Newbiepilot wrote:

Chicago is geographically only 200 miles west of Atlanta. While Georgia may be on the east coast, I don't think it is really geographically related to EWR.

Only because the East Coast curves inland until it hits north Florida. Chicago is geographically nowhere near the east coast at its respective latitude or the respective latitudes of the major east coast cities.

Also, to clarify on a post by STT757.

Despite a press release from the PA

"Governor Chris Christie and Port Authority officials broke ground this morning on the overhaul of Newark Liberty International Airport’s 44-year-old Terminal A to provide travelers with a 21st-century facility, creating jobs and boosting the regional economy. Today’s event highlighted the commencement of work to build three roadway bridges designed to reduce congestion and help connect the central terminal area roadway network to the new terminal.

This is the first of several major construction segments that will lead to a new Terminal A and expanded service for airline passengers."

Work commenced on roadways...not Terminal A. "The first of several major construction segments" at a bistate disaster like the PA means you're only two people away from the window at the Post Office. And the postal clerk may still go on break.

Sadly, Terminal A is many years and many approvals away yet.

I live on West 10th street in the West Village in Manhattan and I have been a very heavy business flier for almost 30 years, and I have tons of experience flying out of all 3 airports and I have to say that JFK and EWR rank about the same on the "pain in the ass" index with a small advantage flying out of Newark when it comes to traffic etc. When flying UA going to Newark is not a problem at all, (I aways take a car service) and probably better because there is no "Van Wyck" to deal with and the "Polaski Skyway" is far better today than it ever was after the repairs and an awesome looking structure too. What I do feel as a big UA flier is the lack of attention UA gives EWR in terms of renovations and new aircraft types. Now, agreed TC is nicer, fabulous security system, great retail and restaurants and upgraded UA gates on the concourses, but the United Clubs are SAD, and LONG, LONG OVERDUE for renovation for such an important international gateway. We have 2 77W's, one to TLV and one to SFO (which is temporary) otherwise all the twins are old as are the 757's. I hope and pray for A350's, and 787-10's because nothing beats a new airplane with new airplane smell! (Although it's worth noting that while boring looking, the 767's and 772's are at least clean) but it does seem that compared to SFO, UA has not put the same sense of attention into EWR.

Irehdna wrote:

The fact of the matter is that both IAD and EWR are located further from the city centre than airports like LGA, JFK, and DCA.

If we identify NYC's city center as Manhattan, than yes LGA is the closest. However after LGA, EWR is the closest. EWR is physically closer to every part of Manhattan compared to JFK, even from the East side of Manhattan.

For instance the distance from EWR to the East 34th street Heliport (on the East River) is 11 miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-6n5&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

From JFK it's 13 miles to the East 34th street heliport:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-6n5&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

There are even parts of Manhattan that are equal distant to EWR and LGA.

From EWR to the Wall Street heliport (again on the East Side) is 9 miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-JRB&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

From LGA to the Wall Street Heliport is also 9 miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-JRB&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

But that is physical distance, the variables are transit, highways, traffic etc.. But there is a huge difference between EWR and IAD, EWR being 9 miles from Wall Street while IAD is about 30 miles from Washington DC.

And there are United ads plastered all over town touting 2 major messages: NEWARK IS CLOSER THAN JFK and MOST INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS

If EWR isn't an east coast "super hub", then what is? It does not exist.

commavia wrote:

Very true - I won't dispute that point. United certainly has less comprehensive coverage up and down the east coast than either AA or Delta. United's presence on the East Coast is certainly concentrated most heavily in the Northeast with EWR, and perhaps arguably also the Mid-Atlantic with IAD. But get much south of Virginia, and that's very heavily AA/Delta territory - no question about it. But that said, as has been discussed at length numerous times before in countless A.net threads, no airline can win everywhere, and all three airlines have areas of (relative) geographical weakness. United has by far the smallest and weakest presence in the Southeast, just as AA has by far the smallest and weakest presence in the Rocky Mountain region and Pacific Northwest, and Delta has by far the smallest and weakest presence in the South-Central U.S. and Texas. It is what it is.

Which is worse? A smaller presence in the Pacific Northwest/Rocky Mountain or a smaller presence in the Southeast or a smaller presence in Texas?

I think the Southeast is more valuable (a much larger market) than Pacific Northwest / Rocky Mountain.

The country is roughly divided into thirds, Southeast (including Texas), Northeast (here I might include Virginia in the Northeast functionally), and everything west of the Mississippi. Each has around 100m people.

STT757 wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

The fact of the matter is that both IAD and EWR are located further from the city centre than airports like LGA, JFK, and DCA.

If we identify NYC's city center as Manhattan, than yes LGA is the closest. However after LGA, EWR is the closest. EWR is physically closer to every part of Manhattan compared to JFK, even from the East side of Manhattan.

For instance the distance from EWR to the East 34th street Heliport (on the East River) is 11 miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-6n5&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

From JFK it's 13 miles to the East 34th street heliport:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-6n5&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

There are even parts of Manhattan that are equal distant to EWR and LGA.

From EWR to the Wall Street heliport (again on the East Side) is 9 miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-JRB&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

From LGA to the Wall Street Heliport is also 9 miles.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR-JRB&PM=b:disc7%2b%22%25U%2212

But that is physical distance, the variables are transit, highways, traffic etc.. But there is a huge difference between EWR and IAD, EWR being 9 miles from Wall Street while IAD is about 30 miles from Washington DC.

Didn't Kirby just recently admitted UA lost important clients because of loosing their JFK presence?

And you are pointing out heliport to airport because most people travel by helicopters? New Yorkers primary form of transportation are subway and uber/taxi.

I think UA's EWR hub is the best hub in NYC, but if they had the choice of swapping for similar level of dominance in LGA or JFK, I'm sure they would take it.

ldvaviation wrote:

Which is worse? A smaller presence in the Pacific Northwest/Rocky Mountain or a smaller presence in the Southeast or a smaller presence in Texas?

I have long believed that - in the context of the airline industry - the Rocky Mountain region is by far the least important region, economically and demographically.

The Rocky Mountain region has the economic and demographic scale to support two network airline hubs - and it has those two, first and foremost United in DEN plus also Delta in SLC. AA's only option as the odd man out is to make tactical incursions into the region from the periphery with its hubs at DFW, PHX and LAX, and to a lesser extent ORD - and indeed that is exactly what we've seen AA do, and at an increasing rate since the merger.

