2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

swank300 · Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:52 am

Hey guys,

Anybody know what happened to the UA's evening daily departure from EWR to LAX. SFO still has two, but it looks like LAX now only has the one in the morning....have you guys heard anything?

STT757 · Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:57 am

Yeah I've noticed that, looks like EWR-LAX is down to one daily 757. Sad, they used to fly EWR-LAX with 5 daily frequencies prior to 9-11.

EXAAUADL · Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:16 pm

I saw only 2 A319s on EWR-SFO.

Is UAL's PS service from JFK causing traffic to shift to JFK from EWR?

JLDWC · Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:58 pm

I was on UAL98 on July 25th, and besides the 752 that i was on, I didnt see any other UA 757's at EWR.

BALAX · Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:22 pm

AA used to be 3X daily on this route and chopped it down to 2X since last winter. Not enough demand on the market?

Cory6188 · Mon Aug 21, 2006 10:32 pm

Quoting BALAX (Reply 4):
Not enough demand on the market?

Honestly, I get the impression that the other legacy carriers have almost entirely ceded EWR to CO. You never hear of anyone but CO ramping up or adding service to EWR, while CO has gone gangbusters, clogging up the airport with tons of flights.

I'm not too sure why EWR is such a special case, however, as you don't see the non-hub carriers drop nearly all their service at other carriers' hubs. Take DFW, for example. It's a major AA hub, but everyone else still has a normal amount of service to the airport.

Is there something that unique/difficult about CO @ EWR that keeps everyone else away?

hiflyer · Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:01 pm

EWR is a problem for carriers on several layers....congestion on the field...congestion from flts already overhead therefore waiting on space...cost on the airport for facilities....the very (too?) close relationship the airport has with CO...

End result is it becomes a tradeoff...at what expense level do you keep your own tin in there to work for your frequent flyers and are they generating enough to justify it.

UAL, in recent months, has been pulling down at both JFK and EWR so obviously their market research and financial analysis says use the aircraft somewhere else where they can work on their strengths.

Is this a CO effect...probably. Are they setting themselves up for the CO merger? just kidding.....

STT757 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:16 am

Quoting BALAX (Reply 4):
Not enough demand on the market?

I think it has more to do with CO, they are up to 7 daily EWR-SFO and 7 daily including 2-3 757-300s on EWR-LAX.

Keep in mind, even with UAL's EWR-LAX being down to one daily flight UAL has more flights from EWR than JFK and LGA.

N1120A · Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:35 am

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 5):
I'm not too sure why EWR is such a special case, however, as you don't see the non-hub carriers drop nearly all their service at other carriers' hubs. Take DFW, for example. It's a major AA hub, but everyone else still has a normal amount of service to the airport.

Have you ever taken a look at ATL?

AA767400 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:45 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
Keep in mind, even with UAL's EWR-LAX being down to one daily flight UAL has more flights from EWR than JFK and LGA.

Because EWR is New York's premier airport right? sarcastic

style · Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:19 am

In the end it probably just boils down to an oversaturated market. Just like said above, EWR is not the best place to fly out of due to the logistical nightmare when you have soo much as a sneeze it can cause delays.

Quoting Hiflyer (Reply 6):
EWR is a problem for carriers on several layers....congestion on the field...congestion from flts already overhead therefore waiting on space...cost on the airport for facilities....the very (too?) close relationship the airport has with CO...

Yes they do have a close relationship, but every other carrier that has a hub works closely with the operator of their respective airport. CO has made significant investments in EWR and should expect those investments to have some sort of return. But it is not all roses either, when Jetblue arrived the Port Authority took them in with open arms as well.

jfklganyc · Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:47 am

This is just another example of legacy carriers continuing to focus on hubs/focus cities. . . none of which UAL has at EWR.

UAL is no longer the giant they were prior to 9/11 and all p2p service has stopped. Now, LAX is a UAL hub, but EWR/JFK/LGA are considered New York.

They already serve the LAX and SFO hubs with the premium service planes from JFK. They serve ORD and DEN from LGA. And they serve IAD from LGA and JFK.

EWR has service to LAX and SFO plus ORD, DEN, and IAD. But the LAX and SFO service is a token presence. If it's down to one flight, it will be pulled soon.

There is no doubt a large market between LA and NY, but UAL is ceding that market more and more to CO at EWR, DL and AA at JFK, and to some extent B6 at JFK.

PJ

travelin man · Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:06 am

UA flies P.S. equipped aircraft to JFK, and non-P.S. aircraft to EWR. If you want to go to NYC, and you live in LA, and you are a UA freqent flier, which airport are you going to fly to?

Quite honestly it makes a ton of sense for UA to cut LAX/SFO-EWR altogether, if they are considering JFK/LGA/EWR the same market. The high-yield passengers will continue to fly P.S. to JFK. People that really need to go to EWR will either connect or fly CO.

dutchjet · Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:18 am

Its simple....

1. UA is reducing its presence in the NYC area including EWR, which was once a very important station for UA. I guess that EWR no longer warrants two flights per day to UA's "hub but not really a hub" at LAX.

