airport is in Queens it's the most convenient option, looking at current traffic the drive currently from downtown Brooklyn to EWR is 43 minutes, the drive from downtown Brooklyn to Kennedy is 51 minutes. By transit its 1:18 from downtown Brooklyn to Kennedy.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

Well, every AvGeek and their momma has pined for an AS/B6 merger at some point.

Looks good on a map, but IMO would only serve to create a highly dysfunctional carrier on two coasts instead of one.

But perhaps they could come up with a cutesy new name, to reflect their shared network... even give homage to extant carriers:
Like "SouthWho?" for all their presence in the SE outside of Florida. Or maybe "MidWhere?" since neither carrier seems able to find the Midwest outside of Chicago.

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

Well, every AvGeek and their momma has pined for an AS/B6 merger at some point.

Looks good on a map, but IMO would only serve to create a highly dysfunctional carrier on two coasts instead of one.

But perhaps they could come up with a cutesy new name, to reflect their shared network... even give homage to extant carriers:
Like "SouthWho?" for all their presence in the SE outside of Florida. Or maybe "MidWhere?" since neither carrier seems able to find the Midwest outside of Chicago.

I apologise if my USA geographical knowledge has its gaps, but are not MKE, MSP, DTW, CLE and IND in the midwest and have service from both Alaska and JetBlue? I am not certain if MCI is also considered "midwest" but it appears so on the map.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The B6 acquisition of NK will not result in major divestitures in NYC, at least not at JFK. LGA, maybe. That doesn't solve UA's problem at JFK. If the NEA unravels through legal means, again, nothing to divest. B6 and AA just using their slots, though optimized (and that's probably more the issue than their actual commercial tie up). If NEA unravels, it won't be B6 relinquishing anything at JFK. AA, maybe, but whatever it would be, not likely to give UA what it needs at JFK to have relevance.

It's not the NEA unraveling that would be of concern, it's what would be the price (if any) to keep it intact, should the merger go through.

No one can yet definitively state the answer to that, one way or another; because while the two may be viewed separately in the current context, the alliance is guaranteed to be challenged should preliminary approval be granted for the merger.

I don't disagree. It seems the more likely scenario is the DoJ will block the B6/NK merger, and will raise the issue of the industry's woes as a factor, meaning the operational issues that have come with the massive ramp up of travel demand since the pandemic eased, and the numerous issues that have cascaded onto the traveling public as a result. The merger is, frankly, bad business, for B6. They are paying a huge premium, and clearly stepped in to try and disrupt a combination that likely would have been easier to get through the DoJ, and that was the original NK/F9 tie-up. B6 wants the pilots and planes that NK has, and will spend huge sums of money over a long period of time to harmonize the fleets, routes, and staff and given JetBlue's strong underperformance when it comes to running smoothly, there are likely to be concerns as to how much further the NK integration would disrupt B6's existing operation. But yes, the NEA and the B6/NK combo, even without big chunks of overlap in the NEA markets between B6 and NK, will be problematic for the regulators as they review it.

Either way, back to United, there's not much room for United at JFK to run a competitive operation. If AA decides to sell off slots should the NEA be too costly to preserve as a consequence of the B6/NK merger going through, then yes, UA seems like the logical purchaser of those slots, but AA, even with its fits and starts at JFK, would be essentially, at that point, writing off JFK for good with a sale of any of its slots. I don't see this happening, outside of a major economic downturn.

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

I had no idea Jet Blue ran a ‘lousy operation’ I’ve always heard good things about their service, I flew in them once and it was a good experience but it was a long time ago



I do agree that a merger between them and Spirit would be a disaster, it makes zero sense to combine two companies that are so completely different and loading up with billions in debt, JB seems to have problems making money now, if the merger is approved it will only get worse setting them up for a future bankruptcy filing



I hope the Justice department does stop this merger, it would be a blessing for JB and Spirit

trueblew wrote:

I apologise if my USA geographical knowledge has its gaps, but are not MKE, MSP, DTW, CLE and IND in the midwest and have service from both Alaska and JetBlue? I am not certain if MCI is also considered "midwest" but it appears so on the map.

