Ouch. That one has to hurt.

I remain unsurprised that United made the decision it did - to consolidate at EWR and exit JFK entirely - but I must admit that it is incredible to see JFK and T7 now without United there.

A.net is gonna explode.

I'll throw the gas on the flames early and say "told you so."

You cant be the largest airline in SFO and LAX and not serve JFK.

Interesting his comment on DL's margins at JFK - hovering around 4%. Wonder how accurate that is.

tistpaa727 wrote:

Interesting his comment on DL's margins at JFK - hovering around 4%. Wonder how accurate that is.

Yeah. That comment at the end on margins was interesting. If United's overall margins in NYC are 15%, that's impressive. As for the competitors, he obviously knows (or has a very good idea of) what AA's margins in NYC are, so clearly they're somewhere between 4% and 15%, but it's notable that he believes they're higher than Delta.

But it certainly did 'kind of' made sense back then. And to a large degree it still does folks. Maybe they should up their game in terms of what used to be P.S. transcons rather than crying over the lost customers. I agree it's wise to stay focused around EWR and grow that airport "into" the best/easiest international gateway for New Yorkers.

Wow. His admission that AA was actively trying to push UA out is pretty astonishing.

jetbluefan1 wrote:

Wow. His admission that AA was actively trying to push UA out is pretty astonishing.

I'm not sure why. They're fierce competitors and always have been.

He is somewhat contradicting himself though. UA higher profit margins in NYC area have to do with dropping JFK so it can't be such a wrong decision.

commavia wrote:

tistpaa727 wrote:

Interesting his comment on DL's margins at JFK - hovering around 4%. Wonder how accurate that is.

Yeah. That comment at the end on margins was interesting. If United's overall margins in NYC are 15%, that's impressive. As for the competitors, he obviously knows (or has a very good idea of) what AA's margins in NYC are, so clearly they're somewhere between 4% and 15%, but it's notable that he believes they're higher than Delta.

I read the comment as a slap across the face if not a boot to the ass of Smisek. Sure, the flights on their own were losing money, but overall, they were crucial to keeping some very profitable contracts in place and keeping some high net worth individuals happy, so, overall, they should have been kept. Now they've lost their toe-hold at JFK, and Kirby admits they can't go back, the terminal space and the slots are gone and pretty much impossible to get back. And, yes, these same points were being made here. Apparently Smisek just saw the red background on one cell in the spreadsheet and took out the axe, without looking at what it did to the rest of the spreadsheet. See, less red squares! Let's have lunch!

Of course, throwing ex-colleagues under the bus is a long established corporate tactic. Let's see how long Kirby plays that card.

VS11 wrote:

He is somewhat contradicting himself though. UA higher profit margins in NYC area have to do with dropping JFK so it can't be such a wrong decision.

That's not how I read it. It seemed clear that is point was about the overall contribution of JFK transcons to the broader network - not NYC specifically. Indeed, the example he apparently referenced were corporate accounts that were, likely, primarily LAX- and SFO-originating.

Revelation wrote:

Of course, throwing ex-colleagues under the bus is a long established corporate tactic. Let's see how long Kirby plays that card.

To my knowledge - could be wrong - Kirby and Smisek were never colleagues, only competitors. Personally, I suspect Kirby will keep playing the "Smisek made a stupid decision" card until he wears it out - both because of how hated Smisek was (and, I suspect, remains) at United, and given the fact that Smisek did, in fact, make numerous incredibly stupid decisions.

Certainly not the type of candor you really want to give as a CEO, but interesting.

And I agree - if you don't serve JFK, you are not really a peer of AA and DL. At least not in, you know, the super visible JFK transcon market that is the main test case for big contracts.

commavia wrote:

That's not how I read it. It seemed clear that is point was about the overall contribution of JFK transcons to the broader network - not NYC specifically. Indeed, the example he apparently referenced were corporate accounts that were, likely, primarily LAX- and SFO-originating.

Moving p.s. out of JFK was probably margin-accretive at EWR, but Kirby clearly has an objective of strengthening/making up lost ground on the West Coast (particularly LAX) and I have little doubt that leaving JFK was a 'last straw' for a lot of LAX-based travelers. At SFO, I think it's more likely to have been a wash.

I think "I told you so"s will be passed across the nation today..
Anyone think they might go back one day? (Slots and gates would be an issue, so a return would be expensive)

VS11 wrote:

He is somewhat contradicting himself though. UA higher profit margins in NYC area have to do with dropping JFK so it can't be such a wrong decision.

