Sitting on a shuttle bus at JFK talking to some UA crew, and they relayed that PS is being redeployed to EWR. Seemed far fetched but I guess it would make sense. Anyone have any insights?

If true, doesn't surprise me. What flights at JFK does UA operate anymore? Just LAX and SFO? They might be better off concentrating on building the premium traffic over EWR.

A little bit of a shame if it's true.. It was perfect for me when I connected in JFK for a flight to NRT.. Same terminal.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 1):

Yep, just P.S. to LAX and SFO. I guess you could refresh the product and put it at EWR. AA, B6, and DL have hubs at JFK so it makes sense to have their premium product out of there but not so much for UA...

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 2): A little bit of a shame if it's true.. It was perfect for me when I connected in JFK for a flight to NRT.. Same terminal.

LAX/SFOJFKNRT  

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 2): A little bit of a shame if it's true.. It was perfect for me when I connected in JFK for a flight to NRT.. Same terminal.

You would take a PS flight from the West Coast to JFK to connect onward to Japan? That makes hardly any sense.

[Edited 2015-03-12 13:12:57]

Quoting catiii (Reply 3): Yep, just P.S. to LAX and SFO. I guess you could refresh the product and put it at EWR. AA, B6, and DL have hubs at JFK so it makes sense to have their premium product out of there but not so much for UA...

UA has the huge advantage of being the only one hubbing at SFO, so they're enjoying the bulk of high value sales at that end, while still grabbing a small slice out of JFK.

It's very apparent in the premium seat count offered on SFO vs. LAX for all the carriers involved - UA is the only one that is higher at SFO than LAX.

Id be skeptical. Doing so cuts UAL off from high revenue passengers either going to or from anywhere east of manhattan. It is possible AA and now B6 have hurt UA such that their yields are no better than their yields from EWR. Of course crew rumors are worse than Weekly World News for accuracy.

What does PS mean?.

filler filler

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 8): What does PS mean?.

"premium service" ... stylized as "p.s." .... basically their way of saying high priced flat bed transcon on JFK-SFO/LAX

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10): Gee.. What plane nuts you guys are..

:D I mean I love everything to do with aviation, but adding 9 hours of travel time sounds crazy even to me.

Doubt it. As many have mentioned, the premium is at JFK to the West Coast. Not so much from EWR -- and UA uses smaller planes with high frequency to LAX/SFO. On FT you read about how the J cabin is routinely oversold on PS.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 13):

Totally agree. If anything P.S. might be expanding, but not from EWR. It will be interesting how the BOS experiment goes this summer

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 14):

BOS-LAX seems to be a one off experiment for 60-90 days. Why they are doing it out of LAX and not SFO is beyond me.

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 14): Totally agree. If anything P.S. might be expanding, but not from EWR. It will be interesting how the BOS experiment goes this summer

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 13): Doubt it. As many have mentioned, the premium is at JFK to the West Coast. Not so much from EWR -- and UA uses smaller planes with high frequency to LAX/SFO. On FT you read about how the J cabin is routinely oversold on PS.

Exactly P.S. is not being cut for JFK and moved to EWR because UA needs the frequency on those routes. However I honestly hope the BOS experiment goes great and perhaps P.S. can be expanded to cover service between BOS-LAX/SFO on a daily basis as well.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 16):

If it means more 757s staying, I'd be glad if they had p.s to LAN.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15):

They completely dominate on SFO-BOS. Neither DL nor AA offer any flights on such a major transcon pair, so zero incentive to offer a premium product.

The BOS-LAX p.s. scheduling almost seems more a result of their poor fleet planning than anything.

I can't see them pulling out of the two most important markets from LAX and SFO.

But they have shrunk so much at JFK and in NYC proper, I could see it.

If somebody is willing to pay them enough for the JFK slots, absolutely it could happen.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):

They could have just as easily used the aircraft as a spare. If that type of equipment is met favorably on the BOS-LAX route it could signal some expansion.

And if getting ahead on scheduled maintenance so you have slack in the fleet is poor planning I'd like to see what good planning could do

Quoting jayunited (Reply 16): However I honestly hope the BOS experiment goes great

What is the experiment? My understanding was that UA was just putting a PS plane with non-PS service on LAX-BOS since there wasn't anywhere better to put it. I could be wrong, of course.