EWR seems like a hub by default in some ways. If you were going to build a hub, that is an airport through which travelers would transit to get to other destinations, then NYC it seems would not be an ideal location, where you would probably want to focus on O&D. EWR is a hub because so many people want to travel there (NYC) that it has flights from/to everywhere, not unlike a hub airport. So operationally it is more efficient to go ahead and stick people who want to go to Nashville from Nashua on flights through EWR as both have flights to and from these places.

Now, if UA thought they could take away the connecting seats from EWR and add more O&D to replace them, then I would imagine they would do that. But probably there isn't enough additional O&D to replace all the connecting seats, hence hub at EWR.

If UA could choose any city as their hubs, where would they be? My guess, LAX, ORD, IAH, IAD. LAX and IAD would handle travel within West and East Coast and funnel flights to IAH and ORD heading East or West. IAD and LAX would also have N/S to all focus cities. With additional focus cities of SEA, MIA, and ALL NYC airports. LGA, JFK, and EWR would have significant point to point operations with hourly shuttles to/from BOS, DCA, IAD, ORD, LAX, IAH, PHL, SFO, MSP, ATL, DTW, SEA, and MIA.

EWR has long been a crown jewel in the networks of pre-merger CO and now within UA. No other airline with a large presence in the NY Area can claim to have their entire operation under essentially one roof. Airfares out of NYC are generally a profit stream, given the high demand, large and diverse corporate contracts, and the need to service the market with frequency and not just direct nonstop service. Prior to the merger, EWR was the most profitable of CO's three hubs at the time (IAH and CLE being the other two). Post-merger, it is still a significant competitive advantage from a logistical standpoint, but United could and should do a whole lot more with it. It has been slow to remodel its Terminal C and upgrade the United Clubs there. This airport should have been among the first to get new Polaris clubs not to mention a re-imagined passenger experience. The airport itself is at a slight disadvantage in that it is more delay prone than JFK and LGA on some level, due to an even more complicated and constricted airspace.

The problem with EWR and UA remains less an EWR issue and more a UA one. The carrier simply cannot get the customer experience right. None of the US carriers excel in this category but for whatever reason, the perception that DL and possibly AA have their act together in the NY area in a better way is attributed to United's tired product and half assed approach to premium service. Delta just runs a better operation even though LGA is falling apart as it is being rebuilt and has grown exponentially at JFK, even though DL does not have the global or domestic coverage there at UA has at EWR. AA covers a lot of ground out of LGA and while the JFK operation is really not much of a hub and more of a point to point with limited transfer flow, American has come a long way in improving its cabins and at least making the NYC point of sale and departure product competitive (A321T to LAX/SFO, refurbished 777's, etc...). Newark needs a face lift and a branding rethink and a better partnership with United when it comes to convincing folks it may be worth flying from there over LGA/JFK. Putting the words "closer to NYC than JFK" on top of taxicabs just isn't enough.

Flighty wrote:

I think the Southeast is more valuable (a much larger market) than Pacific Northwest / Rocky Mountain.

The country is roughly divided into thirds, Southeast (including Texas), Northeast (here I might include Virginia in the Northeast functionally), and everything west of the Mississippi. Each has around 100m people.

So where is that smallish city called Chicago located? Certainly not in the southeast or northeast. Definitely not in the "everything west of the Mississippi" group. Further, trust me. NO ONE in Texas refers to themselves being geographically in the southeast. Well, with the exception of the Texas A&M Aggies.

For Southern New Englanders, the connection possibilities via EWR from PVD are awsome. The problem arises with a couple thunder claps or a few snowflakes in the air. These flights cancel a lot and if your vacation or business trip involves a long distance or less frequent destination, good luck. In the event UA cancels it's last EWR-PVD of the day, that all important first flight out the next day is scrubbed leaving outbound passengers fumbling. Word gets around, the audience shrinks and UA downgrades the equipment or frequency further. You can substitute PVD for a list of RJ cities in the Northeast that feed EWR. That is the problem I have with that hub that's not too "super".
The first flight of the day to EWR used to be a 738 pre merger loaded with high dollar fares to the Caribbean, South and Central America etc. That business got chaced away.

I haven't seen the new marketing campaign with regards to location.

If taxi ads really say "Closer to NYC than JFK" you realize the competitive DISADVANTAGE in terms of perception UA really has vs Delta.

It is a problem.

The ongoing Penn Station fiasco isnt helping.

Everyday on Good Day New York, Ines Rosales says, "All trains on time except the usual NJ Transit delays into Penn Station."

Makes a trip to Jersey seem further than it is

commavia wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

Which is worse? A smaller presence in the Pacific Northwest/Rocky Mountain or a smaller presence in the Southeast or a smaller presence in Texas?

I have long believed that - in the context of the airline industry - the Rocky Mountain region is by far the least important region, economically and demographically.

The Rocky Mountain region has the economic and demographic scale to support two network airline hubs - and it has those two, first and foremost United in DEN plus also Delta in SLC. AA's only option as the odd man out is to make tactical incursions into the region from the periphery with its hubs at DFW, PHX and LAX, and to a lesser extent ORD - and indeed that is exactly what we've seen AA do, and at an increasing rate since the merger.

If I am reading this right, not having a hub in Texas or the Southeast is a bigger problem than not having a hub in the Pacific Northwest/Rocky Mountain region. Is that your view of things?

DfwAussie wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I think the Southeast is more valuable (a much larger market) than Pacific Northwest / Rocky Mountain.

The country is roughly divided into thirds, Southeast (including Texas), Northeast (here I might include Virginia in the Northeast functionally), and everything west of the Mississippi. Each has around 100m people.

So where is that smallish city called Chicago located? Certainly not in the southeast or northeast. Definitely not in the "everything west of the Mississippi" group. Further, trust me. NO ONE in Texas refers to themselves being geographically in the southeast. Well, with the exception of the Texas A&M Aggies.

Maybe it was a stupid exercise but I was trying to divide this country into thirds (so yes, Chicago all the way to the Atlantic is the Northeast, summing to around 100m people), mainly to just show how important the East is, and how unimportant & sparse the West is - even with California's size and importance. The region served by ATL cannot be compared with the Rocky Mountain region. The Southeast has maybe 5-8 times as much population AND money, even if it is a smaller geographic area.

Commavia pretty much said the same.

ldvaviation wrote:

If I am reading this right, not having a hub in Texas or the Southeast is a bigger problem than not having a hub in the Pacific Northwest/Rocky Mountain region. Is that your view of things?