No apologies needed. First, here's a map if it helps. The brown areas in the center are the states typically regarded as "the Midwest"



That said, while a bit of hyperbole is indeed at play, the sentiment is more than widespread: not only do several major markets go unserved, but it's more the lack of realistic connectivity into the airlines' (especially B6's) network that renders them a nearly useless quantity to people in the Midwest and South.

• For example, try booking (on B6) LAX-MSY rountrip for a Mardi Gras run. Can't do it-- not on their site anyway. Maybe if you call.
• ORD-DFW, one of the country's premier N/S business routes? Nope.
• MSP-PHX, for some snowbird action? Nuh-uh.

STT757 wrote:

I hope United can find a way back, I share with others the opinion that the quick withdrawal might be opportune posturing to play up to the Feds should a divestiture from a number of ways becomes available. If the perimeter rule at LGA were to be relaxed , like DCA, to allow some Trans-Cons I would say United would never return to Kennedy. I don't see the Port Authority doing that voluntarily.

The letter they sent to employees that quickly leaked to the media may have been political posturing, but the actual pullout was still not by choice. The slots UA had most recently were temporary ones, and they expired at the end of October. They really had no reasonable path to continuing the same level of service.

I don't think it's a coincidence that UA pulled out of JFK the first time shortly after the Port Authority considered, but ultimately declined to relax LGA's perimeter. Had UA been able to move their entire JFK operation to LGA, they probably would have done okay.

It still seems like UA has a chance to get some JFK slots through some sort of DOJ action around the NEA if that were to happen. I don't think that's far-fetched at all, though it's also by no means a guarantee.

As an SFO-based flyer who has flown UA into JFK both times around, I'm actually NYC airport agnostic. Both EWR and JFK suck in their unique ways. I don't think JFK is that special, and I don't think EWR is as awful as some make it out to be, though both are still awful. I'm sure I'd maybe feel a little differently if I ever end up moving there.

Why would United operate more flights from JFK. They have a sizeable operation at EWR, brand new terminal, and quite frankly EWR is more convenient for many including myself. I would love to see more AA at T8 but I'd prefer EWR to be built-up even more, capacity permit.

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

Well, every AvGeek and their momma has pined for an AS/B6 merger at some point.

Looks good on a map, but IMO would only serve to create a highly dysfunctional carrier on two coasts instead of one.

But perhaps they could come up with a cutesy new name, to reflect their shared network... even give homage to extant carriers:
Like "SouthWho?" for all their presence in the SE outside of Florida. Or maybe "MidWhere?" since neither carrier seems able to find the Midwest outside of Chicago.

LOL. An AS/B6 combination is a fantasy that won't likely happen. The fleets are so different, the operations so completely apart, and any potential efficiencies gained would be overwhelmed by integration costs that would wipe them out. Depending on how the economy pans out over the next 18 months and whether leisure will still dominate demand, my long held belief is that AS and B6 will each end up merging into one of the US3, down the (long) road.

Max Q wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

It's not the NEA unraveling that would be of concern, it's what would be the price (if any) to keep it intact, should the merger go through.

No one can yet definitively state the answer to that, one way or another; because while the two may be viewed separately in the current context, the alliance is guaranteed to be challenged should preliminary approval be granted for the merger.

I don't disagree. It seems the more likely scenario is the DoJ will block the B6/NK merger, and will raise the issue of the industry's woes as a factor, meaning the operational issues that have come with the massive ramp up of travel demand since the pandemic eased, and the numerous issues that have cascaded onto the traveling public as a result. The merger is, frankly, bad business, for B6. They are paying a huge premium, and clearly stepped in to try and disrupt a combination that likely would have been easier to get through the DoJ, and that was the original NK/F9 tie-up. B6 wants the pilots and planes that NK has, and will spend huge sums of money over a long period of time to harmonize the fleets, routes, and staff and given JetBlue's strong underperformance when it comes to running smoothly, there are likely to be concerns as to how much further the NK integration would disrupt B6's existing operation. But yes, the NEA and the B6/NK combo, even without big chunks of overlap in the NEA markets between B6 and NK, will be problematic for the regulators as they review it.