2. CO is growing stronger and becoming more dominant at EWR.....and CO is doing especially well with its transcon services; on 5-6 hour flights, being a full service carrier does give CO certain advantage.....pax do appreciate a complimentery meal and something to drink on these longer segments. ALso, CO's schedule with frequent departures is a competitive bonus on the transcon routes.

3. UA's east coast future is at IAD.....UA made that clear with the recent JFK-London deal with DL and the decision to transfer the JFK-NRT route to IAD. Give UA credit for looking forward and focusing on markets where it can dominate, succeed and make money. The EWR-LAX route is simply not an important part of UA's future, so they are reducing service and may eventually drop the route.

tommy767 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:54 am

Its obvious that CO is really dominating the EWR-LAX market. In late 2004, AA had 767s on the route 3x a day with full service amenities. AA is still holding out on the route, and my flight this weekend (flight 43) is completely full. As for UA, it is surprising that they keep cutting frequencies, but understandable about how they want to build up their hubs.

jfklganyc · Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:05 am

"3. UA's east coast future is at IAD.....UA made that clear with the recent JFK-London deal with DL and the decision to transfer the JFK-NRT route to IAD. Give UA credit for looking forward and focusing on markets where it can dominate, succeed and make money. The EWR-LAX route is simply not an important part of UA's future, so they are reducing service and may eventually drop the route."

I agree with most of that, except the part about giving UA credit. The fact that they can not make money on two of the world's premier routes NYC-LON and NYC-Tokyo is a VERY large problem.

And don't tell me about competition and low yields, etc etc on these routes. These are premium routes that airlines would love to fly if they could get the route.

UA was no longer competitive on the JFK-LHR route because they widdled down service from 3 times daily to once a day. This went against AA with 5 a day and BA with 7 a day.

UA is no longer competitive on EWR-LAX because they widdled that route down from 5 a day to once a day. And they will be off that route soon too.

NY is the nation's largest city. LA is the nation's second largest city. And LA is a UAL hub. If they can't sustain and dominate a route like this, it is not Continental's fault. Nor any other airline.

It's because they have infrequent service compared to AA, DL, and CO. And it's because their in-flight economy service is far off base with the guys in Terminal C.

So why would I fly UAL to LAX from EWR? Perhaps a cheap fare. And that is the problem with UAL from EWR to LAX and JFK to LHR/NRT.

Don't blame the routes, don't blame the competition, and don't CREDIT UAL.

PJ

travelin man · Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:51 am

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 15):
NY is the nation's largest city. LA is the nation's second largest city. And LA is a UAL hub. If they can't sustain and dominate a route like this, it is not Continental's fault. Nor any other airline.

It's because they have infrequent service compared to AA, DL, and CO. And it's because their in-flight economy service is far off base with the guys in Terminal C.

They don't need to fly LAX-EWR, because they fly LAX-JFK. Focusing on strengths IS something that that should be commended. "NY is the nation's largest city and LA is the nation's second largest city" means absolutely nothing.

United IS sustaining their LAX-JFK service, so they are sustaining their route between the nation's largest & second-largest cities. They are obviously choosing to focus on JFK for trans-cons, rather than EWR.

And I'd be hard-pressed to see any advantages CO's Y class service has on UA's P.S. service.

dutchjet · Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:55 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 16):
And I'd be hard-pressed to see any advantages CO's Y class service has on UA's P.S. service.

Free Food?

travelin man · Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:03 am

Has UA changed? When I was on P.S. last December I didn't pay for food.

AADC10 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:04 am

The biggest hole in UA's domestic route system is NYC and historicly that has always been the case. Prior to 2000 they were attempting to add flights to NYC but obviously short term survival swamped any other business strategy. They are retreating for now since there are already plenty of flights LAX-JFK (although LAX lost one frequency to SFO) and EWR was apparently not profitable.

[Edited 2006-08-21 22:05:26]

dutchjet · Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:12 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 18):
Has UA changed? When I was on P.S. last December I didn't pay for food.

Yeah, it did. UAL now has food for purchase on the PS 757 transon flights in coach, its a recent change. (I think this is a mistake.....premium service does not go together with the food for purchase idea in my mind.)

ikramerica · Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:14 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 16):
They don't need to fly LAX-EWR, because they fly LAX-JFK.

After all, CO doesn't exactly fly JFK-LAX non-stop, do they?

CO flies to all three airports in NYC, but only fly transcons into EWR. 7 transcon routes out of EWR, zero out of JFK. So what?

travelin man · Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:31 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20):
UAL now has food for purchase on the PS 757 transon flights in coach, its a recent change. (I think this is a mistake.....premium service does not go together with the food for purchase idea in my mind.)

Totally agreed. That's disappointing to hear. Oh well, UA still has 100% Economy Plus in Y, true F & C classes with lie-flat seats, and best of all, Channel 9.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
After all, CO doesn't exactly fly JFK-LAX non-stop, do they?

CO flies to all three airports in NYC, but only fly transcons into EWR. 7 transcon routes out of EWR, zero out of JFK. So what?

Exactly.

STT757 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:04 am

Here's some food for thought for the conspiracy folks, UAL reducing their NYC presence to remove concerns about a CO/UAL merger.