At least with respect to the Rocky Mountain region, yes, that would generally be my personal view - the Rocky Mountain region is the least important U.S. region for airlines because it's the least important U.S. region, economically and demographically, overall.

Now I'm certainly not saying that there isn't plenty of money to be made in the Rocky Mountain region - there certainly is, particularly because it really only has two hubs and thus those two respective hub airlines often face just a duopoly, or largely a duopoly, in many of the smaller markets in the region.

But I would say, if I was laying out the optimal pieces on the chest board if a hypothetical U.S. airline CEO was starting out "from scratch," I'd happily give up a hub in DEN or SLC for ATL, DFW, and probably even IAH, any day of the week.

jfklganyc wrote:

If taxi ads really say "Closer to NYC than JFK" you realize the competitive DISADVANTAGE in terms of perception UA really has vs Delta.

Who cares. The fares UA is getting make this whole debate moot.

I never really understood why UA regretted EWR. No other airline has a major presence there, and it still is close enough to New York to be able to service it. I think it could be a superhub.

commavia wrote:

ldvaviation wrote:

If I am reading this right, not having a hub in Texas or the Southeast is a bigger problem than not having a hub in the Pacific Northwest/Rocky Mountain region. Is that your view of things?

At least with respect to the Rocky Mountain region, yes, that would generally be my personal view - the Rocky Mountain region is the least important U.S. region for airlines because it's the least important U.S. region, economically and demographically, overall.

Now I'm certainly not saying that there isn't plenty of money to be made in the Rocky Mountain region - there certainly is, particularly because it really only has two hubs and thus those two respective hub airlines often face just a duopoly, or largely a duopoly, in many of the smaller markets in the region.

But I would say, if I was laying out the optimal pieces on the chest board if a hypothetical U.S. airline CEO was starting out "from scratch," I'd happily give up a hub in DEN or SLC for ATL, DFW, and probably even IAH, any day of the week.

I wouldn't fully dismiss it. DEN and SLC can connect omnidirectionally in ways the coastal and midwest hubs can't. It helps too that DEN is set up almost exactly like ATL, and SLC's renovation will do the same. We'll see what UA does with Kirby behind the wheel with this summer's schedule, but they are being very aggressive in DEN with regards to making all kinds of new itineraries possible at a low overhead, efficient operation airport. In our hypothetical scenarios, DEN and SLC aren't must-have hubs in the way NYC and LAX are, sure, but they certainly contribute a lot of their respective major tenants' networks.

Also as far as the mountain west goes, sure, it's a much smaller population, but with the much lower density, there is a greater demand for air travel in many smaller communities. Look at how UA has been able to sustain lots of RJ service into smaller airports in CO, WY, MT, NM, KS etc. whereas they've struggled in similar small cities in other, more densely populated regions.

As far as geography goes, in this scenario, I think it's tough to come up with a better, more evenly-laid out hub network than UA's. Maybe a little more lift on the east coast would be nice, sure, but it's hard to look at the map and not think they have a very logical route map. It's amazing thinking all the opportunities they squandered.

But I digress. As for EWR, Kirby is certainly right that EWR is the only NYC airport that can be a fullscale hub. With that said, if we're asking if it's UA's ATL, that's asking a loaded question. No NYC airport can be a megahub in the way ATL or CLT are, but that's not really the point anyway. IAD probably could be a megahub for UA — if DCA were shut down (and probably if BWI didn't exist either.) But even then, if DC only had IAD, I doubt UA would have been able to run a hub out of there unchallenged from any other carrier what with it being the nation's capital with a lot of O&D. Just like at a good sex party, someone else would have wanted to get in on that.

Back in the ancient PMUA days, UA was at best an afterthought in the NYC market and had nothing else east of Chicago, so they threw much more weight into IAD. They still sling a lot of lower yielding domestic-to-Europe connections through there, but its role has been slightly reduced, in part because of the addition of EWR to UA's network. It was really the only hub Kirby didn't fully recommit to at the investor day, but with the MWAA doing some alchemy to lower costs, and as DCA and EWR will eventually max out, I can imagine UA would eventually start to build up IAD again into a more glorified hub. Never quite to a megahub level, but it certainly has the ability to be much more than it currently is.

intotheair wrote:

if DC only had IAD, I doubt UA would have been able to run a hub out of there unchallenged from any other carrier what with it being the nation's capital with a lot of O&D.

Same applies to EWR. In fact one similarity between IAD and EWR is that they are metropolitan hubs outside the city center that is served more conveniently from two airports that are more popular with travelers. EWR is just in a bigger market. While neither may be considered "megahubs", both are definitely fortress hubs.

Rocky Mountain towns and cities are actually quite profitable. Driving times are high and moreso in the winter, competition is very limited, and capacity is very limited as well. They are also flush with money. They can command very high fares and usually operate full flights. They might not produce a ton of volume compared to similar sized markets in other regions, but they do provide a steady high yielding stream of profit.

They may not wear suits and ties and attend business meetings every Monday in Chicago, but the people who own hundreds of acres of mountain land aren't poor.

It is pretty funny that the largest NYC hub is in New Jersey.

I don't understand the EWR vs JFK debate. The numbers speak for themselves.

According to Port Authority reports, LGA alone carries two times more New York City originating or destination passengers than EWR. 78% of LGA and 83% of JFK passengers are local NYC originating/terminating while EWR is 29% local NYC originating or terminating. 60% of EWR traffic is New Jersey or Pennsylvania originating/terminating. Further, even for lower Manhattan, LGA and JFK both are the preferred airports; 14% of EWR traffic is from lower Manhattan compared to 32% for both LGA and JFK.

EWR is a NYC area airport but it does not draw near as many passengers from NYC proper as either LGA or JFK.

Further, DL is the largest airline from NYC proper and is within 4% of UA in total passenger boardings from all 3 airports combined.

Because Delta carries a much lower percentage of connecting traffic at all 3 airports combined than United, it carries more local passengers than United.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2016.pdf

atl100million wrote:

According to Port Authority reports, LGA alone carries two times more New York City originating or destination passengers than EWR. 78% of LGA and 83% of JFK passengers are local NYC originating/terminating while EWR is 29% local NYC originating or terminating. 60% of EWR traffic is New Jersey or Pennsylvania originating/terminating. Further, even for lower Manhattan, LGA and JFK both are the preferred airports; 14% of EWR traffic is from lower Manhattan compared to 32% for both LGA and JFK.