Either way, back to United, there's not much room for United at JFK to run a competitive operation. If AA decides to sell off slots should the NEA be too costly to preserve as a consequence of the B6/NK merger going through, then yes, UA seems like the logical purchaser of those slots, but AA, even with its fits and starts at JFK, would be essentially, at that point, writing off JFK for good with a sale of any of its slots. I don't see this happening, outside of a major economic downturn.

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

I had no idea Jet Blue ran a ‘lousy operation’ I’ve always heard good things about their service, I flew in them once and it was a good experience but it was a long time ago



I do agree that a merger between them and Spirit would be a disaster, it makes zero sense to combine two companies that are so completely different and loading up with billions in debt, JB seems to have problems making money now, if the merger is approved it will only get worse setting them up for a future bankruptcy filing



I hope the Justice department does stop this merger, it would be a blessing for JB and Spirit

JetBlue has a great product, generally a cut above the rest of the industry, relative to the full service carriers. The problem for JetBlue is the concentration of flights in congested airports that are delay prone (JFK, BOS) which often trigger delays. I've not checked the rankings of late, but I recall recently seeing B6 was at the bottom of on time performance and at the top of consumer complaints on things like delayed baggage, etc...The product is great. The execution, not always so.

How come the Port Authority doesn't relax the perimeter rule at LGA this would help UA and bring more competition?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

my long held belief is that AS and B6 will each end up merging into one of the US3, down the (long) road.

Wouldn't be surprised, with the seeming obvious two being AA/B6 @ JFK+BOS, ceding LGA+FLL assets to appease the DOJ; and DL/AS @ SEA, ceding SFO+LAX (well, AS's part of LAX).

Leaving UA sorta out in the cold, but their current structure is such that they couldn't really absorb either without massive overlap.

sofianec wrote:

Why would United operate more flights from JFK. They have a sizeable operation at EWR, brand new terminal, and quite frankly EWR is more convenient for many including myself. I would love to see more AA at T8 but I'd prefer EWR to be built-up even more, capacity permit.

There is some number of New Yorkers - probably not a small number, and possible fairly high median income - that just won't go to EWR without a significant fare discount (if at all). Lots of carriers serve multiple airports in an MSA or CSA. DL flies to EWR in spite of the LGA/JFK split hub ops. WN goes to MIA as well as FLL, IAH as well as HOU, ORD as well as MDW, and SFO as well as OAK.

Smisek made a decision based on cost efficiency. JFK is not a cheap place from which to operate. It also reduced competition with UA's own EWR flights. In retrospect, somebody figured out that they walked away from a pretty big revenue stream. Yes, it would take $$$ to acquire facilities and slots to compete with DL and B6 in frequency to key destinations.

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

my long held belief is that AS and B6 will each end up merging into one of the US3, down the (long) road.

Wouldn't be surprised, with the seeming obvious two being AA/B6 @ JFK+BOS, ceding LGA+FLL assets to appease the DOJ; and DL/AS @ SEA, ceding SFO+LAX (well, AS's part of LAX).

Leaving UA sorta out in the cold, but their current structure is such that they couldn't really absorb either without massive overlap.

That's what I have thought as well. WN is almost too big to be absorbed by any of the US3, but a WN/UA tie up, with plenty of divestitures (MDW, HOU notably) , seems do-able.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

my long held belief is that AS and B6 will each end up merging into one of the US3, down the (long) road.

Wouldn't be surprised, with the seeming obvious two being AA/B6 @ JFK+BOS, ceding LGA+FLL assets to appease the DOJ; and DL/AS @ SEA, ceding SFO+LAX (well, AS's part of LAX).

Leaving UA sorta out in the cold, but their current structure is such that they couldn't really absorb either without massive overlap.

That's what I have thought as well. WN is almost too big to be absorbed by any of the US3, but a WN/UA tie up, with plenty of divestitures (MDW, HOU notably) , seems do-able.

WN/UA? Please do explain a bit more how that makes sense. I am genuinely curious.

WorldFlier wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised, with the seeming obvious two being AA/B6 @ JFK+BOS, ceding LGA+FLL assets to appease the DOJ; and DL/AS @ SEA, ceding SFO+LAX (well, AS's part of LAX).