He is not contradicting himself, he admits UA was loosing money on their JFK-SFO/LAX routes however he says UA should have continues to fly those routes because UA had corporate contracts and he name Disney and Time warner as 2 of the corporate contracts UA had that they loss as a result of Smisek's decision to leave JFK. Even though UA was loosing money at JFK UA was making money off the corporate contract because they didn't just fly UA between JFK-LAX/SFO they also flew UA to various destinations around the US and the world. This move opened the door for AA to come in and take those contracts from UA. What is astonishing is the fact that he is spilling the beans and finally we have somebody who is willing to tell the truth about what really was going on at JFK. Most of the UA executives until now have always told employees half of the truth which is UA was loosing money at JFK and they pushed the idea that our corporate customers followed us over to EWR. We now have Scott Kirby formerly an AA executive come in and say (without actually say it) you guys have been lied to those corporate contracts went to AA when UA left JFK.

When I read this article and when I think about some of the things Scott Kirby has said when he does his station visits this move not only ended UA presence at JFK but it hurt UA at LAX in particular and the biggest beneficiary of Jeff Smisek's mistake was AA on both coast. I like Scott Kirby he isn't afraid to tell the truth, everyone knew management completely screwed up the merger from the very beginning now we have an Kirby come in and exposed just how badly UA was managed and how the mismanagement during the merger process is really handicapping UA today because he can't undo all of UA past mistakes.

I wonder if any executive will ever tell the truth abut CLE and why that station was really de-hubbed. Talking with my sCO coworkers many of them are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why and if Jeff Smisek was telling the truth when he claimed CLE was loosing money or if he was lying about that as well. CLE could have served as a reliever hub for ORD and EWR.

The ironic thing is that they got nothing for the slots.

The EWR slot swap was stopped and then slots at EWR went away. there were some gates traded in Terminal B...but it still is not clear if that was part of this deal. certainly wasnt announced during initial press release.

http://newsroom.united.com/2015-06-16-United-Airlines-Strengthens-New-York-New-Jersey-Hub-with-Move-of-p-s-Transcontinental-Service-to-Newark

jayunited wrote:

I like Scott Kirby he isn't afraid to tell the truth, everyone knew management completely screwed up the merger from the very beginning now we have an Kirby come in and exposed just how badly UA was managed and how the mismanagement during the merger process is really handicapping UA today because he can't undo all of UA past mistakes.

I wonder if any executive will ever tell the truth abut CLE and why that station was really de-hubbed. Talking with my sCO coworkers many of them are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why and if Jeff Smisek was telling the truth when he claimed CLE was loosing money or if he was lying about that as well. CLE could have served as a reliever hub for ORD and EWR.

Scott is a numbers guy and a strategy guy, not a BS artist. This will cause frictions with people who prefer sweetness and light. But United needs somebody like him. I don't think he got to where he is in the kitchen without breaking any eggs, or people.

I honestly get why they cut the premium service aspect of it, I don't understand why they left the JFK market altogether. They could've easily stuck 738/739's on this route if they so chose to.

I think PS was loosing money though so there was pressure to consolidate at EWR. They probably should have stayed in JFK until an airline wanted their space enough and they got a better deal rather then panic pull. It was probably very complicated with the time they left when the most contracts ended etc.

It was probably to look good that quarter/year move etc not maybe the best long term plan.

jayunited wrote:

I wonder if any executive will ever tell the truth abut CLE and why that station was really de-hubbed. Talking with my sCO coworkers many of them are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why and if Jeff Smisek was telling the truth when he claimed CLE was loosing money or if he was lying about that as well. CLE could have served as a reliever hub for ORD and EWR.

No one wants a "reliever hub" anymore. The economics of "reliever hubs" don't make sense which is why no airline has them. And if UA really wanted a reliever hub, they've still got a very underutilized IAD hub.

As for JFK, this is no surprise. Not everyone was going to follow UA over to EWR.

Could they try to trade with DL or B6 for slot space at JFK? CX is moving to T8. I'm sure they can get back some gate space in T7.

Of course not everyone was going to follow them to EWR. I thought that not having all premium seats on SFO/LAX to EWR was just real dumb, while they had it to JFK. Real dumb.
I questioned if they couldn't maintain both.

The term in retail is "loss leader." It's an item in which a store loses money, but it gets people in the door who often buy other items that carry far better margins. So, JFK was UA's loss leader.

I'm sure most airlines have routes that do poorly, but they are flown in order to hold onto corporate contracts.

jfklganyc wrote:

The ironic thing is that they got nothing for the slots.