IMO the original P.S. seats made for one of the most eerie cabins I have ever seen. Have all of the seat covers and shells been replaced?

[Edited 2015-03-12 18:30:57]

You guys have all made the wrong assumption.
They flights aren't moving to EWR.
They're moving to LGA.

Hinged, of course, on the relaxation of permieter rules at LGA.

[Edited 2015-03-12 18:31:15]

Quoting catiii (Reply 32): How is the UA 739 with uncomfortable slimline seats and wifi based entertainment or DTV any different than the Delta 739 I'm about to get on to Tampa with uncomfortable slimline seats and wifi based entertainment or seatback TV that may or may not work?

First, let's establish the difference between the different 739 types UA has:

1. 739 - DTV, No power/Y+ only. Very few in fleet.
2. 739ER - No DTV, Wifi/Streaming, Full Y power. Growing numbers in fleet.

I would not be surprised at all if UA were to trade the normal 739's for some other 737 version, maybe for a discount on more 739ER's from Boeing. Alongside the 788, this is the craft they have the smallest number of in the fleet so it's quit an oddball.

DL and UA's 739ER's are very similar overall, UA's has Streaming entertainment which may or may not work, DL has PTV's which may or may not work, both have full power making them some of the best possible craft for transcons regardless of Wifi function.

The slimline's on the 739ER are not uncomfortable whatsoever. Much, much better than the old 738/9 seats. All rows have power, and the wi-fi works well. Plus, you get the nice Sky interior with mood lighting. I've never had a bad ride on one of those. I actually think the new Airbus seats are worse than the new 739ER seats.

Quoting SunsetLimited (Reply 34):

Sadly, it seems UA prefers the lame 738's and 320's on Transcons - craft much better suited for 2-4 hour flights in terms of features, comfort, and amenities.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 35): Sadly, it seems UA prefers the lame 738's and 320's on Transcons - craft much better suited for 2-4 hour flights in terms of features, comfort, and amenities.

I'm still disappointed with the 32S reconfig. I feel like more could have been done...at the very least, in seat power. The 319/320 used to be one of the best rides in the fleet, at least in Y.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 31): You guys have all made the wrong assumption. They flights aren't moving to EWR. They're moving to LGA. Hinged, of course, on the relaxation of permieter rules at LGA.

I actually immediately thought of this when I started reading the topic.

If you didn't already know there are 5 airlines flying the JFK - LAX airport pair. IMHO, that has led to too much fragmentation where most flights are on Airbus 32S narrowbodies. Personally I think there should be some restrictions (likely imposed by the PANYNJ) limiting the number of carriers on airport pairs and requiring the deployment of more appropriately gauged aircraft on those airport pairs.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 5): You would take a PS flight from the West Coast to JFK to connect onward to Japan? That makes hardly any sense.

- only makes sense if it was as a part of a mileage run for elite qualifying status miles

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 22): If somebody is willing to pay them enough for the JFK slots, absolutely it could happen.

- recent changes to legislation and regulation now allow the outright sale and purchase of slots at LGA and JFK, where previously leasing and swaps were permitted.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 25): 320's are awful to take a transcon on

I find the UA Airbuses to be the most comfortable narrow bodies in UA's fleet. 18-inch wide seats (compared to the 17-inch 737s and 757s) make a difference, especially when sitting in the middle seat. That's an extra 2 inches between you and the guy next to you. I'll take an Airbus over the 737/757 in economy any day.

Quoting cslusarc (Reply 38): I think there should be some restrictions (likely imposed by the PANYNJ) limiting the number of carriers on airport pairs and requiring the deployment of more appropriately gauged aircraft on those airport pairs.

That would violate both the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 40):

It certainly wouldn't. USDOT does it all the time at DCA.

Quoting catiii (Reply 41): It certainly wouldn't. USDOT does it all the time at DCA.

1. The USDOT can do things the PANJNY cant. Local governments cannot regulate interstate commerce, the feds can.
2. The USDOT doesnt tell airlines which city pairs to serve or aircraft gauge to use from DCA or how many carriers can serve a given city pair.


please dont embarrass yourself further.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 26): First, let's establish the difference between the different 739 types UA has: 1. 739 - DTV, No power/Y+ only. Very few in fleet. 2. 739ER - No DTV, Wifi/Streaming, Full Y power. Growing numbers in fleet.