EWR is a NYC area airport but it does not draw near as many passengers from NYC proper as either LGA or JFK.

Further, DL is the largest airline from NYC proper and is within 4% of UA in total passenger boardings from all 3 airports combined.

Because Delta carries a much lower percentage of connecting traffic at all 3 airports combined than United, it carries more local passengers than United.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2016.pdf

Thank for the regurgitated stats Tommy. However you're little factoid is a bit useless. What you ignore are higher yields, United commands at EWR. And your insinuation that NYC traffic is more valuable in the catchment area is not supported by any evidence nor really that important.

lat41 wrote:

For Southern New Englanders, the connection possibilities via EWR from PVD are awsome. The problem arises with a couple thunder claps or a few snowflakes in the air. These flights cancel a lot and if your vacation or business trip involves a long distance or less frequent destination, good luck. In the event UA cancels it's last EWR-PVD of the day, that all important first flight out the next day is scrubbed leaving outbound passengers fumbling. Word gets around, the audience shrinks and UA downgrades the equipment or frequency further. You can substitute PVD for a list of RJ cities in the Northeast that feed EWR. That is the problem I have with that hub that's not too "super".

I 've noticed this too. UA seems to consider connecting traffic at EWR as an afterthought or frosting on the revenue cake instead of an important part of its mission. That being said, EWR doesn't seem to have the capacity to be a great connecting facility and being the NYC go-to airline with nonstop service to the world. Yes, they offer connections, but they are very often sacrificed in favor of higher revenue high O&D focused flights. UA is a business after all so when conditions choke capacity, they keep the high money flights going and cancel or delay lower revenue connecting traffic. But by doing that as frequently as they do, they minimize the hub's effectiveness in favor of being a super O&D focus city. I think UA does a great job of serving western NYC, but EWR is one of the last places I want to connect. And I think UA doesn't care enough about that connecting traffic to provide reliable alternatives.

I am simply noting using the Port Authority’s own reports that EWR is the smallest of the 3 NYC airports in terms of the number of passengers that go to/from NYC proper. On a local vs. connecting basis, UA carries fewer local passengers from the 3 airports than DL does. EWR is an important part of the metro NYC airport system but it predominantly serves NJ and PA local passengers and it does not have a larger statistical draw for any part of NYC proper including lower Manhattan.
32% of the passengers at EWR are connecting which is twice the rate of LGA as an airport and more than JFK’s 22%. Given that most other carriers at EWR do not connect, UA’s rate of connections is higher than the airport as a whole.
UA does get higher average fares from local NYC passengers but the difference in UA’s larger size is almost directly related to the Asia flights which UA has and DL does not as well as UA’s larger presence to Latin America. Average fares from EWR have fallen from the removal of slot controls and new ultra low fare carriers.
In terms of serving NYC proper, DL is the largest airline because LGA and JFK both are the preferred airports for NYC. Further, while Kirby rightly talks about the impact to UA from UA leaving JFK, DL serves all 3 airports and has international flights from both JFK and EWR, the only US airline to have longhaul international flights from 2 airports in the same US metro area. Depending on the month, DL is offering between 2-4% more seats from all 3 NYC airports this summer than UA is.
Those are all facts and they simply validate that the CO and now UA hub carries more connecting passengers and serves a part of the NE outside of NYC proper that JFK and LGA do not and vice versa. DL’s dual hubs at JFK and LGA give it a higher share of the NYC market.
UA’s EWR and IAD hubs combined easily make it the largest airline from the NE in international and most domestic markets.

I believe that IAD will strengthen organically over the next decade as DCA maxes out.

Over the past 8 years the US-DL slot swap and subsequent US-AA merger meant that a lot of slots were divested at DCA, primarily to WN and B6 who flew larger planes at lower prices. This weakened IAD's already somewhat tenuous in-perimeter demand. Congress granting several rounds of beyond-perimeter rights further weakened domestic demand at IAD. As the largest carrier at IAD United was disproportionately affected by passengers flocking to DCA who previously made it to IAD for beyond-perimeter flight or lower fares in-perimeter.

This growth at DCA is basically over. It's unlikely there will be further divestures any time soon, and the airport is basically at capacity. Future growth will come at either IAD or BWI. Add in that NoVA is the fastest growing region of Metro DC, from where BWI is a PITA, and IAD will grow over the next decade in a way it hasn't over the last decade just by the principle of supply and demand. UA is well positioned to benefit from this, as increased demand will strengthen the regional routes necessary to run a proper omni-directional hub.

airzim wrote:

atl100million wrote:

According to Port Authority reports, LGA alone carries two times more New York City originating or destination passengers than EWR. 78% of LGA and 83% of JFK passengers are local NYC originating/terminating while EWR is 29% local NYC originating or terminating. 60% of EWR traffic is New Jersey or Pennsylvania originating/terminating. Further, even for lower Manhattan, LGA and JFK both are the preferred airports; 14% of EWR traffic is from lower Manhattan compared to 32% for both LGA and JFK.

EWR is a NYC area airport but it does not draw near as many passengers from NYC proper as either LGA or JFK.

Further, DL is the largest airline from NYC proper and is within 4% of UA in total passenger boardings from all 3 airports combined.

Because Delta carries a much lower percentage of connecting traffic at all 3 airports combined than United, it carries more local passengers than United.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2016.pdf

Thank for the regurgitated stats Tommy. However you're little factoid is a bit useless. What you ignore are higher yields, United commands at EWR. And your insinuation that NYC traffic is more valuable in the catchment area is not supported by any evidence nor really that important.

All that says is UA faces no competition for large portion of NJ/PA traffic close to New York city, so it can charge whatever it wants.

also nyc traffic does avoid EWR to a certain degree due to the lack of option out there rather than just being out of the way. Avoid UA = Avoid Newark.

intotheair wrote:

I wouldn't fully dismiss it. DEN and SLC can connect omnidirectionally in ways the coastal and midwest hubs can't.

intotheair wrote:

Also as far as the mountain west goes, sure, it's a much smaller population, but with the much lower density, there is a greater demand for air travel in many smaller communities. Look at how UA has been able to sustain lots of RJ service into smaller airports in CO, WY, MT, NM, KS etc. whereas they've struggled in similar small cities in other, more densely populated regions.

