flybry
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 11:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:18 am

Why the hell isn't Smisek in jail?!?! I just don't understand it.
 
Ryanair01
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:27 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:39 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
tpaewr wrote:
Given that AA is keeping limited 3 cabin service I wonder if such would have been the case with UA if he had come along earlier?


The idea that JFK was dropped due to "CO pride" is equal parts hilarious and absurd. Companies don't work like that! Maybe the pull back in IAH was the "Revenge of the Tulip!" ?


Yeah. That is a silly idea. Unless your company is suffering from ridiculously incompetent leadership, you dont cut profitable routes for revenge.


To be fair "how we do things around here" and "corporate mindset" absolutely are how businesses work. Try working in some joint ventures or corporate acquisitions to test that theory.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume a team who have successfully built a profitable operation (against traditional mindsets) at Newark might have a disproportionately negative bias against JFK and the commercial importance of it.

Equally I wouldn't be taking lectures from anyone at American Airlines about how to run a successful operation in the Tristate, they've squandered the great position they once had!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 15498
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:40 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Shoud have leased the slots for a bit to keep them in their back pocket

A very good point. If the slots were peak and high value they could be taking income from them whilst keeping their future options open. I guess they really wanted to burn the boats when it came to JFK vs EWR. Yet it should have been clear that many important customers and at least a few *A partners weren't going to abandon JFK just because UA did.

commavia wrote:
Not quite. JFK is one of the busiest and most constrained airports in the U.S. - in particular at peak times. At this point, the cost of buying back in - which is what would be required to rebuild a relevant slot portfolio to operate LAX and SFO at competitive frequencies - would almost certainly be prohibitive, and undermine any financial gain from the routes. Even as United's presence at JFK diminished over the last fifteen years, United still had a fairly enviable slot portfolio with a not-insignificant amount of peak slots. Those are now gone.

:checkmark:
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4305
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:59 pm

Could the poster mentioning UA getting kicked out of T7 provide some background? Or a link? Or give us some sort of idea how you knew that?

There are a lot of stories about T7 on a.net. I don't think any of us ever heard this one. I know, at the time, BA had just resigned their T7 lease.


As for terminal C supporters/detractors...you are not crazy, it is 1990s functional. I am sure the latest update helped. Like the Delta Terminal at LGA, or T5 at JFK (in 15-20 years) it gets the job done. Nothing special, but nothing horrific.

Every terminal at JFK except 2 and 7 is newer.
 
commavia
Posts: 11093
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:02 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
As for terminal C supporters/detractors...you are not crazy, it is 1990s functional. I am sure the latest update helped. Like the Delta Terminal at LGA, or T5 at JFK (in 15-20 years) it gets the job done. Nothing special, but nothing horrific.

Every terminal at JFK except 2 and 7 is newer.


Agreed - I think that's the best description of it. EWR C is fine - the newer section opened in the early 2000s clearly being the best terminal at EWR by far. Personally, I'd still say T5 and T8 at JFK are both better, though.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2377
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:27 pm

Unfortunately? Scott Kirby wasn't AT United when the decision was made, But!! We still have Maintenance crews at JFK and we Could restart service
provided there was a real intent TO restart service. I know Why they consolidated at EWR to get the new Hangars and such but is it good business to foot the expense TO restart service at JFK?? Hell! Is there ROOM to restart service at JFK?? We were at Terminal 2 but now is there even a Terminal at JFK to restart service AT?? We also worked out of Hangar 12 at JFK. Who has the lease on THAT?? Is it even cost effective to TRY??
 
VC10er
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:25 pm

As someone who flew the brand new p.s. service from almost the day it was launched, I vividly recall how fresh and innovative the service was at the beginning. To have a unique, dedicated 3 class aircraft that beat everything else at the time was a great image boost for UA - and I did fly seeing countless mega stars of film and music. It was cool. The only problem was it became apparent rather quickly that the business class seat was actually more comfortable that the angled ex:Singapore First Class seat. Therefore it was not difficult for a competitor to leapfrog those 757's. Then UA didn't keep up either in product improvements and maintenance of interiors. The tie-in with Westin vanished and it just devolved.
When they moved it all to Newark, the celebrities disappeared, and the promises of an even better experience at never materialized. Now, p.s. is all over the place, 757's in 2 classes, 777's reusing old UA business seats and for now a fab 77W. There is no uniformity and nothing special at the airport. While UA's improvements at TC at ERW are huge (although STILL unfinished), the old and new concourses are really nice, great bars and restaurants, better seating areas and the security line improvements made by UA are truly brilliant. Why the lounge renovations were not made a #1 priority is simply beyond me for such a critical United gateway. I hope that they can get it ALL great as Kirby alludes to - and do it at a faster pace. The "under construction" plywood sections seem to have been there for months. United can't improve the main architectural structure of TC, it will always look like it was designed in 1972, what they have done so far does look much better...it's just not changing fast enough...yet all the ads in NYC promise a new fab experience at EWR which they can't deliver on just yet.
I think if Polaris was the standard on transcon, from lounge to plane to exit, a real business class (and not just E+) they could overcome much of the New Jersey "perception".
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 836
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 2:41 pm

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


The rules changed some time ago. It used to be that company leadership could share lots of internal information with employees that wasn't intended for the public. Nowadays, for a number of reasons including the fact that there are so many employees who are stockholders and laws like SarbOx, CEOs aren't allowed to say anything to employees they wouldn't put on the front page of the NYT.
 
commavia
Posts: 11093
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:10 pm

glbltrvlr wrote:
Nowadays, for a number of reasons including the fact that there are so many employees who are stockholders and laws like SarbOx, CEOs aren't allowed to say anything to employees they wouldn't put on the front page of the NYT.