There are only 12 or 13 regular 739's in the fleet (I can't remember the exact number), and all have DTV. A lot of the 739ER's have DTV. If you see aircraft number 34xx the odd's are that aircraft has DTV, if the aircraft number 38xx it will most likely have WI-FI, and streaming entertainment.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 35):

I'm not embarrassed:

1. The Commerce Clause doesn't deprive either state or local governments of power to regulate interstate commerce. States and local governments, in this case, may regulate aspects of interstate commerce. This was first held by SCOTUS in Cooley, and specific to PANYNJ was reaffirmed by the Southern District of NY in Western when Western's request for injunctive relief from PANYNJ's restrictions under the Supremacy, Equal Protection, Due Process, and Commerce clauses of the United States Constitution were dismissed.

Simply because it is worth mentioning, Western's principle contentions centered on three federal aviation statutes: Section 105(a)(1) of the Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) ["Section 1305(a)(1)"]; the Airport & Airway Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. § 2210 ["Section 2210"]; and the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C. § 1349(a) ["Section 1349(a)"].

Section 1305(a)(1) is a preemption statute. It provides: [N]o State or political subdivision thereof and no interstate agency or other political agency of two or more States shall enact or enforce any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier having authority under subchapter IV of this chapter to provide air transportation.

2. Both the Congress, through various FAA authorizing measures, and the USDOT have EXPLICITLY dictated which cities can be served from DCA. Further, not only have they been prescriptive about city pairs, they also, implicitly have restricted competition and limited the number of airlines serving other city pairs.

In any event, as I said I'm not embarassed. Maybe you should be for the way you've embarassed yourself, if you were self aware...

[Edited 2015-03-12 23:02:29]

Quoting maxholstemh1521 (Reply 36): There are only 12 or 13 regular 739's in the fleet

12. That's how many CO ordered and took delivery of before the ER became available. In terms of fleet planning they're oddballs in range and performance, but not passenger count or amenities. Mostly they just have to not schedule those planes for the 4+ hour flights.

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 22): They could have just as easily used the aircraft as a spare. If that type of equipment is met favorably on the BOS-LAX route it could signal some expansion.

Not really. LAX-BOS presents range issues for the 739ER and the overly aggressive sUA 757 retirement has led to a p.s. plane operating LAX-OGG and now LAX-BOS.

Quoting beachbum1970 (Reply 32): I find the UA Airbuses to be the most comfortable narrow bodies in UA's fleet.

You are the only person I have every seen say that. The Recarros on those birds are absolutely brutal.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15): BOS-LAX seems to be a one off experiment for 60-90 days. Why they are doing it out of LAX and not SFO is beyond me.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been aggressively courting the film industry with significant tax incentives to produce films in the Commonwealth.

I suspect that UA is trying p.s. service LAX-BOS to try to capture some of the film industry flyer base revenue during the best time of the year to be filming movies.

Quoting warreng24 (Reply 40): I suspect that UA is trying p.s. service LAX-BOS to try to capture some of the film industry flyer base revenue during the best time of the year to be filming movies.

The p.s. 757s that will fly LAX - BOS will have the same domestic F upgrade/service standards as a typical domestic F flight (i.e. EWR - SEA)

Quoting SunsetLimited (Reply 36): I feel like more could have been done...at the very least, in seat power. The 319/320 used to be one of the best rides in the fleet, at least in Y.

They're putting in power but it's Y+ only. Not going to cut it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39): Not really. LAX-BOS presents range issues for the 739ER and the overly aggressive sUA 757 retirement has led to a p.s. plane operating LAX-OGG and now LAX-BOS.

Why didn't they just convert all of them to P.S. 757's instead of just tossing them to FedEx like some kids hand-me-downs? That would have at least allowed them to put them on more Transcons to expand their existing P.S. service, especially to destinations where VX is a threat like BOS and DCA. I'm guessing that the 757's were not engined for TATL anyways, but still would have surely found good usage.

Hmm... Does anyone know what the longest route operated by a lower-grade engine 757 is?

Quoting catiii (Reply 37): 2.

Cooley doesnt violate interstate commerce because the requirement to hire a harbor pilot doesnt impede commerce. You couldnt use Cooley to say the PANYNJ can regulate frequency, destinations and aircraft size.