The EWR slot swap was stopped and then slots at EWR went away. there were some gates traded in Terminal B...but it still is not clear if that was part of this deal. certainly wasnt announced during initial press release.

http://newsroom.united.com/2015-06-16-United-Airlines-Strengthens-New-York-New-Jersey-Hub-with-Move-of-p-s-Transcontinental-Service-to-Newark

They actually got cash for the slots....UA offered to trade its slots to DL for cash and DL offered to trade slots at EWR to UA for cash. Both transactions were set up function independently of one another in case it was blocked by regulators. The EWR gates are common use gates that UA (along with NK) are using...has nothing to do with the DL/UA slot swap.

I think it was well understood that not everyone would follow UA over to EWR in the NYC metro area. Geography answers that.

What I think is interesting is that they lost west coast based flyers. "Many of United’s most lucrative West Coast customers, he said, want to fly into New York City and not New Jersey."

On A.net, the LGA/JFK vs. EWR argument has been hashed out approximately 4 billion times. I'm not looking to start another discussion on the logistics of transit from teh various airports. I think that the marketing side of his statement is interesting. On the west coast, there seems to be a perception that EWR is not a NYC airport. It would seem to me that UA should be able to chip away at that with marketing campaigns.

tistpaa727 wrote:

Interesting his comment on DL's margins at JFK - hovering around 4%. Wonder how accurate that is.

4% is DL's NYC margins. The estimate sounds good. Only a couple years ago during the drop in oil prices did DL say that NYC was finally profitable.

jfklganyc wrote:

there were some gates traded in Terminal B...

Those are PANYNJ common-use gates UA negotiated for and shares with Spirit... DL had preferential use of them in connection with the NW merger but mostly used them as RON pads. Once the slot restrictions came down, UA pushed for use of the gates essentially to squat on them and Spirit obtained rights to use the gates as a new entrant.

I can't say I'm shocked. I understand why they consolidated, but I think it was obvious to all observers it wasn't going to be as net positive as the UA spin machine wanted everyone to believe. It's particularly interesting to hear that the move hurt them with respect to West Coast clients.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I wonder if any executive will ever tell the truth abut CLE and why that station was really de-hubbed. Talking with my sCO coworkers many of them are still scratching their heads trying to figure out why and if Jeff Smisek was telling the truth when he claimed CLE was loosing money or if he was lying about that as well. CLE could have served as a reliever hub for ORD and EWR.

No one wants a "reliever hub" anymore. The economics of "reliever hubs" don't make sense which is why no airline has them. And if UA really wanted a reliever hub, they've still got a very underutilized IAD hub.

As for JFK, this is no surprise. Not everyone was going to follow UA over to EWR.

I would say CVG would qualify as a reliever hub. Delta still considers it a hub, though their operations are extremely scaled down.

Let's not forget big part of the impetus to leave JFK was driven by fact that UA's T-7 sublease was about to expire and BA did not plan on renewing.

UA was to be left homeless at JFK and atleast would face higher cost. As rumors at the time stated only option was T4 but with high likelihood of portion of remote ops due gating constraints. Far from ideal.

Regarding corporate contracts, I agree with Kirby and have seen it with my own eyes as very loyal UA passengers shifted to entirely new airlines with loss of JFK. The routes closure had effects far broader across network.

So to sum it up:

Counterintuitively: Dropping JFK was good for NY (Average NYC margin went up), NYC point-of-sale on UA JFK flights was weak.
Dropping JFK was bad for LAX (Lost one of its most popular routes and a bunch of LAX-based high yield flying)

commavia wrote:

jetbluefan1 wrote:

Wow. His admission that AA was actively trying to push UA out is pretty astonishing.

I'm not sure why. They're fierce competitors and always have been.

I guess it's just surprising to hear such honesty right from the horse's mouth. But I suppose that's what happens when a top executive jumps to the nearest competitor.

That said, while AA gained more pricing power and market share after UA left, it also strengthened DL - AA's largest competitor already at JFK - which picked up UA's slots. Does the incremental margin AA picked up on JFK-SFO/LAX more than make up for the strengthened DL presence at JFK? Was AA expecting B6's immediate reaction, which was to backfill some of the capacity by pumping up SFO to 6x and LAX up to 10x with Mint?

Kirby/UA acknowledges that they may have lost these contracts for good, which is unsurprising. Regardless if UA ever returns to JFK in the near future, it's good to hear them admit it was a mistake.