Completely agree on both counts. DEN and SLC shouldn't be dismissed, and absolutely are valuable hubs - both because of their role in the Rocky Mountain region specifically as well as the broader connections facilitated by their geography. But even with that, the Rocky Mountain region is still the least valuable region of the U.S. from an airline standpoint, in my view.

intotheair wrote:

As for EWR, Kirby is certainly right that EWR is the only NYC airport that can be a fullscale hub. With that said, if we're asking if it's UA's ATL, that's asking a loaded question. No NYC airport can be a megahub in the way ATL or CLT are, but that's not really the point anyway.

Definitely. EWR isn't ATL - wasn't meant to be, and of course never could be.

intotheair wrote:

IAD probably could be a megahub for UA — if DCA were shut down (and probably if BWI didn't exist either.) But even then, if DC only had IAD, I doubt UA would have been able to run a hub out of there unchallenged from any other carrier what with it being the nation's capital with a lot of O&D.

intotheair wrote:

Back in the ancient PMUA days, UA was at best an afterthought in the NYC market and had nothing else east of Chicago, so they threw much more weight into IAD. They still sling a lot of lower yielding domestic-to-Europe connections through there, but its role has been slightly reduced, in part because of the addition of EWR to UA's network.

Indeed. IAD would of course be a massive hub - in general - if DCA wasn't available as the much-preferred domestic O&D airport with far greater proximity to much of the region's most important traffic. And IAD would almost certainly be a far bigger hub - for United specifically - if United didn't have EWR. Once IAD and EWR were put together under the same airline brand, and had to coexist within the same network ecosystem, and United had the opportunity to optimize traffic (O&D and connecting) across both hubs, we saw what happened.

atl100million wrote:

In terms of serving NYC proper, DL is the largest airline because LGA and JFK both are the preferred airports for NYC.

While interesting, the "NYC proper" distinction - reinforced by Delta's own marketing and trotted out all the time by Delta fans - is largely meaningless in the context of this conversation. The number of people who cross the Hudson to fly somewhere misses the broader point - NYC metro, whether it's within New York City, in New York State outside of New York City, or in New Jersey, is all still NYC metro, as defined by the Census Bureau. United is a massive presence in NYC metro, and it's the only airline that has, and quite likely will ever have, a truly unified megahub in the metro. That is the point being made here.

atl100million wrote:

Further, while Kirby rightly talks about the impact to UA from UA leaving JFK, DL serves all 3 airports and has international flights from both JFK and EWR, the only US airline to have longhaul international flights from 2 airports in the same US metro area. Depending on the month, DL is offering between 2-4% more seats from all 3 NYC airports this summer than UA is.

It's great that Delta, like AA, flies to all three major NYC metro airports. It is, in the scheme of things, fairly meaningless that Delta has branded "international flights from both JFK and EWR" and is "the only US airline to have longhaul international flights from 2 airports in the same US metro area." Both AA and United - through their metal-neutral, revenue-sharing, antitrust-immunized joint ventures - also have international flights from JFK and EWR. And by that same standard, both AA and United, with their JV partners, also have international flights out of two airports in the Bay Area, and AA also has international flights out of two airports in South Florida and DC metro. And all that, too, is largely meaningless. Ultimately, again if given the choice in a hypothetical "clean slate" start of a notional airline from scratch with no other competitors and no restrictions on access, I'd still take United's hub at EWR any day of the week over any other airline's presence in NYC metro.

RyanairGuru wrote:

I believe that IAD will strengthen organically over the next decade as DCA maxes out.

Over the past 8 years the US-DL slot swap and subsequent US-AA merger meant that a lot of slots were divested at DCA, primarily to WN and B6 who flew larger planes at lower prices. This weakened IAD's already somewhat tenuous in-perimeter demand. Congress granting several rounds of beyond-perimeter rights further weakened domestic demand at IAD. As the largest carrier at IAD United was disproportionately affected by passengers flocking to DCA who previously made it to IAD for beyond-perimeter flight or lower fares in-perimeter.

This growth at DCA is basically over. It's unlikely there will be further divestures any time soon, and the airport is basically at capacity. Future growth will come at either IAD or BWI. Add in that NoVA is the fastest growing region of Metro DC, from where BWI is a PITA, and IAD will grow over the next decade in a way it hasn't over the last decade just by the principle of supply and demand. UA is well positioned to benefit from this, as increased demand will strengthen the regional routes necessary to run a proper omni-directional hub.

I don't disagree with the broader point, and I certainly think IAD's prospects will steadily improve as time goes on and more and more of the region's demand is naturally soaked up there out of necessity and growth specifically in NoVa. But I do question whether DCA growth is "basically over." I certainly agree that, at least as things seem to be going, DCA's grown in the next, say, five years is almost certainly going to be less than in the past five years. But with the terminal improvements going on at A and the new regional concourse, I suspect DCA still has more room for capacity growth - primarily through upgauging of mainline flying to larger aircraft, and the (continued) upgauging of more regional flying from smaller, single-class aircraft to 2-class RJs.

I think anyone who has lived in Manhattan for any length of time would come to realize there is a perceptual stigma placed upon New Jersey - going back to the days of Saturday Night Live making jokes like; "you're from Jersey? What exit?" - it is just not chic. I am born and raised in NYC, my parents moved to central NJ many years ago and there is even a reverse discrimination where some folks in NJ think I'm crazy to live in NYC. Yet, in an UBER, I would take Newark over JFK any day given traffic, and it's gotten better in the past 10 years. At 7am I can get to EWR in 25 minutes. Friday and Saturday night landings can be tough when get to the Holland Tunnel...but the ride from JFK is equally horrible and the monorail from Jamaica did nothing to help traffic (at least I haven't seen it!).
United cannot single handedly change the anti-NJ prejudice - but (IMHO) once every Twin aisle international flight has true Polaris, 787-10's and maybe A350's, new and renovated single aisle planes (few to no E145's) and the CLUBS are renovated and if service is great...there is no reason why people want be drawn to EWR like they were to Continental when they were considered the best. UA can have it's "worst to first" day in the sun. Also, northern NJ is filled with rich people (the ShortHills mall crowd), NJ is filled with major company offices, and hoards of business people who prefer EWR, aside from the finance community. I don't know what is taking UA so long to fix those clubs, it's obvious that UA's competition in the area is beating them and that it reflects so poorly on their premium service. Think of how many millions of premium international fliers, who've bought very expensive tickets experience UA in/out of EWR every year??? You'd think they would have EWR at the top of the list! MAKES NO SENSE.
Last, I love JFK and it was the first airport I've ever been to at the age of 2. I am awed driving through it: it's like an aviation Disneyland! I do wish United would put more effort into upgrading the passenger experience. They have done a great job in the terminal and with the concourses - often preferable to the United

Does anyone know who are UA's major contracts are with in NYC? I'd be so curious. My old company had a huge contract with United, which is really how I got hooked into UA. I was GS from the day the launched it - until the year I left that company. I miss having that status terribly.