Local and state government CANNOT regulate interstate commerce. The PANYNJ cannot put limits on where airlines fly from EWR or JFK or LGA within the perimeter rule, how often they serve a market or type of aircraft A320 v 757. They cannot force widebodies on transcon routes.

DCA has slots and a perimeter rule and Air21 slots. But there is NOTHING that prohibits any airline from serving a currently unserved city from DCA within the perimeter rule. If AA wants to fly DCA-RST, they can. And there is nothing that limits the number of carriers on a route, limits frequency or aircraft gauge within the slot rules ( ie you can operate a 757, A320 E190 or CRJ-200. CRJ-700 etc).

Quoting S75752 (Reply 42): They're putting in power but it's Y+ only. Not going to cut it.

Won't cut it compared to who? The majority of AAs and DLs aircraft do not have nose to tail power either so I'm not sure why UA retrofitting power only into Y+ seats on certain aircraft won't be competitive.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 42): Why didn't they just convert all of them to P.S. 757's instead of just tossing them to FedEx like some kids hand-me-downs?

They did expand P.S. by a few frames when they retrofitted the cabins a couple of years ago but converting all 97 752s to P.S. might have been a bit much....FedEx also made quite a deal with UA for the aircraft.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 42): I'm guessing that the 757's were not engined for TATL anyways, but still would have surely found good usage. Hmm... Does anyone know what the longest route operated by a lower-grade engine 757 is?

UAs 752s are capable of flying DEN-HNL without an issue so transatlantic is possible with the aircraft...also the engines are not an issue as even if they are de-rated (not sure would need to check) it's not that much of an issue to change that....most just $$$$.

I would be very surprised. I've yet to be on one of these JFK-SFO/LAX that aren't full. They seem to do very well on these and the prestige of JFK to the West Coast still holds, and still bites at B6 and AA.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 43): Cooley doesnt violate interstate commerce

That's NOT what you said. You specifically said:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 35): Local governments cannot regulate interstate commerce

Cooley holds otherwise. States and local governments can regulate interstate commerce. Simple as that. On the seperate question of PANYNJ, the SD of NY in Western held that PANYNJ can restrict services and it is neither in violation of the Commerce Clause nor the Deregulation Act as you cited here:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 33): Quoting cslusarc (Reply 38): I think there should be some restrictions (likely imposed by the PANYNJ) limiting the number of carriers on airport pairs and requiring the deployment of more appropriately gauged aircraft on those airport pairs. That would violate both the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

The citation in the suit is explicit on this front, Western sued under both, and lost. Western even cited Section 1305(a)(1) speicifcally in their suit and the SD held it did not apply.

So when you say that local governments cannot regulate interstate commerce, and that limiting the number of carriers on airport pairs violates the 1978 law and the Commerce Clause, the facts simply do not back you up.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 43): DCA has slots and a perimeter rule and Air21 slots.

And Vision 100 Slots, and the 2012 bill slots...

Quoting MVAair (Reply 43): there is NOTHING that prohibits any airline from serving a currently unserved city from DCA within the perimeter rule.

Well there is, but as with the above statement that is NOT what you said. First let's revisit your original statement:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 35): 2. The USDOT doesnt tell airlines which city pairs to serve or aircraft gauge to use from DCA or how many carriers can serve a given city pair.

USDOT, through many slot divestiture proceedings, absolutely has put significant restrictions on which city pairs can and can not be served from DCA and who can serve them. For example, in the most recent slot divestiture that came out of the AA/US merger, DOT openly indicated preference to low cost carriers over legacies. In the 2011 divestiture following the US/DL swap, DOT restrcited access to only carriers having less than 5% of the slots at DCA, and not code-sharing at DCA with a carrier that has 5% or more of the slots. With the new slots created in the 2003 bill, DOT restricted where those slots could be used. In many cases they were restricted to cities with "limited" or no service (i.e. non-hub cities) and further restricted to limited incumbent or new-entrant carriers. The assertion that DOT "doesnt tell airlines which city pairs to serve or aircraft gauge to use from DCA or how many carriers can serve a given city pair" is false.

Now, to this point:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 43): there is NOTHING that prohibits any airline from serving a currently unserved city from DCA within the perimeter rule.