I think they can still win with EWR. Currently, EWR sucks. It's old, far, dirty, slow and unreliable in processing luggage and security. But it doesn't need to be that way. UA owns EWR. If it wants to make it a state-of-the-art airport that attracts NYC customers more than JFK and LGA, it can. Starting from rebuilding the terminal and introduce non-stop train service to NY Penn and WTC PATH stations. It's gonna cost a lot, but I think they can work out a deal with Trump. After all, he wants to put up a good show on rebuilding infrastructure and he said he's a deal guy, right?

jetbluefan1 wrote:

But I suppose that's what happens when a top executive jumps to the nearest competitor.

I think, more to the point, that's what happens when top executives are speaking in private, closed-door, internal discussions that they don't intend for public consumption. All sorts of frank and honest - and highly proprietary - conversations take place among top executives when they're discussing business maters internally. All that happened here is that such internal discussions were recorded or transcribed and shared - almost certainly without Scott Kirby's knowledge - with an external party.

jetbluefan1 wrote:

That said, while AA gained more pricing power and market share after UA left, it also strengthened DL - AA's largest competitor already at JFK - which picked up UA's slots. Does the incremental margin AA picked up on JFK-SFO/LAX more than make up for the strengthened DL presence at JFK? Was AA expecting B6's immediate reaction, which was to backfill some of the capacity by pumping up SFO to 6x and LAX up to 10x with Mint?

True, although, at least in the case of the actual markets in question - JFK-LAX/SFO - I think it's fair, objectively, to conclude that among ostensibly displaced high-yielding customers like the ones Kirby was alluding to, AA was likely the biggest single benificiary. And of course Kirby would know, since he was there to watch that benefit in real-time, and he specifically mentioned AA - not Delta or JetBlue or Virgin America- picking up United corporate accounts.

raylee67 wrote:

I think they can still win with EWR. Currently, EWR sucks. It's old, far, dirty, slow and unreliable in processing luggage and security. But it doesn't need to be that way. UA owns EWR. If it wants to make it a state-of-the-art airport that attracts NYC customers more than JFK and LGA, it can. Starting from rebuilding the terminal and introduce non-stop train service to NY Penn and WTC PATH stations. It's gonna cost a lot, but I think they can work out a deal with Trump. After all, he wants to put up a good show on rebuilding infrastructure and he said he's a deal guy, right?

Dropping IAD and consolidating EQR into a super hub would be interesting.

commavia wrote:

he specifically mentioned AA - not Delta or JetBlue or Virgin America- picking up United corporate accounts.

I don't think JetBlue or Virgin ever had a chance being a largely domestic only airline. But given that AA is larger than DL at LAX and SFO, I can't say its too surprising.

A.net is going to burst into flames, because Smi/J was wrong.

Because he was Gordo's hand-picked chosen one, all that Smi/J does is the best. He does no harm. He makes no mistakes. He is good. He is amazing. United, knows nothing about anything.

do I have it right?

The biggest question is why is he saying this? There has to be a play, not just an F U to the out going guy, bc that guy is laughing all the way to the bank while Kirby still has a business to run.

Is AA the biggest benefactor or DL? DL has seen the most growth in NY, not AA. The high yield customers that they lost, anyone who was flying First class was already lost to AA.

Could it also be that is making an excuse for LAX not performing as it should? Didn't he mention a while back that they are remaining committed to LAX and they are going to compete there? Maybe he is realizing that is more difficult, and with his knowledge of AA he can point to the JFK change and be like here is the reason we are coming up short at LAX?

tphuang wrote:

Could they try to trade with DL or B6 for slot space at JFK? CX is moving to T8. I'm sure they can get back some gate space in T7.

CX moving terminals doesn't impact slot availability. Terminal/gate space and JFK slots are not related. JFK could build an entirely new terminal with 50 gates, but there wouldn't be slots available for airlines to use that terminal.

Varsity1 wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

I think they can still win with EWR. Currently, EWR sucks. It's old, far, dirty, slow and unreliable in processing luggage and security. But it doesn't need to be that way. UA owns EWR. If it wants to make it a state-of-the-art airport that attracts NYC customers more than JFK and LGA, it can. Starting from rebuilding the terminal and introduce non-stop train service to NY Penn and WTC PATH stations. It's gonna cost a lot, but I think they can work out a deal with Trump. After all, he wants to put up a good show on rebuilding infrastructure and he said he's a deal guy, right?

Dropping IAD and consolidating EQR into a super hub would be interesting.

I would think IAD is quite profitable with all the government business?

airzona11 wrote:

The biggest question is why is he saying this? There has to be a play, not just an F U to the out going guy, bc that guy is laughing all the way to the bank while Kirby still has a business to run.

Is AA the biggest benefactor or DL? DL has seen the most growth in NY, not AA. The high yield customers that they lost, anyone who was flying First class was already lost to AA.