The key part of this is that EWR is not chosen by NYC travelers as much as they choose LGA or JFK. JFK and LGA are in NYC while EWR is not which explains why EWR pulls from NJ and PA while LGA and JFK do not. If someone wants to argue that EWR is part of NYC, then it is equally fair to argue that LGA and JFK serve similar regions – but they do not. At some point you have to draw the line on any issue and recognize that EWR serves different markets from JFK and LGA and the two are not interchangeable.
EWR was also built to serve as a full-fledged global hub for CO but DL has grown to almost the same size as UA in NYC despite spreading its operation over multiple airports.
DL saw the opportunity to grow in NYC as a global carrier and did what neither AA or B6 have done in terms of size and network reach. DL’s NYC presence is far more complimentary to UA’s NYC presence because of the different reach each airport has although AA, DL and UA all compete for some of the same contracts. The picture in NYC is not static which means that DL could add Asia on its own metal and UA could possibly return to JFK if Kirby is able to argue that UA can get business it doesn’t have and can find space and slots at JFK.
As for the joint venture argument, JVs provide market access but there is no JV that provides for completely seamless products and services. It is no more accurate to say that AA and DL serve the NYC-Asia market in the same way that UA does even though AA and DL have partnerships with Asian carriers. In the same way, DL has its own aircraft on flights to Europe from BOS which neither AA or UA have and DL has its own aircraft in AA’s hub at PHL and UA’s hub at EWR while AA, DL, and UA also all benefit from their partners in other carriers’ hubs.
At some point, you have to admit that a spade is a spade. AA and DL don’t fly to Asia from NYC, EWR is in NJ and is not a NYC airport, DL carries more NYC passengers than any other airline, UA has a larger international presence than any other US airline both nationwide and in the NE, and DL has its own international routes from more NE airports than any other US airline. On the domestic side, AA is the largest domestic airline in the NE because of its multiple hubs.
Each of the US carriers have different strategies that each work but they need to be called what they are.

VC10er wrote:

I think anyone who has lived in Manhattan for any length of time would come to realize there is a perceptual stigma placed upon New Jersey - going back to the days of Saturday Night Live making jokes like; "you're from Jersey? What exit?" - it is just not chic. I am born and raised in NYC, my parents moved to central NJ many years ago and there is even a reverse discrimination where some folks in NJ think I'm crazy to live in NYC. Yet, in an UBER, I would take Newark over JFK any day given traffic, and it's gotten better in the past 10 years. At 7am I can get to EWR in 25 minutes. Friday and Saturday night landings can be tough when get to the Holland Tunnel...but the ride from JFK is equally horrible and the monorail from Jamaica did nothing to help traffic (at least I haven't seen it!).
United cannot single handedly change the anti-NJ prejudice - but (IMHO) once every Twin aisle international flight has true Polaris, 787-10's and maybe A350's, new and renovated single aisle planes (few to no E145's) and the CLUBS are renovated and if service is great...there is no reason why people want be drawn to EWR like they were to Continental when they were considered the best. UA can have it's "worst to first" day in the sun. Also, northern NJ is filled with rich people (the ShortHills mall crowd), NJ is filled with major company offices, and hoards of business people who prefer EWR, aside from the finance community. I don't know what is taking UA so long to fix those clubs, it's obvious that UA's competition in the area is beating them and that it reflects so poorly on their premium service. Think of how many millions of premium international fliers, who've bought very expensive tickets experience UA in/out of EWR every year??? You'd think they would have EWR at the top of the list! MAKES NO SENSE.
Last, I love JFK and it was the first airport I've ever been to at the age of 2. I am awed driving through it: it's like an aviation Disneyland! I do wish United would put more effort into upgrading the passenger experience. They have done a great job in the terminal and with the concourses - often preferable to the United

You make it sound like it takes so long to get to JFK and back from there.

You can definitely get to JFK in 25 minutes from Midtown in the early mornings. I've done that many times. You can get to JFK in under 45 minutes on most evenings, which I have also done many times. Even on pretty bad traffic days, I've been consistently able to go from JFK to midtown in under an hour.

There is a reason why even some *A carriers only go to JFK (SA, AV, OZ, SQ, BR, NH) or have more JFK flights than EWR (LH, LX). UA cannot interline with any of these flights, and this limits their ability to make EWR a true *A hub for NE USA.

I'm not going to argue about distance from Manhattan, as there are many definitions that can be taken from that, but JFK simply commands more traffic (business and leisure, alike). This is because for the majority of the NY metro area (i.e. east of the Hudson), JFK is going to be more convenient than EWR. Note also that NYC != Manhattan, especially when you see the various business centers of Stamford, New Haven, White Plains, Purchase, Garden City, LI City, etc. (EWR really only has Jersey City and Newark.) Additionally, LI is going to be much more densely populated than NJ. For example, 30 miles east of NYC is Levittown/Hicksville; west is Dover/Morristown. Hicksville is undoubtedly much more dense than Morris County. Additionally, both Queens and Brooklyn have higher density than even Hudson County NJ. IMO the Hudson River is the big barrier point, as any crossing will be a hellacious drive during the daytime. The bridges over the East River and LI Sound are not that bad.

This poses a problem for UA, which now has a catchment area of only NJ and Staten Island. This, combined with the sometimes higher prices UA commands for EWR flights than equivalent JFK flights, will limit their ability to make EWR a true megahub. (Now some may argue that higher prices are simply due to a lack of supply of gates, but JFK has full slots as well.)

atl100million wrote:

At some point, you have to admit that a spade is a spade. AA and DL don’t fly to Asia from NYC, EWR is in NJ and is not a NYC airport, DL carries more NYC passengers than any other airline, UA has a larger international presence than any other US airline both nationwide and in the NE, and DL has its own international routes from more NE airports than any other US airline. On the domestic side, AA is the largest domestic airline in the NE because of its multiple hubs.
Each of the US carriers have different strategies that each work but they need to be called what they are.