That is completely untrue. On a daily basis, employees (including CEOs) can and do discuss proprietary information - including views on the industry and competitive landscape - that would never been said publicly. It would literally be impossible for corporations to function otherwise. If, for instance, an airline employee asks an executive a frank question about a particular business decision or the financial performance on a given route or in a given market, the executive certainly can - if they choose - share their honest opinion, even if that opinion would never be shared with investors.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13340
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:28 pm

My two cents:

As mentioned in isolation the PS flights from JFK were losing money, UA was and still under tremendous pressure to cut costs. The move had points that made sense, providing an upgraded product to match their International offerings at EWR; more flexibility to incorporate the International 752s and 772s which they are doing now. When the deal was originally formulated there were slots at EWR, and as part of the deal they were to acquire more EWR slots while reducing a major competitors (DL).

What caught them off guard is that they did not see the Government dropping the slot restrictions at EWR. If they knew that I don't think they would have gone ahead with the move.

What is done is done, as Kirby mentioned in the article UA does tremendously well from EWR. Kirby mentions building back their share of the NYC market which means growing EWR. EWR handled 40+ million passengers in 2016 for the first time in it's history, total growth for the year was 8.1% for the airport which is more than double the 3% growth of JFK for the year. Domestically EWR grew by 9.5% in 2016, JFK's domestic growth was 1.9%.

UA has plenty of opportunity for growth at EWR without adding more flights, they need to continue to replace the 35 seat DH-8s, and 50 seat ERJ-145s and Q300s with larger ERJ-175s and mainline. Also they've already announced EWR-TLV with the 77W, there should be a couple more like EWR-HKG, EWR-BOM and EWR-DEL.

Terminal C at EWR is in good shape, good enough to get to the end of the next decade when the big decision about it's replacement needs to be made. When CO made the $1.3 Billion dollar investment in Terminal C in 2000 it was to prolong the building's useful life for an additional 30 years. There will not be another renovation, it will be replaced. Also they will get new digs for part of their operation when the new Terminal A opens in 2020. I just flew through Terminal A on WN to and from MCO, it's done. Also the Port Authority approved construction of the PATH train to the EWR rail link station, which solves many (not all) of the issues with the current rail connection which is the gaps in service during certain hours. PATH will run every 10 minutes during peak hours to the World Trade Center, with connecting service to the 33rd street line which has stops in Greenwich Village and Chelsea neighborhoods of Manhattan.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/ewr-redevelopment

PATH pg. 35

http://corpinfo.panynj.gov/documents/Capital-Plan-2017-2026/

With regards to whether or not UA will or should go back to JFK, there's a couple of plays. First JFK is not as desirable for flights to places like Denver, Houston, Chicago etc.. because LGA already has those flights. JFK had LAX and SFO from UA because they're prevented by operating those flights from LGA due to the perimeter rule. The perimeter rule at LGA is not Federally mandated, it's something the Port Authority themselves imposed as a way to protect JFK (something the MWAA are missing). Governor Cuomo and the Port Authority have been discussing removing or relaxing the perimeter rule at LGA, if that happens and UA would be able to offer LGA-SFO/LAX then JFK looses any appeal. UA does have some extra LGA slots as evident by their recent LGA-RDU flying.

Which leads to my next point, UA has extra LGA and DCA slots they recently got back from WN which CO had leased to FL years ago. UA could offer to swap LGA and DCA slots to AA or B6 in exchange for JFK slots. It would probably only net them maybe half of the 14 or so of their original JFK slots. But it would be more than enough to get started with JFK-SFO.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2377
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:32 pm

VC10er wrote:
As someone who flew the brand new p.s. service from almost the day it was launched, I vividly recall how fresh and innovative the service was at the beginning. To have a unique, dedicated 3 class aircraft that beat everything else at the time was a great image boost for UA - and I did fly seeing countless mega stars of film and music. It was cool. The only problem was it became apparent rather quickly that the business class seat was actually more comfortable that the angled ex:Singapore First Class seat. Therefore it was not difficult for a competitor to leapfrog those 757's. Then UA didn't keep up either in product improvements and maintenance of interiors. The tie-in with Westin vanished and it just devolved.
When they moved it all to Newark, the celebrities disappeared, and the promises of an even better experience at never materialized. Now, p.s. is all over the place, 757's in 2 classes, 777's reusing old UA business seats and for now a fab 77W. There is no uniformity and nothing special at the airport. While UA's improvements at TC at ERW are huge (although STILL unfinished), the old and new concourses are really nice, great bars and restaurants, better seating areas and the security line improvements made by UA are truly brilliant. Why the lounge renovations were not made a #1 priority is simply beyond me for such a critical United gateway. I hope that they can get it ALL great as Kirby alludes to - and do it at a faster pace. The "under construction" plywood sections seem to have been there for months. United can't improve the main architectural structure of TC, it will always look like it was designed in 1972, what they have done so far does look much better...it's just not changing fast enough...yet all the ads in NYC promise a new fab experience at EWR which they can't deliver on just yet.
I think if Polaris was the standard on transcon, from lounge to plane to exit, a real business class (and not just E+) they could overcome much of the New Jersey "perception".

