"Creative" rounding you've got there: LH averages 2.3 daily flights at JFK vs 1.5 at LAX, but you label them both as 2.

And you will note I did not list LH to MUC as being better at JFK.

 

United at EWR is a total mess - constant delays, rude staff, cancellations, missed connections, bad terminal layout, ridiculous security setup. It deserves it's bad reputation. And BTW all of this was the same at the hub during the CO days.

With regards to JFK - they couldn't compete with DL and AA. Their product was not up to snuff and got worse under the Smisek regime with focus on cost cutting. They moved it to EWR because the lease was up at JFK, they dumped capacity way too fast, and they were getting clobbered by other competitors.

 

United does better at Newark. Higher average fares versus the continued downward pressure on all and especially premium fares at JFK.

United made far less money handing off its customers to other carriers at JFK than it does now by either keeping the passengers on their metal at Newark or simply filling up high higher yielding local EWR-lax/SFO traffic. Let aa b6 VX and DL fight it out in the declining fare/ yield territory while Ua laughs all the way to the bank.

QUOTE=REPUBLIC757;26406254]United at EWR is a total mess - constant delays, rude staff, cancellations, missed connections, bad terminal layout, ridiculous security setup. It deserves it's bad reputation. And BTW all of this was the same at the hub during the CO days.

With regards to JFK - they couldn't compete with DL and AA. Their product was not up to snuff and got worse under the Smisek regime with focus on cost cutting. They moved it to EWR because the lease was up at JFK, they dumped capacity way too fast, and they were getting clobbered by other competitors.[/QUOTE]

 

I thought you'd have a bone to pick with my post...

Let me clarify by saying I queried the week of July 12-18, presumably days when transatlantic schedules are maxed out across the board, and in expanding my search, I can't find anything other than LH400/401 (388) and LH404/405 (748) to JFK. Similarly, I see LH450/451 (748) and LH456/457 (388) daily to LAX.`

I know the second LAX frequency is seasonal, but I only included the West Coast flights for illustrative purposes as I believe the discussion was primarily about EWR vs. JFK as a connecting point for West Coast-EU traffic.

Yet I'm the one who is being 'creative' with a cherry-picked argument?

I realize the strong anti-EWR bias, but one of the primary reasons for consolidating p.s. to Newark was to improve the connectivity of the premium transcons to the EWR TATL network on *A/UA. Arguing that within-alliance/JV connectivity in both directions is better at JFK seems to be against the weight of the evidence.

 

I probably got a cargo flight in there. 2.0 is still > 1.5

edit: Yea, it was cargo, which LAX also has. 1.9 daily for JFK vs 1.4 daily for LAX based on year-round rather than a cherry picked week.

The entire purpose of my post was routes that have more service at JFK than EWR/LAX/SFO, so I'm not going to include routes that don't. Any route not listed didn't meet the criteria, which included more flights at JFK than the other 3 airports.

 

Why does every interesting discussion seem to revert to the same old complaints about BKK and JFK?

 

I was in EWR last week and, quite frankly, the setup there for UA is terrible, especially with security (check in is also terrible).

 

Because there's a group of people on FT who thinks UA is still doomed for failure by cutting BKK and JFK.

Or those who think that UA is/was/should be a "premium" HVF carrier. Which I think someone will eventually throw out a complaint about the yet-to-be released 77W business seat.

 

I flew out of JFK because that's where p.s. was not because it was JFK.
Now that I'm situated on the West Coast there's no reason for me to connect in NYC to go TATL. I'm flying LAX/SFO-LHR/ZRH/FRA-BUD/TXL/AMS.
I'd rather spend 11-13 hours in a J/F seat on UA, LH, LX have a 1.5-2 hour connection and then continue on for 60-80 min in a European Y seat. That's a lot more "premium" than having to connect on the East Coast.

 

This was a great interview, and I really enjoyed reading the insight. Rarely do you get this deep into the minds of an airline. Thankfully UA goes that far sometimes.

What he was saying about every topic makes sense to me. I would think very much along these same lines. I'm still not sure about the 73G order, but at least I understand their reasoning. And I'm not surprised that P.S. at EWR is doing well. There was no good financial reason to have it at JFK any longer.

 

What? Emotions have no monetary value?

 

I had wondered about subsidies..can you provide readers with any additional details on the arrangements?

 

I disagree on the reason United pulled out of BKK, but no reason to re-hash it all again here.

Why doesn't connectivity matter on a thread talking about connections to get to secondary SEA markets?

Yes, that is what I was hoping for, but apparently not yet.

Vanity? United's stated strategy for TPAC is to run O/D from SFO to the Asian market.

And contrary to popular FT belief, there is business/premium traffic that would be very interested.

I have a strong interest in the BKK and the SEA market. This seems like a very appropriate place to talk about it as we are discussing the article where United's VP of routes discusses Asia strategy and future.

I have never said United was doomed for cutting BKK, but I have a selfish interest in seeing them resume service just as soon as possible.

 

Sounds like most UA hubs.

 

Interesting to see the comment on connections to KUL given that I've never been able to book tickets to KUL on a UA codeshare or through UA- the tickets price out much cheaper on NH. Does anyone know if KUL is part of the JV?