I am not sure the different strategies work. If you look at the matter strategically, it is turning out to be the case once again that the airline which can command most of the domestic traffic flows wins. At the moment, United on the east coast is not well-positioned to do that. Consolidation has made that even more of a problem for them because it has placed certain domestic assets (i.e., DCA/CLT with AA and LGA with Delta) in the hands of competitors with the wherewithal to expand internationally. What killed Pan Am could still any of the Big 3.

Matt6461 wrote:

Simple fix: Close the PANYNJ container terminal and move it to Staten Island, slap 2 runways on top of the vacated land, tear down the I-78 bridge and build a tunnel under Newark Bay, put I-95 in another tunnel across the expanded airport. $50bn should do it. No problem, Trump promised $1trillion for infrastructure.

What would it take for this to happen? Could one imagine having one airport for the whole NYC region given the amount of passengers flying to/from via NYC?

How much can one earn selling off the land of la guardia & JFK in order to build a super duper Newark airport? Could such a property deal make sense?

[quote="voxkel"]There is a reason why even some *A carriers only go to JFK (SA, AV, OZ, SQ, BR, NH) or have more JFK flights than EWR (LH, LX). UA cannot interline with any of these flights, and this limits their ability to make EWR a true *A hub for NE USA.

I'm not going to argue about distance from Manhattan, as there are many definitions that can be taken from that, but JFK simply commands more traffic (business and leisure, alike). This is because for the majority of the NY metro area (i.e. east of the Hudson), JFK is going to be more convenient than EWR. Note also that NYC != Manhattan, especially when you see the various business centers of Stamford, New Haven, White Plains, Purchase, Garden City, LI City, etc. (EWR really only has Jersey City and Newark.) Additionally, LI is going to be much more densely populated than NJ. For example, 30 miles east of NYC is Levittown/Hicksville; west is Dover/Morristown. Hicksville is undoubtedly much more dense than Morris County. Additionally, both Queens and Brooklyn have higher density than even Hudson County NJ. IMO the Hudson River is the big barrier point, as any crossing will be a hellacious drive during the daytime. The bridges over the East River and LI Sound are not that bad.

This poses a problem for UA, which now has a catchment area of only NJ and Staten Island. This, combined with the sometimes higher prices UA commands for EWR flights than equivalent JFK flights, will limit their ability to make EWR a true megahub. (Now some may argue that higher prices are simply due to a lack of supply of gates, but JFK has full slots as well.)[/quote


Northern NJ is one big business center, not just Jersey City and Newark.

Whatever the distance is, after 30 years it's 6 of one half dozen of the other. EWR can draw from Manhattan equally well. Especially if there is a darn good reason to go there: which is United becoming the carrier of choice - I just heard some of you laugh - but if they sped things up, it can get there. Memories are short and a lot can happen in a few years.

For about 6 or 7 years I went to Geneva once a month. When I was with colleagues, they insisted on flying SWISS from JFK and getting there was always HELL (we would miss the fight 2/3 times a year), then I switched to CO when I flew alone out of EWR because it was so much faster. Although, I do consider myself a bit mentally unstable, so perhaps you shouldn't listen to me. I was so bent on keeping my GS status and had to be on UA metal to keep it. I started flying LAG to IAD then UA to Geneva... but the UA seats were FAR and away more comfortable than either Swiss or CO, and UA would comp me into F. So, it was worth it. Then UA got the beds even before Swiss or CO. So, initially when UA and CO merged I was THRILLED, that was of course until Pandora's box was opened by Smisek!

atl100million wrote:

As for the joint venture argument, JVs provide market access but there is no JV that provides for completely seamless products and services. It is no more accurate to say that AA and DL serve the NYC-Asia market in the same way that UA does even though AA and DL have partnerships with Asian carriers. In the same way, DL has its own aircraft on flights to Europe from BOS which neither AA or UA have and DL has its own aircraft in AA’s hub at PHL and UA’s hub at EWR while AA, DL, and UA also all benefit from their partners in other carriers’ hubs.

What you are missing is that DL flying to Europe from markets like EWR and PHL flows from a position of weakness, not strength. Delta operates those routes as effectively a Delta Connection-esque carrier to Air France/KLM or Virgin Atlantic, flying 757/767 which are smaller than anything they have in their own fleet. Other than PHL-LHR and RDU-CDG, all routes that DL fly TATL that don't touch their own hub used to be operated by a partner carrier with larger aircraft (AF flew 747s to EWR for years) but over time they lost market share UA or AA and these routes became increasingly marginal for AF/KL. Therefore under the Atlantic JV they "outsourced" the flying to smaller aircraft.

It might give warm and fuzzies to "Delta people" to think they are taking the fight to UA and AA in their own hubs, but really these routes are an admission that the SkyTeam carriers can't hold their own in those markets. Until DL try a route which is not "Air France Connection" your rah-rah 'Delta is great because they fly from other carriers hubs' is misguided. Wake me up when Delta try something radical like EWR-GRU, then you can get excited.

ldvaviation wrote:

I am not sure the different strategies work. If you look at the matter strategically, it is turning out to be the case once again that the airline which can command most of the domestic traffic flows wins. At the moment, United on the east coast is not well-positioned to do that. Consolidation has made that even more of a problem for them because it has placed certain domestic assets (i.e., DCA/CLT with AA and LGA with Delta) in the hands of competitors with the wherewithal to expand internationally. What killed Pan Am could still any of the Big 3.

Since AA, DL and UA are all profitable, are within about 10% of each other in total revenue size, and compete in many more domestic markets than Pan Am ever did, I don't think there is any risk that any US airline will become like Pan Am if the comparison is lack of feed for their international network.
Further, none of the big 3 have achieved the "perfect network" and none are so far behind the others that they can't effectively compete.

United does have a larger international network in part because CO was much more international than any other carrier; the UA/CO merger helped add the domestic depth that CO lacked but AA and DL still have larger domestic networks.

Specific to NYC, UA's EWR hub is much more about NJ and PA than it is about NYC and there is nothing wrong with that but it does explain why DL has been able to build its NYC operations as much as it has using LGA and JFK and by connecting far less traffic.

In response to the thread title, there simply isn't enough room left at EWR or any other NE airport except perhaps IAD for any carrier to create a hub that doesn't already exist. The lack of space for expansion in the NE explains precisely why UA isn't about to walk away from its IAD operation on top of the fact that they are THE US international carrier from the Baltimore/Washington DC area.