That might be throwing "Good money after Bad" We got RID of business class, and now we'd have to put it BACK?? Dos that seem like good business sense to you IF it were YOUR money being Spent?? NAAH! better to upgrade First to "Polaris" And continue on the course we're going. Hardly anybody ever actually Paid for business class when we had it. If we really NEED business class? Then the business flyers should write the company and say they would Pay for it. Otherwise?
It's just NOT going to make the money to cover the cost of retrofitting the airplanes to re-install "Business Class". which was pretty much just an upgraded "Freebie".
And we all knew it was... People don't even want to pay for e-plus as it is..
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13340
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:37 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Could the poster mentioning UA getting kicked out of T7 provide some background? Or a link? Or give us some sort of idea how you knew that?

Every terminal at JFK except 2 and 7 is newer.


True, but newer is not always better. Case in point JFK Terminal 1. When it first opened it was the best terminal of all the NYC airports, now it's one of the worst in terms of how it functions. They jammed too many airlines in there, they moved the security lines which ruined the pedestrian flow, and there are times fully loaded widebodies are waiting hours for a gate to open up. The management has done a poor job with that facility, and it's design flaws (small gate area, security screening area, isolated food court, too few gates) were not an issue in the late '90s when there were less than half the flights and airlines it handles today.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
VC10er
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:28 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
As someone who flew the brand new p.s. service from almost the day it was launched, I vividly recall how fresh and innovative the service was at the beginning. To have a unique, dedicated 3 class aircraft that beat everything else at the time was a great image boost for UA - and I did fly seeing countless mega stars of film and music. It was cool. The only problem was it became apparent rather quickly that the business class seat was actually more comfortable that the angled ex:Singapore First Class seat. Therefore it was not difficult for a competitor to leapfrog those 757's. Then UA didn't keep up either in product improvements and maintenance of interiors. The tie-in with Westin vanished and it just devolved.
When they moved it all to Newark, the celebrities disappeared, and the promises of an even better experience at never materialized. Now, p.s. is all over the place, 757's in 2 classes, 777's reusing old UA business seats and for now a fab 77W. There is no uniformity and nothing special at the airport. While UA's improvements at TC at ERW are huge (although STILL unfinished), the old and new concourses are really nice, great bars and restaurants, better seating areas and the security line improvements made by UA are truly brilliant. Why the lounge renovations were not made a #1 priority is simply beyond me for such a critical United gateway. I hope that they can get it ALL great as Kirby alludes to - and do it at a faster pace. The "under construction" plywood sections seem to have been there for months. United can't improve the main architectural structure of TC, it will always look like it was designed in 1972, what they have done so far does look much better...it's just not changing fast enough...yet all the ads in NYC promise a new fab experience at EWR which they can't deliver on just yet.
I think if Polaris was the standard on transcon, from lounge to plane to exit, a real business class (and not just E+) they could overcome much of the New Jersey "perception".

That might be throwing "Good money after Bad" We got RID of business class, and now we'd have to put it BACK?? Dos that seem like good business sense to you IF it were YOUR money being Spent?? NAAH! better to upgrade First to "Polaris" And continue on the course we're going. Hardly anybody ever actually Paid for business class when we had it. If we really NEED business class? Then the business flyers should write the company and say they would Pay for it. Otherwise?
It's just NOT going to make the money to cover the cost of retrofitting the airplanes to re-install "Business Class". which was pretty much just an upgraded "Freebie".
And we all knew it was... People don't even want to pay for e-plus as it is..


Well, I paid for it! (or my company did) it seemed (to me) like First would have been the free upgrade perk. And frankly as I am not on the inside, I was NOT aware that those seats in business were "freebies". If it winds up being a great Polaris seat and experience (which I flew in twice last week to SFO on the 77W) then I would gleefully pay for that. I thought it was amazing. As a fan of United, I was sad to see p.s. get watered down and see others upstage UA's very innovative product of many years ago. Also, frankly, It does seem to be taking painfully long for United to finish making TC at EWR a fantastic experience, especially since the "Presidents Club" has remained basically the same since CO opened TC. I fly UA out of EWR at least 2x a month and have for many years. As I said, what UA has done so far with TC is great, but there are still huge gaps and personally, if I was in charge, I would throw a tantrum and make TC very impressive to all travelers from around the globe and the NYC area, for the sole benefit of United and to continue it's progress. Last, I feel it will take a very long time (based on everything I have read) that all the aircraft out of EWR wont be refreshed with Polaris or see new birds like the 787, A350 (or other) for a long time either and I am impatient because I want to read a headline like "United voted Best Airline in the NYC area" ASAP. I may not be the most pragmatic or mature person you've ever met...but my heart is in the right place!
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 21440
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:45 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Could the poster mentioning UA getting kicked out of T7 provide some background? Or a link? Or give us some sort of idea how you knew that?