Leaving UA sorta out in the cold, but their current structure is such that they couldn't really absorb either without massive overlap.

That's what I have thought as well. WN is almost too big to be absorbed by any of the US3, but a WN/UA tie up, with plenty of divestitures (MDW, HOU notably) , seems do-able.

WN/UA? Please do explain a bit more how that makes sense. I am genuinely curious.

In a scenario where AA/B6 combined and DL/AS combined (this is all white boarding and gross speculation naturally), that does leave UA and WN a bit out there.

WN has a formidable, but challenged domestic network (p2p routes, vs true hub and spoke) and can't grow internationally much more than what it has done, given the single aircraft type it flies. Combining the two is highly unlikely, given so much overlap in Chicago, DC/Baltimore, Houston, but 15 years ago, big airline mergers like DL/NW, UA/CO, and AA/US also seemed improbable and hard to pull off, yet they happened. But I do think a UA/WN combo seems very difficult to pull off.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

But I do think a UA/WN combo seems very difficult to pull off.

Well, for starters, WN has a market capitalization that's $5billion higher than UA's.... so there's that.

But even more so, their costs would SKYROCKET if attempting to apply the UA model to them.
It would basically turn into just a grotesquely expensive way for an even-more-dysfunctional UA to acquire MAXes.

But above all else, the DOJ (and for change, likely even the DOT) would *never* allow it.

WN isn't much of a low fares carrier anymore, but it's still perceived to be, by both the public and regulators alike; and it wields that perception to its advantage well.

I posit that merging NK out of existence is going to have a more deleterious effect on pricing (from a consumer's perspective) than any absence of WN though.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The B6 acquisition of NK will not result in major divestitures in NYC, at least not at JFK. LGA, maybe. That doesn't solve UA's problem at JFK. If the NEA unravels through legal means, again, nothing to divest. B6 and AA just using their slots, though optimized (and that's probably more the issue than their actual commercial tie up). If NEA unravels, it won't be B6 relinquishing anything at JFK. AA, maybe, but whatever it would be, not likely to give UA what it needs at JFK to have relevance.

It's not the NEA unraveling that would be of concern, it's what would be the price (if any) to keep it intact, should the merger go through.

No one can yet definitively state the answer to that, one way or another; because while the two may be viewed separately in the current context, the alliance is guaranteed to be challenged should preliminary approval be granted for the merger.

I don't disagree. It seems the more likely scenario is the DoJ will block the B6/NK merger, and will raise the issue of the industry's woes as a factor, meaning the operational issues that have come with the massive ramp up of travel demand since the pandemic eased, and the numerous issues that have cascaded onto the traveling public as a result. The merger is, frankly, bad business, for B6. They are paying a huge premium, and clearly stepped in to try and disrupt a combination that likely would have been easier to get through the DoJ, and that was the original NK/F9 tie-up. B6 wants the pilots and planes that NK has, and will spend huge sums of money over a long period of time to harmonize the fleets, routes, and staff and given JetBlue's strong underperformance when it comes to running smoothly, there are likely to be concerns as to how much further the NK integration would disrupt B6's existing operation. But yes, the NEA and the B6/NK combo, even without big chunks of overlap in the NEA markets between B6 and NK, will be problematic for the regulators as they review it.

Either way, back to United, there's not much room for United at JFK to run a competitive operation. If AA decides to sell off slots should the NEA be too costly to preserve as a consequence of the B6/NK merger going through, then yes, UA seems like the logical purchaser of those slots, but AA, even with its fits and starts at JFK, would be essentially, at that point, writing off JFK for good with a sale of any of its slots. I don't see this happening, outside of a major economic downturn.

Longer term (much longer), it is not improbable that B6, as it exists now, without NK, is an acquisition target. It runs a lousy operation, skews overwhelmingly leisure, but has very valuable core assets that could level the playing field across the US3 in some specific markets, but that feels like a long way away.