Every carrier has its strengths and weaknesses and every hub makes its unique contributions.

Does anyone else remember when the US carriers were trying to get access to Tokyo Haneda daylight slots?
UA was trying to get a slot for a flight to EWR. However their partner ANA already had a daytime Haneda flight but it was to JFK.
I recall how adamant the a.net crowd was that EWR and JFK served 100 percent the same market. Their was no difference at all. No one dared argued otherwise or they would have been laughed off the page.
People were almost falling over themselves saying UA getting a EWR flight to Haneda would be a total waste because JFK and EWR were really almost next door to one another. This was the rationale for favoring DL getting preferred treatment. Now were back to the a.net status quo of people talking about how EWR is in NJ which is another market entirely.

I read an article in either the NYT or the Wall Street Journal in the 90's about CO's buildup in EWR. Being a DFW or ATL style superhub was never mentioned. At the time CO benefited from an attitude from DL, AA, and UA, that CO should not be taken seriously at EWR, because it's after all only CO, (an inferior airline they thought due to not being one of the big 3), and EWR being in New Jersey, and not in NYC proper. Then one day the big 3 woke up and realized CO was serious about this global vision they had for EWR. It was interesting reading at the time. Mind you this was over 20 years ago.

At one time CO served CLE and IAH from JFK. CO was always adding and dropping JFK never quite deciding if it was worth the trouble.

klwright69 wrote:

At one time CO served CLE and IAH from JFK. CO was always adding and dropping JFK never quite deciding if it was worth the trouble.

Those two routes specifically weren't because they were inside the LGA perimeter.

Does anyone remember the attempted CO focus city at LGA? It started in 2001 so the timing was awful and it got drawn down again very quickly. Had that been successful I think that CO would have eventually launched JFK-SFO/LAX. With the regions largest hub at EWR and focus cities targeting premium O&D routes from LGA and JFK, CO would have been unstoppable in New York.

That was a different time though, and maybe the LGA focus city was nothing more than hubris and deserves to be on the same scrap heap as Song. I don't know.

RyanGuru, In fact I do remember CO launching a focus city in LGA. Probably no one remembers here because it lasted a whole minute. I believe that in that one minute the FAA had lifted slots at LGA. It didn't last very long.

An interesting addendum to the discussion about relative distance of New York area airports has just popped up in another thread: UA's NYC Taxi Cab Marketing Scheme

Direct link to article: http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news ... -cabs.html

V/F

The weather the last couple of days demonstrates just how easily and extensively EWR gets derailed as a hub. Connections again sacrificed for high O&D flights. It will take days for flyers trying to make UA connections through EWR to get their plans reworked.

LotsaRunway wrote:

The weather the last couple of days demonstrates just how easily and extensively EWR gets derailed as a hub. Connections again sacrificed for high O&D flights. It will take days for flyers trying to make UA connections through EWR to get their plans reworked.

That is true of any large hub anywhere in the country that suffers a weather issue in the middle of the busy summer season, especially hubs that focus primarily on international connections and not domestic ones.

Polot wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

The weather the last couple of days demonstrates just how easily and extensively EWR gets derailed as a hub. Connections again sacrificed for high O&D flights. It will take days for flyers trying to make UA connections through EWR to get their plans reworked.

That is true of any large hub anywhere in the country that suffers a weather issue in the middle of the busy summer season, especially hubs that focus primarily on international connections and not domestic ones.

True. Weather does affect hubs everywhere. Even Phoenix is getting a dose of weather this week. The difference here is that UA treats EWR as a go to hub for more than international connections and it repeatedly demonstrates that constraints are too much to keep domestic connections reliable. Delays and cancellations appear to occur more often at this hub than most other US hubs. And then they don't have the northeast network to reroute domestic connections. As was discussed earlier, it would make more sense to route domestic connections through IAD and focus EWR on international and O&D traffic rather than pretending to be the Northeast point of nearly all connections. Unless EWR can grow more runways and flight capacity, it's trying to do too much for UA. It's a tail of two cities. NYC is well taken care of by UA as the local O&D is protected. This should probably be the goal for UA and minimize domestic connectivity. As it is, small to mid-sized domestic outstations are poorly cared for by UA when they depend on EWR for system connectivity during anything less than optimal weather, even international.

RyanairGuru wrote:

What you are missing is that DL flying to Europe from markets like EWR and PHL flows from a position of weakness, not strength. Delta operates those routes as effectively a Delta Connection-esque carrier to Air France/KLM or Virgin Atlantic, flying 757/767 which are smaller than anything they have in their own fleet. Other than PHL-LHR and RDU-CDG, all routes that DL fly TATL that don't touch their own hub used to be operated by a partner carrier with larger aircraft (AF flew 747s to EWR for years) but over time they lost market share UA or AA and these routes became increasingly marginal for AF/KL. Therefore under the Atlantic JV they "outsourced" the flying to smaller aircraft.

It might give warm and fuzzies to "Delta people" to think they are taking the fight to UA and AA in their own hubs, but really these routes are an admission that the SkyTeam carriers can't hold their own in those markets. Until DL try a route which is not "Air France Connection" your rah-rah 'Delta is great because they fly from other carriers hubs' is misguided. Wake me up when Delta try something radical like EWR-GRU, then you can get excited.

It all comes down to how many routes DL and its JV partners operate across the Atlantic compared to AA and UA and their respective joint venture partners.
No, it isn't a matter of weakness but strength.
If flying 757s was actually a sign of weakness, then a large portion of UA's network would have to be considered as such.
DL's EWR-CDG/AMS flights are on 767s for the majority of the year; surely you can't argue that a 767 is a sign of weakness.

DL and its joint venture partners are able to operate in markets that AA and UA cannot or do not. AA and UA do not operate their own transatlantic flights into other carrier hubs and DL and its JV partners offer as many or more transatlantic routes from its competitors hubs than AA or UA do.

The fact that DL provides the only legacy carrier transatlantic service from PIT and CVG which were both dehubbed shows that DL's strategy works. CVG is on a 767 as well.

DL has service on its own metal from 4 NE airports ON TOP OF what its JV partners operate.

DL also serves the most cities in Europe now that UA has pulled BFS, IIRC.

If you are convinced that DL's strategy is one of weakness rather than strength, you should be able to show that the bottom line total number of markets/cities and revenue doesn't add up.

I haven't done the math but you certainly should if you are going to argue that DL's strategy is one of weakness.