United made the statement publicly and was reported as such at the time.

"The move, precipitated by continuing losses and a lease expiration, is one more sign of the major U.S. airlines' ever increasing preference to concentrate resources in their hubs."
https://www.thestreet.com/story/1333691 ... onger.html

And internally, it was stated retaining the loss making JFK ops would become even costlier endevour with having to find a new terminal, and only likely option was a less then optimal set up with lack of open gates in T4 for a portion of the day.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
ua900
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:53 am

caljn wrote:
Uh, no. EWR Terminal C not a dump even before those "hip Ipad restaurants"..


Ok, I'll bite. Where is the UA Global First Lounge in EWR? Non-existent, they never ever even bothered to introduce one. Where is the Polaris Lounge in EWR? Non-existent, not a priority for UA since EWR just isn't that big or important. And where would you put it, replacing an existing UA club like elsewhere doesn't seem a good choice for UA.

My choices are between the club at C120 (nice marble touches from 20 years ago but always super crowded, they can't even get their showers to supply hot water for more than 10 minutes, let alone at a consistent temperature, still lousy food, good luck finding any seat, you're likely sitting in some business center stall) and C74 (long walk to the lone food area, still crowded, no amenities to speak of) and then I combine that with long walks to C127ish or C112ish.

UA's new culinary offensive graciously allows me to have corn chowder topped with cheese cubes and tortilla strips. Classy, I think I had that same dish at Michael Mina or Jose Andres. Not. Still better than just a couple of wrapped apples combined with the 3/4 ounce cheese served there between the merger and 2015ish, but still nothing to write home about. UA's paid club memberships would collapse if there were another *A lounge without separate security check (like LH B or AC A) or dare I say it a Centurion Lounge.

International arrivals are horrible. Initially walking to customs forever in B, paying $6 for luggage cart when it's free for incoming int'l pax at many other airports, rechecking baggage downstairs, taking a train to terminal C, going back up through the escalators to pre-check. But again, no competition, right? Where are you gonna go if you fly UA a lot? Not LH / LX / SQ flight to JFK plus expensive time consuming transfer to the gem of an airport across the Hudson.

Tell me what's great about that. Lousy customer service, bad long convoluted routing of passengers, crowded clubs with little to offer. I have seen plenty of third world countries with outstanding showers, excellent food, and attentive customer service ;-)
Last edited by ua900 on Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
2017: CVG | DEN | EWR | FRA | HKG | LAX | ORD | SFO | SIN | TLV | TXL | VIE
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6831
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:14 am

I was never quite sure why they didn't build out an additional concourse to the west of the C130 gates where the hard stands currently are next to the parking lot. It would only have gates on the one side (right side as you walked away from the Terminal) but would have given them more FIS connected gates at Terminal C. I guess that as Terminal B is under-utilised by international carriers then using those gates is the much, much cheaper alternative.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
VC10er
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:13 pm

I asked detailed United Club receptionists questions more than once over the past year about the future renovations and the addition of the Polaris lounge. Both times they said that part of the huge rear end (pun-intended) of the giant club right after security will be used plus additional space that is being created. The rest of the giant club is due fore refurbishment with work (currently) due the end of the summer. The other upstair club will not be refurbished until after the Polaris and the big United Club are finished. As I have ranted before...it shocks me how long it is taking them to get them done...or even started. Thousands of people a day must endure that ugly, crowded, poorly lit early 1990's "President's Club"...I personally think that if UA seriously invested both the money and speed into fixing those clubs it would move the needle given the thousands of fliers who use them. The iPad restaurants and bars are sometimes a better choice than the club.
If one asks oneself "what was the ORIGINAL IDEA behind a VIP club?" it was about having a calm and restful experience before your flight, not being mashed in with hoards of people at the gate area. However, over the past 30 years they have become more and more of a way to differentiate and upstage the competition. A competitive race with some airlines creating absolutely amazing experiences, far and away beyond the original intent. If you fly often for business internationally you probably have been in some jaw dropping lounges...both beautiful and luxurious. With each year over the past 15 or 20, the virtually unchanged old UA's and CO's clubs keep getting knocked to the bottom. Now, (IMHO) it is NOT like UA doesn't know how to do it right (I think United's LHR is beautiful)...it "seems" more about taking a slower more conservative approach and slowly spending the money on refurbishments at the expense of improving brand image faster.
And when it comes to "p.s." (PREMIUM SERVICE) moving to EWR currently doesn't even beat the old UA club at JFK. I have such a big issue with making promises that something is better...then it's not.
(and I don't think the average flier knows that things like the great new security line system is actually a United investment and not the airport)
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4305
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:19 pm

UA ever returning to JFK just became a lot harder this morning.

AS announced it is taking UAs old gates and club at T7 for combined airlines flights to...west coast
 
United1
Posts: 3214
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:23 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
UA ever returning to JFK just became a lot harder this morning.