Sell the JFK-London rights to DL because if/when they merge with CO they would have duplicate authorities, somewhat similar with NRT. CO already has EWR-NRT so might as well move the JFK route to IAD.

Im not saying this as matter of fact, Im just using some speculation to tie in this topic with the various CO/UAL merger topics which are being discussed here, in the various media outlets (Chicago Tribune etc) and the many investor chat boards.

Cory6188 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:40 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 23):
Here's some food for thought for the conspiracy folks, UAL reducing their NYC presence to remove concerns about a CO/UAL merger.

Sell the JFK-London rights to DL because if/when they merge with CO they would have duplicate authorities, somewhat similar with NRT. CO already has EWR-NRT so might as well move the JFK route to IAD.

Very interesting....it's not the first time I've heard such musings, but it seems to make so much sense given the possible merger rumors we've been hearing so much about in the past few months.

COewrAAtysAZ · Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:05 am

United at EWR is turning into a line station. They decided to axe 1 of the 2 daily flights to LAX because they lost a lot of aircraft during the bankruptcy and are pulling the aircraft to put them on other routes. Last year, we had 757s for both of the LAX and SFO flights. This year, they are down to the one 757 to LAX and downgraded to airbuses on the SFO trips as well. There was also a change in the ORD schedule and IAD schedule from EWR. Employees there were laid off several months ago and were not really given options.

[Edited 2006-08-22 04:09:53]

[Edited 2006-08-22 04:17:29]

[Edited 2006-08-22 04:20:20]

N62NA · Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 7):
Keep in mind, even with UAL's EWR-LAX being down to one daily flight UAL has more flights from EWR than JFK and LGA.

No they don't (unfortunately).

flyswim · Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:32 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20):
UAL now has food for purchase on the PS 757 transon flights in coach, its a recent change.

I was on UA 956 SFO-JFK on July 27 and the meal was free in Y+. Can anyone confirm if this change occured in August?

STT757 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:09 pm

Another thing I have noticed, UAL has abandoned (or vacated) their new Cargo building at EWR, the building was completed in March, 2001.

It's right next to the United Airlines Hangar which is also abandoned (vacated), the UAL hangar was active untill about '03 or '04. UAL used to do alot of work on HP 757s at the UAL EWR maintenance base up untill about '03.

UAL has two large vacant buildings adjacent to each other at EWR, the Cargo building is huge and brand new. The Hangar dates back to the 1950s, and was an active UAL maintenance base untill '03 or '04.

ramprat74 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:53 pm

We still have 57 mechanics in EWR. They must do all their work on the line or on the hardstand now. I remember management telling us how great the new cargo facilities were in EWR and LAX. They were state of the art. I'm sure glad United employees are working in these buildings now. Yeah sure

planecrazy2 · Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:28 pm

Quoting Flyswim (Reply 27):
Can anyone confirm if this change occured in August?

Sorry to say p.s. has been buy on board since August 4.

[Edited 2006-08-22 09:28:54]

UAL777UK · Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:32 pm

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 22):
Totally agreed. That's disappointing to hear. Oh well, UA still has 100% Economy Plus in Y, true F & C classes with lie-flat seats, and best of all, Channel 9.

Exactly, so which ever way you butter it up, FF's on UA are always going to go to JFK more often than EWR. No other airline touches the PS Service UA offers IMHO at this precise moment in time whether you be in F,J oy Y+

COewrAAtysAZ · Wed Aug 23, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 28):
UAL has two large vacant buildings adjacent to each other at EWR, the Cargo building is huge and brand new. The Hangar dates back to the 1950s, and was an active UAL maintenance base untill '03 or '04.

The hangar and the cargo building are no longer used by United Airlines, nor are they owned by United anymore.

STT757 · Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:49 am

Quoting COewrAAtysAZ (Reply 32):
The hangar and the cargo building are no longer used by United Airlines, nor are they owned by United anymore.

I met an older gentleman once who came into my family business from time to time, I noticed a Retired UAL mechanic sticker and got to talking with him. He was retired after working 30-40 years at EWR, he worked in the Maintenance hangar. They worked on everything there, when UAL flew 747s from EWR to SFO, LHR and NRT they would park them in front of the hangar in between flights for maintenance work.

It's a shame, the cargo building is brand new (I can't remember the web page that had the photos and description). It's large enough for perhaps a couple carriers, perhaps DHL/ABX who recently relocated to the new North side multi tenant cargo buildings would be interested. The UAL cargo building is right across from where they park their aircraft now, it's a modern building that can easily handle the 4-5 flights they operate at EWR.

As for the UAL hangar, CO has 4 hangars at EWR, two Wide body and two narrowbody. There are some days they are so busy they work on aircraft underneath the radiant heat de-icing structure, or they cram two aircraft (767, 737-800) into one Widebody Hangar. The UAL hangar would expand CO's EWR maintenance base, it would give CO 3 hangars that can handle aircraft up to the 757-200 and 2 hangars for 767s, 777s and 757-300s.

2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

RE: 2nd UA Flight EWR-LAX Gone!?!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net