Could it also be that is making an excuse for LAX not performing as it should? Didn't he mention a while back that they are remaining committed to LAX and they are going to compete there? Maybe he is realizing that is more difficult, and with his knowledge of AA he can point to the JFK change and be like here is the reason we are coming up short at LAX?

He wasn't saying it publicly. He was talking to employees.

Then, one of those employees (or someone in the room) leaked it to the press. It's certainly not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last. And I'm sure Kirby had no illusions about what he might say being truly private and confidential.

Someone probably asked him a question about JFK, and he gave an honest answer to a private group. Asking 'why' or wondering what the 'play' is would make more sense if this was something revealed on an earnings call or some other obviously public statement.

Given his recent move to UA, he's in a unique position to say something. At AA, he was actively trying to push UA out of JFK, so he obviously saw a strategic benefit to doing so. Sounds like an honest conversation with some employees to me.

Couple of points: 1) DL lowest of the 3 in NY at 4% with AA and UA at a minimum of double and triple that. DL has some serious work just to get up in the 'big league' on that one. 2) It's NEVER to late in the airline business. If UA wants to go back to JFK they can; just gonna cost them some big $$'s to pull it off. Things are traded in another city that someone wants in a 2nd city all the time. The gates and slots are there, just the cost of membership will be high.

FlyUSAir wrote:

I honestly get why they cut the premium service aspect of it, I don't understand why they left the JFK market altogether. They could've easily stuck 738/739's on this route if they so chose to.

That would've incurred the same problem, as neither aircraft offer the premium configuration he's referring to, that UA ceased to offer.

MSPNWA wrote:

tistpaa727 wrote:

Interesting his comment on DL's margins at JFK - hovering around 4%. Wonder how accurate that is.

4% is DL's NYC margins.

You don't know that.
Neither does he, for that matter.

airzona11 wrote:

Is AA the biggest benefactor or DL? DL has seen the most growth in NY, not AA. The high yield customers that they lost, anyone who was flying First class was already lost to AA.

This is the part I'm wondering too. They dropped Int'l F from the transcons, a good while before they left... so if that was the lucrative aspect/driving force behind those contracts, they wouldn't they have started bleeding off to AA before UA's pullout?

The word many of you are looking for is "losing" with 1 O. "Loosing" is not a word.

This public service announcement brought to you by a former journalist who is about to pull his hair out. The more you know... (insert shooting star GIF)

airzona11 wrote:

The biggest question is why is he saying this? There has to be a play, not just an F U to the out going guy, bc that guy is laughing all the way to the bank while Kirby still has a business to run.

Is AA the biggest benefactor or DL? DL has seen the most growth in NY, not AA. The high yield customers that they lost, anyone who was flying First class was already lost to AA.

Could it also be that is making an excuse for LAX not performing as it should? Didn't he mention a while back that they are remaining committed to LAX and they are going to compete there? Maybe he is realizing that is more difficult, and with his knowledge of AA he can point to the JFK change and be like here is the reason we are coming up short at LAX?

He has already answered your question the biggest benefactor was AA not only in that they won some of UA biggest corporate contracts but it also helped AA out at LAX.

Secondly LAX is performing and just this year Kirby announced UA will not de-hub LAX as many people had rumored but is in fact looking for opportunities to acquire more gates. UA's operation is land locked at LAX because of Smisek now Kirby has to try and figure out a way out of it and start growing UA at LAX.

Read these article about what Kirby wants to do at LAX.
http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/ ... expansion/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ack-effort

Is there a chance would would return to JFK?

So UA is #1 in most passengers to/from NYC, and #1 in profit margin in NYC. This looks like a case of an executive trying to blame his predecessor, but it isn't clear what he's being blamed for unless it is winning too much.

For those dumping on Smisek, I doubt he had much to do with, or even involved in the JFK decision making.

The decision was likely driven between Jim Compton VP chief revenue officer and Brian Znotins VP Network, both no longer with the company.

Varsity1 wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

I think they can still win with EWR. Currently, EWR sucks. It's old, far, dirty, slow and unreliable in processing luggage and security. But it doesn't need to be that way. UA owns EWR. If it wants to make it a state-of-the-art airport that attracts NYC customers more than JFK and LGA, it can. Starting from rebuilding the terminal and introduce non-stop train service to NY Penn and WTC PATH stations. It's gonna cost a lot, but I think they can work out a deal with Trump. After all, he wants to put up a good show on rebuilding infrastructure and he said he's a deal guy, right?

Dropping IAD and consolidating EQR into a super hub would be interesting.

Where are all these empty gates at EWR to further "consolidate" it into a super hub?