There is no discussion of UA returning to JFK at this point....this was more of an "if only" comment by KIR/S at a town hall meeting.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 4967
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:01 pm

727200 wrote:
CobaltScar wrote:
If UA acquired JetBlue, their respective hubs would fit together like hand in gloves. Just saying.


That has been rumored for a while. But then, that is a different topic that I could give all kinds of reason's why it makes sense.

The DoJ would have a stroke. One of the hubs would have to be severely cut back. Although taking over T5 in JFK and co-locating all the Star carriers in JFK there with token UA services ala DL in BOS wouldn't be bad and would help ease the congestion at EWR.

But it won't happen.
Eat 'em up Kats!
 
727200
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:47 pm

DOJ under the previous administration would have. Not so sure a more business friendly one would have the same concerns. Sure they would be some cuts, but with only 3-5 players, side deals wrapped up before filing would not be an issue. Having spent some time on Wall Street, "Never say never, there is no dead deal."
 
gsg013
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:23 pm

Honestly UA lost on the NYC-LAX & SFO routes when they have not upgraded the product. the 757-200's BF seats are old and raggity. The service is good but not great. When you are lucky to get on the 777-300ER that is a treat but that wont be sticking around too long.

To complete w/ AA DL, B6 on this route they need both a updated Hard and Soft product.

Always said they need to add express airtrains. They should be based off the model of Heathrow Express 15-20 min single seat ride from midtown right to the terminals none of having to take a train to a station and then transfer to an old rickity airtrain system at EWR.

IMHO they should have trains like heathrow express to all three NYC airports including LGA, JFK, & EWR
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 1473
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:13 pm

UA has down gauged three of four corners in the US, JFK in the NE, LAX in the SW, and SEA in the NW.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4305
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: lease expiration

Could it be that UA didn't want to renew the lease?

Given today that AS essentially picked up UAs space and club in T7, doesn't it seem weird that UA, with the same sized operation, was getting kicked out and forced to find a new terminal?
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 4305
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:28 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
UA has down gauged three of four corners in the US, JFK in the NE, LAX in the SW, and SEA in the NW.



MIA in the SE
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:25 am

jfklganyc wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
UA has down gauged three of four corners in the US, JFK in the NE, LAX in the SW, and SEA in the NW.



MIA in the SE


Why don't you go back a couple decades further. MIA and SEA are ancient history.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1158
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:12 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
UA has down gauged three of four corners in the US, JFK in the NE, LAX in the SW, and SEA in the NW.



MIA in the SE


Why don't you go back a couple decades further. MIA and SEA are ancient history.


I also wouldn't put LAX in that same category. LAX is still very much a hub, and Kirby has made it pretty clear that they're not going any smaller there — quite the opposite. It's more O&D focused, and it's not as much of a connecting hub as it was in, say, 2006, but there's still a pretty substantial network ex-LAX.

SEA is a little more recent since UA still had the NRT flight up until around 2011/2012 when it was moved to DEN, and there were a few SkyWest routes under the UAX brand (flown at-risk I believe) scattered around the PNW until around that same timeframe too.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
Austin787
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:22 am

gsg013 wrote:
Honestly UA lost on the NYC-LAX & SFO routes when they have not upgraded the product. the 757-200's BF seats are old and raggity. The service is good but not great. When you are lucky to get on the 777-300ER that is a treat but that wont be sticking around too long.

To complete w/ AA DL, B6 on this route they need both a updated Hard and Soft product.


All AA flights and most of DL flights have the same business seats as UA.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 1945
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:22 am

jfklganyc wrote:
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.


:checkmark: JFK is the gateway to the world, sorry for UA's silly management.
oh boy, here we go!!!
 
FlyUSAir
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:28 am

I think UA's route network is worse than AS at this point. Add to that no presence whatsoever in the Southeastern US and I don't know what they are thinking at this point.
A319/A320/A321/A333 712/732/733/734/735/737/738/752/753/762/763 C172 CR2/CR7/CR9 E145/E170/E175/E190
MD82/MD83/MD88/MD90 Q100/Q400
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:36 am

[twoid][/twoid]
United1 wrote:
Beatyair wrote:
Could United simply fly a 757 or a 767 from LAX to LGA.


Only on Saturdays as LGA has a perimeter rule in effect the other days of the week that prevents any airline from flying routes that far. If the perimeter rule were ever to be removed however that might actually be UAs best shot at adding P.S. flights back to an airport east of the Hudson.


DL AA and B6 don't want the perimeter removed as that would compromise their JFK operations - my theory anyways.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:16 am

FlyUSAir wrote:
I think UA's route network is worse than AS at this point. Add to that no presence whatsoever in the Southeastern US and I don't know what they are thinking at this point.


You're stretching. They're major players in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, SF, DC and Denver which are al top markets in the US and most of them are great US hub locations aside from LAX. Comparing their network to AS is insane. They're still double AS/VX size in LAX alone.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6831
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:21 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Re: lease expiration

Could it be that UA didn't want to renew the lease?

Given today that AS essentially picked up UAs space and club in T7, doesn't it seem weird that UA, with the same sized operation, was getting kicked out and forced to find a new terminal?