Your biased on this response on team UAL is clearly only mirrored by 'ContinentalEWR" username. Yes they may TRY to block, initially, but they need to put up a case first cause the court can overrule it and tell me how will they have a case were the same agency allowed UAL/CO merger to be the biggest airline in the world at the time and thats ok, but lil B6/NK being a mere #5 and actually being able to diversify the network thats over the years was hampered by the DOJ allowing the big 3 to essentially have a trio-poly to such a massive level that players like B6 have no choice but to merge/acquire another carrier just to be in the outskirts of the competitive landscape. The likely scenario is they may motion to block, B6 will challenge it and come back with a settlement, like every other merger. This case has all been exacerbated by the same agency that allowed prior mergers and now seem to be more protectionist FOR the big 3 tri-opoly than helping the commercial aviation landscape be more reasonably competitive as it was before the big 6 was allowed to consolidate to the mega 3. Again this is the same agency that is making a case for "looking out for too much market concentration for the public." You know very well B6 will hold them up to that and challenge them on that, hence they will come to an agreement. Sorry but your precious UAL will just have to deal with a little more competition like every company has historically in this industry.

Abeam79 wrote:

Yes they may TRY to block, initially, but they need to put up a case first cause the court can overrule it and tell me how will they have a case were the same agency allowed UAL/CO merger to be the biggest airline in the world at the time and thats ok, but lil B6/NK being a mere #5 and actually being able to diversify the network thats over the years was hampered by the DOJ allowing the big 3 to essentially have a trio-poly to such a massive level that players like B6 have no choice but to merge/acquire another carrier just to be in the outskirts of the competitive landscape.

Question: what examples of a US Federal court overturning the DOJ's blocking of private merger between large corporate entities, can you cite?

It'd be interesting to see them.

LAX772LR wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Yes they may TRY to block, initially, but they need to put up a case first cause the court can overrule it and tell me how will they have a case were the same agency allowed UAL/CO merger to be the biggest airline in the world at the time and thats ok, but lil B6/NK being a mere #5 and actually being able to diversify the network thats over the years was hampered by the DOJ allowing the big 3 to essentially have a trio-poly to such a massive level that players like B6 have no choice but to merge/acquire another carrier just to be in the outskirts of the competitive landscape.

what examples of a US Federal court overturning the DOJ's blocking of private merger between large corporate entities, can you cite?

It'd be interesting to see them.

here ya go, just a few from the past couple years
https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/jud ... on/632226/
https://www.shearman.com/perspectives/2 ... ime-warner
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust ... cquisition
Again, were talking about a merger case that will make them a mere #5, how on earth can the DOJ say..."thats too much marketshare consolidation" with a straight face while the 3 they allowed now control 80% of the market

Velocirapture wrote:

N1120A wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I don't think UA will return to JFK. The slots UA needs, and the physical space it requires to have a competitive, meaningful offering, simply are not there. Whatever corporate contracts UA had at JFK at the time Smisek closed the operation and shifted everything to EWR, are likely fewer and far between. UA made the best of a pandemic induced opening at JFK and got back in, but its product on the 757s that ended up flying the LAX/SFO routes at the end were not really competitive. I think we've seen the last of UA at JFK barring any major shifts in slots there and that seems highly improbable.

For United to have a meaningful JFK presence, it needs JFK, LAX, + LHR and a competitive lounge set up, not a contract.

You mean exactly what they had before CO's Smisek screwed it up?

Except that Smisek was CEO of United at the time of the JFK pull-out. IOW, you're confusing him with the rest of CO.

And BTW, in case you've forgotten, it's now well more than 12 years since the merger announcement. When I learned that that Smisek was going to lead the merged company, I felt "gut-punched." In just a handful of months, he was destroying CO and now he would likely destroy the merged UA, too.

The stench of Smisek's regime is far from over. The happiest day I can recall at the merged UA/CO was the day it was announced that Smisek had been forced out due to ethics (bribery) allegations. That he was never charged is still a source of some conversations.

But if you want to blame Smisek, well, there is plenty of blame to go around. Though pulling out of JFK was Smisek's foolish decision, there's plenty of blame for Tilton in the years leading up to the UA/CO merger, too.

But lets' move on, shall we? May 2010 was over 12 years ago!

Bravo ! Those 'misinformed' 'outsiders' still go by their opinions not based on facts, 12+ years later.

https://crankyflier.com/2016/07/19/unit ... e-details/