There absolutely is. The statement, as written above, is inartful as "unserved" can mean two things (i.e. not served by anyone from DCA, served from DCA but not served by the airline) Presuming that the airline does NOT have slots, then a DOT slot proceeding to acquire such slots absolutely could prohibit them. If the slots are in an open proceeding as part of a divestiture, than DOT can prevent JetBlue (for the sake of argument) from acquiring them to serve Key West.

Now to this point:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 43): there is nothing that limits the number of carriers on a route, limits frequency

Again, simply, there is. As noted above in the most recent slot divestitures, DOT specifically excluded certain carriers from participating and excluded certain cities from being eligible. The 2003 FAA bill directed the DOT to favorably consider applications that would promote air transportation:

(1) by new entrant air carriers and limited incumbent air carriers;
(2) to communities without existing nonstop air transportation to DCA;
(3) to small communities;
(4) that will provide competitive nonstop air transportation on a monopoly
nonstop route to DCA; or
(5) that will produce the maximum competitive benefits, including low fares.

These requirements clearly limit carriers and frequencies, as they precluded service to existing markets.

As someone on this thread once said:

Quoting MVAair (Reply 35): please dont embarrass yourself further.

Back to the UA issue, would in fact there be any value to launching a PS service out of EWR in addition to JFK? Does the ability to serve both markets with PS (one a pure O/D market and the other a O/D and connectivity market) benefit them?

[Edited 2015-03-13 08:07:39]

[Edited 2015-03-13 08:47:11]

I think UA would only pull p.s. out of JFK if the perimeter rule gets dropped at LGA and then p.s. would move there. p.s. does not have the lift to feed EWR and is mostly O&D.

Moving it to EWR woudn't change things in EWR very much. All Transcon flights from EWR already have heightened service in First Class. You get an actual printed menu with 4 entree options, an appetizer service, bread basket including fresh hot garlic bread, and a sundae service. This mirrors PS's meal service. Plus EWR to LAX and SFO already have quite a few sCO 752s on the route with the same exact seats. UA leaving JFK is just another example of them running away from competition and blaming it on some BS reason like the previous drawbacks on critical markets like MIA and dismantling CLE and cutting SEA-NRT.

Quoting Aeroflot777 (Reply 12): Quoting NZ107 (Reply 10): Gee.. What plane nuts you guys are.. :D I mean I love everything to do with aviation, but adding 9 hours of travel time sounds crazy even to me.

Ha! I once flew DFW-IAD-NRT-GUM-KIX-SFO-DFW in one day. Now thats NUTS!

Getting first class (BusinessFirst on the 788 from KIX-SFO) on every flight except the DFW legs was well worth it.

Quoting SunsetLimited (Reply 29): I'm still disappointed with the 32S reconfig. I feel like more could have been done...at the very least, in seat power. The 319/320 used to be one of the best rides in the fleet, at least in Y.

I agree fully, it's disappointing especially removing half of the forward Galley, my spouse who is an F/A on the UA side says the half galleys in the Airbus fleet are a pain in the a$$ to work, especially on a transcon where a four course meal is served like EWR-West Coast.

I remember when I worked at UA back in 2007-2008, the Airbuses were the "fancy domestic planes". Unfortunately I worked in a nearly all Ted station, the non Ted routes from my station (MSY) were flown by 733's. 735's, and UAX E170s and CR7s. Occasionally we would get a regular Airbus, like the Saturday flight to LAX was an A319 and we would also have very rarely a regular Airbus put on MSY-ORD/IAD.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 47): p.s. does not have the lift to feed EWR and is mostly O&D.

Right but since EWR could feed PS from other markets (i.e. Europe, etc), and since EWR is equally as acessible as JFK (especially to the West Side), wouldn't it do well at EWR?

Quoting catiii (Thread starter): Sitting on a shuttle bus at JFK talking to some UA crew, and they relayed that PS is being redeployed to EWR.

No indications that this is true from far more well-placed sources than notoriously misinformed crewmembers. The transcons are not nearly as lucrative as they were in the past due to fragmentation, but UA still generates strong premium traffic and I doubt the flights are going anywhere.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 25): They're moving to LGA.

This, on the other hand, I could see, if the perimeter rules are waived.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 26): 1. 739 - DTV, No power/Y+ only. Very few in fleet. 2. 739ER - No DTV, Wifi/Streaming, Full Y power. Growing numbers in fleet.

About half of the 739ERs have DTV. These are most of the 34XX-series ERs (3414-3464).