We don't know:

1) what UA were paying in rent

2) what BA were asking to re-new the lease

3) what AS are paying going forward

BA could have significantly increased the rent to the point where UA told them to jump, but AS are either willing to pay it or BA have come back to the table as they didn't actually expect UA to call their bluff
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Andy33
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 7:36 am

RyanairGuru wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Re: lease expiration

Could it be that UA didn't want to renew the lease?

Given today that AS essentially picked up UAs space and club in T7, doesn't it seem weird that UA, with the same sized operation, was getting kicked out and forced to find a new terminal?



We don't know:

1) what UA were paying in rent

2) what BA were asking to re-new the lease

3) what AS are paying going forward

BA could have significantly increased the rent to the point where UA told them to jump, but AS are either willing to pay it or BA have come back to the table as they didn't actually expect UA to call their bluff

Some things we do know. BA and AS codeshare. BA and UA didn't and don't. UA operate transatlantic flights in competition with BA. AS don't.
 
N505fx
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 10:52 am

Just another example of what an inept, cut rate airline Continental and it's management were!
 
FlyUSAir
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:49 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
FlyUSAir wrote:
I think UA's route network is worse than AS at this point. Add to that no presence whatsoever in the Southeastern US and I don't know what they are thinking at this point.


You're stretching. They're major players in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, SF, DC and Denver which are al top markets in the US and most of them are great US hub locations aside from LAX. Comparing their network to AS is insane. They're still double AS/VX size in LAX alone.


They are a major player in LA (as much as they have dropped flights here), SF, DC, Denver, Houston, and Chicago. That still leaves out the Southeast US and I completely disagree with being a major player in NY. I count EWR as NJ/PHL. You simply can't be a major NYC player with having the majority of flights at EWR while only having a handful at LGA and absolutely zero flights at JFK.
A319/A320/A321/A333 712/732/733/734/735/737/738/752/753/762/763 C172 CR2/CR7/CR9 E145/E170/E175/E190
MD82/MD83/MD88/MD90 Q100/Q400
 
gsg013
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:54 pm

Austin787 wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
Honestly UA lost on the NYC-LAX & SFO routes when they have not upgraded the product. the 757-200's BF seats are old and raggity. The service is good but not great. When you are lucky to get on the 777-300ER that is a treat but that wont be sticking around too long.

To complete w/ AA DL, B6 on this route they need both a updated Hard and Soft product.


All AA flights and most of DL flights have the same business seats as UA.


While they are "the same B/E Diamond Seat" the AA ones are much more comfortable with better AVOD. Delta 757S have much better soft product.

If you have flown a UA 757 in BF lately those seats are really showing their wear and tare.
 
tpaewr
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat May 19, 2001 9:01 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:24 pm

N505fx wrote:
Just another example of what an inept, cut rate airline Continental and it's management were!



Such fools they were, building the only omni-direction global hub in NYC that creates 15% margins.

Clearly CO was a tiny baby little regional airline, ran by know nothings. If only we could swap it all back for a token 3 cabin flight to the West coast again.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:16 pm

FlyUSAir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
FlyUSAir wrote:
I think UA's route network is worse than AS at this point. Add to that no presence whatsoever in the Southeastern US and I don't know what they are thinking at this point.


You're stretching. They're major players in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, SF, DC and Denver which are al top markets in the US and most of them are great US hub locations aside from LAX. Comparing their network to AS is insane. They're still double AS/VX size in LAX alone.


They are a major player in LA (as much as they have dropped flights here), SF, DC, Denver, Houston, and Chicago. That still leaves out the Southeast US and I completely disagree with being a major player in NY. I count EWR as NJ/PHL. You simply can't be a major NYC player with having the majority of flights at EWR while only having a handful at LGA and absolutely zero flights at JFK.


Stop. EWR is as much Philly as SAN is an LA airport. You're just being silly. And Southeast has been a hole for UA since the dawn of commercial aviation. It's not new.
 
FlyUSAir
Posts: 388
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:15 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
FlyUSAir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

You're stretching. They're major players in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, SF, DC and Denver which are al top markets in the US and most of them are great US hub locations aside from LAX. Comparing their network to AS is insane. They're still double AS/VX size in LAX alone.


They are a major player in LA (as much as they have dropped flights here), SF, DC, Denver, Houston, and Chicago. That still leaves out the Southeast US and I completely disagree with being a major player in NY. I count EWR as NJ/PHL. You simply can't be a major NYC player with having the majority of flights at EWR while only having a handful at LGA and absolutely zero flights at JFK.


Stop. EWR is as much Philly as SAN is an LA airport. You're just being silly. And Southeast has been a hole for UA since the dawn of commercial aviation. It's not new.


We'll have to agree to disagree. EWR is NOT NYC. Using your argument, EWR is to NYC as ORD is to IND.
A319/A320/A321/A333 712/732/733/734/735/737/738/752/753/762/763 C172 CR2/CR7/CR9 E145/E170/E175/E190
MD82/MD83/MD88/MD90 Q100/Q400
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:29 pm

The JFK situation was similar to that of OAK......both "half-baked" operations in recent years. OAK only had DEN, and JFK only had just SFO/LAX flights, in they end. Bottom line is, they either needed to commit to it(adding more flights) or close it up totally. One and two destinations at a co-terminal type of airport just doesn't cut it.
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:33 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
FlyUSAir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

You're stretching. They're major players in NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, SF, DC and Denver which are al top markets in the US and most of them are great US hub locations aside from LAX. Comparing their network to AS is insane. They're still double AS/VX size in LAX alone.


They are a major player in LA (as much as they have dropped flights here), SF, DC, Denver, Houston, and Chicago. That still leaves out the Southeast US and I completely disagree with being a major player in NY. I count EWR as NJ/PHL. You simply can't be a major NYC player with having the majority of flights at EWR while only having a handful at LGA and absolutely zero flights at JFK.


Stop. EWR is as much Philly as SAN is an LA airport. You're just being silly. And Southeast has been a hole for UA since the dawn of commercial aviation. It's not new.

The difference with PHL-NYC vs. LAX-SAN, is that the ground transportation is much easier and efficient on the East Coast. I had a EWR flight cancel, and took the PHL flight instead. Taking the train from PHL to Manhattan actually took less time than expected. That wouldn't work on LAX-SAN.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5719
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:34 am

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.


I think the implication that UA's managers were unaware of the impact on corporate accounts caused by shifting p.s. from JFK to EWR and ending both LAX-JFK and SFO-JFK is a bit arrogant. Look, if the attitude had been entirely "This is how we did things at CO," those routes would have been dropped a few years before. I expect the revenue team would have expected to lose business from important contracts like Disney & Time Warner -- but that loss in revenue would have been weighed against the cost savings realized by dropping the money-losing JFK services along with improvements in revenue generated by connecting the key international hubs at EWR, SFO, and LAX with a premium cabin similar in quality to the long-haul premium cabins.

Moreover, I expect that UA in reality lost few SFO-based corporate accounts simply because UA's hub at SFO remains, by far, the premier operation in the Bay Area. No competitor offers the same domestic or global reach for corporate and high-value customers across the area's three major airports. No doubt the dropping of LAX-SFO was more damaging to their competitiveness at LAX but then that could also be considered part of an ongoing process -- they ended PDX, a top-10 domestic market for LAX and reduced LAX-SEA (the third-largest market from LAX) to two daily RJs with seasonal mainline service. LAX-BOS, another key market, went seasonal for a year or two with no service in the dead of winter. And, of course, the decision to sublease the LAX Terminal 6 gates to AA was also a key indicator that UA wasn't going to fight hard for share in L.A.

commavia wrote:
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.


Agreed completely. It's pretty easy to use Smisek as a scapegoat given how hated he was by employees (and some customers), not to mention the scandal which precipitated his departure.

gsg013 wrote:
Always said they need to add express airtrains. They should be based off the model of Heathrow Express 15-20 min single seat ride from midtown right to the terminals none of having to take a train to a station and then transfer to an old rickity airtrain system at EWR.

IMHO they should have trains like heathrow express to all three NYC airports including LGA, JFK, & EWR


Good luck doing that with the already heavily-used rail tunnels under the Hudson and East Rivers. Amtrak is talking about closing tracks/platforms at NYP for desperately-needed maintenance and that will be a commuter nightmare. The ARC tunnel under the Hudson was killed by Chris Christie and the funding for replacing the existing Hudson crossings is unsure. Oh, and don't forget the community opposition to virtually every rail link ever proposed to LGA.

grbauc wrote:
Thanks I do plead ignorance on the facility someone up tread said EWR was not a very nice place. I remember Low ceilings and it being dark inside. I also Used wrong wording in saying proper hub. I meant a 5 star facility hub. My thinking is can they build a over the top facility that would draw the attention and talk envy of NYC flyers and those flying to and through it.


If the terminal surroundings really mattered all that much, LGA would be a ghost town. It is all about location. By the same token, B6 built a hub at BOS in the airport's oldest terminal, reaching its 50th anniversary this year.
 
commavia
Posts: 11093
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:50 am

ScottB wrote:
I think the implication that UA's managers were unaware of the impact on corporate accounts caused by shifting p.s. from JFK to EWR and ending both LAX-JFK and SFO-JFK is a bit arrogant. Look, if the attitude had been entirely "This is how we did things at CO," those routes would have been dropped a few years before. I expect the revenue team would have expected to lose business from important contracts like Disney & Time Warner -- but that loss in revenue would have been weighed against the cost savings realized by dropping the money-losing JFK services along with improvements in revenue generated by connecting the key international hubs at EWR, SFO, and LAX with a premium cabin similar in quality to the long-haul premium cabins.


I didn't read Kirby's comments as implying that United's managers were "unaware" of the impact of exiting JFK - I took his comments as essentially akin to, "it was a judgement call whether this was the right move, and I think their judgement was wrong." I'm sure Kirby knows full well that - as said - United's managers were obviously "aware" of the impact on at least some corporate accounts that had - historically - demonstrated a preference for using JFK. Similarly, the whole suggestion about this decision having been driven by a "this is how we did things at Continental" mentality is a creation of A.net - again, not, from my reading, Kirby.

ScottB wrote:
Moreover, I expect that UA in reality lost few SFO-based corporate accounts simply because UA's hub at SFO remains, by far, the premier operation in the Bay Area. No competitor offers the same domestic or global reach for corporate and high-value customers across the area's three major airports. No doubt the dropping of LAX-SFO was more damaging to their competitiveness at LAX but then that could also be considered part of an ongoing process -- they ended PDX, a top-10 domestic market for LAX and reduced LAX-SEA (the third-largest market from LAX) to two daily RJs with seasonal mainline service. LAX-BOS, another key market, went seasonal for a year or two with no service in the dead of winter. And, of course, the decision to sublease the LAX Terminal 6 gates to AA was also a key indicator that UA wasn't going to fight hard for share in L.A.


Agree. The impact of exiting JFK transcons was almost certainly more significant at LAX - where United was, and is, fighting a multi-front battle against several competitors - as compared to SFO, which United dominates.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4150
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:08 am

Austin787 wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
Honestly UA lost on the NYC-LAX & SFO routes when they have not upgraded the product. the 757-200's BF seats are old and raggity. The service is good but not great. When you are lucky to get on the 777-300ER that is a treat but that wont be sticking around too long.

To complete w/ AA DL, B6 on this route they need both a updated Hard and Soft product.


All AA flights and most of DL flights have the same business seats as UA.


But AA also offers F on every flight.
How come I can't upload an avatar photo to my profile?
 
caljn
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:37 pm

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:22 am

:checkmark: JFK is the gateway to the world, sorry for UA's silly management.[/quote]


Suddenly it's 1960! You must be a New Yorker.
 
staralliance85
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:29 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:23 am

As much as the company wants EWR to be a mega hub. It cant! UA cannot handle anymore traffic at EWR because of severe ATC issues.There are major ATC and ground delay programs if there is a drop of rain or the wind is blowing a certain way. Cannot be fully reliable for connections. Will never be a reliable mega hub like an ATl because of their restriction. They should grow IAD a little bit more and invest a little more in their C/D facility and stop regarding it as their ugly step child. I am confident Kirby realizes that he cant just vacate IAD.


On another note, UA really needs good press right now! They should roll back an Unpopular Smisek initiative of outsourcing some line stations in 2015. Oscar and Kirby should at least bring back UA employees to MIA and BDL. They outsourced those two stations that happened to grow and if they bring back those misplaced or furloughed employees they will gain very positive media attention and make lots and lots of employees happy.
Last edited by staralliance85 on Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
brad Fitzpatrick
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:24 am

FlyUSAir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
FlyUSAir wrote:

They are a major player in LA (as much as they have dropped flights here), SF, DC, Denver, Houston, and Chicago. That still leaves out the Southeast US and I completely disagree with being a major player in NY. I count EWR as NJ/PHL. You simply can't be a major NYC player with having the majority of flights at EWR while only having a handful at LGA and absolutely zero flights at JFK.


Stop. EWR is as much Philly as SAN is an LA airport. You're just being silly. And Southeast has been a hole for UA since the dawn of commercial aviation. It's not new.


We'll have to agree to disagree. EWR is NOT NYC. Using your argument, EWR is to NYC as ORD is to IND.


Get a map. ORD and IND are 200 miles apart. EWR is around 10 miles to midtown Manhattan vs slightly longer to JFK. Uninformed post. This is the laziest argument on this forum.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:52 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
FlyUSAir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

Stop. EWR is as much Philly as SAN is an LA airport. You're just being silly. And Southeast has been a hole for UA since the dawn of commercial aviation. It's not new.


We'll have to agree to disagree. EWR is NOT NYC. Using your argument, EWR is to NYC as ORD is to IND.


Get a map. ORD and IND are 200 miles apart. EWR is around 10 miles to midtown Manhattan vs slightly longer to JFK. Uninformed post. This is the laziest argument on this forum.


Distances were as the crow flies. Midtown to EWR by road is 17-18 miles and to JFK is 16-17 miles. Virtually the same.
 
Andy33
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Scott Kirby: Leaving New York’s JFK ‘Was the Wrong Decision’

Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:24 am

ScottB wrote:
gsg013 wrote:
Always said they need to add express airtrains. They should be based off the model of Heathrow Express 15-20 min single seat ride from midtown right to the terminals none of having to take a train to a station and then transfer to an old rickity airtrain system at EWR.

IMHO they should have trains like heathrow express to all three NYC airports including LGA, JFK, & EWR


Good luck doing that with the already heavily-used rail tunnels under the Hudson and East Rivers. Amtrak is talking about closing tracks/platforms at NYP for desperately-needed maintenance and that will be a commuter nightmare. The ARC tunnel under the Hudson was killed by Chris Christie and the funding for replacing the existing Hudson crossings is unsure. Oh, and don't forget the community opposition to virtually every rail link ever proposed to LGA.


You could also add that the Heathrow Express model works so well for London that it will disappear in the next few years. Heathrow Express provides dedicated trains shuttling up and down on a relatively low frequency and using a "Central London" terminus in a district relatively few people want to go to, so they need to use other trains, buses or taxis at the city end instead of at the airport end, and it provides it at a ludicrously high fare. Being replaced by Crossrail, running in new tunnels right across Central London from one side to the other, and stopping in key areas, on a higher frequency, and at fares that tie into the citywide ticketing system.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos