Hello ALL,
Currently, NYC is filled with new UNITED "outdoor" advertising, mostly thousands of taxi-top and bus shelter ads. They remind me of legacy Continental's very effective "Work Hard, Fly Right" outdoor ads, each of which had a cleverly written message or claim...which worked for many years (during CO's heyday) until they ran out of "clever" messages. That said, for all of the years those ads ran, they were ALL very strongly BRANDED, so wether you read the clever line or not...it was, in the flash of the eye, a CONTINENTAL brand impression. Continental was deemed something special out of NYC for many and folks did go to EWR just for them.

It seems like UNITED has returned to that old effective ad strategy, but in my personal and professional opinion these new ads are no where near as good or effective as CO's, and have a critical fault that CO's ads never had. First, (IMHO) they are HORRIBLY designed or branded. They use the strangest dark, dingy and dull color of blue that does not visually pop, and so poorly branded that in a flash of an eye don't register as "UNITED" (or anything). "Fly the Friendly Skies" is small and buried in the corner. They carry zero emotional pull. But my major issue is with the headline that says "The New United in New York" - and rather than "clever" lines, they carry claims in LARGE type, all of which are the good claims UA can truthfully make. But, my major issue with these ads (aside from the design/branding) is the claim about being "The New United". I absolutely think UA is better than it's been in a very long time. The pain and agony pf the merger is over. But this "promise" of a "New UNITED" currently can't truly be experienced (especially for premium business fliers) as much of what is due to come has not arrived yet, and wont for a long time.

I have spent 30 years in branding (and advertising) and learned a very important lesson; that making that promise that a brand cannot really keep is deadly. The "promise" of a "NEW UNITED" for "New York City" is way too premature right now, and that wooing fliers back before Polaris is available, new Polaris lounges are far opening soon, no new aircraft (no 787's, 77W's), p.s. is not competitive yet, not enough of the new domestic F cabins and seats yet, the "new" beautiful United Clubs (except for the one in icky Terminal A) haven't even started renovations yet in Terminal C, that TC is under construction and while service has improved overall - the chest pounding over the "new spirit of United" isn't really palpable yet.

I honestly believe that Mr Munoz can get UNITED where he says he want to take it, and draw people to Newark and to a great airline. There can be an awesome "come-back story" one day. But, EWR is so lacking in any of that right now, that adverting a "new experience" for New York City is a mistake. It may bring someone back, one willing to give UA another chance, but when not fulfilled, they will have lost that customer once and for all. (fool me once....etc). In my opinion, once there is at least the majority of Long-Haul, and ULH flights have Polaris, a Polaris lounge, new United Clubs and better narrow body domestic product, and consistent customer focused service network-wide, that a UNITED RE-LAUNCH should wait.

Questions: Is this same message being sent in other UA hub cities? Anybody know who's is making these ads? Anyone disagree?

But, the last thing I do want to say is, that the UNITED team have (in my experience) made a 180 in service and attitude and I really appreciate the hard work you have done, thank you!

I can tell you those ads are EVERYWHERE. On top of taxicabs, bus stop shelters, in the subways....they're not very original and are almost a carbon copy of what Continental Airlines did back in the late 1990's and early 2000s minus the cute "The Oranges To Orange County: Nonstop" tags promoting all their destinations at the time. It does seem as though UA is trying to promote itself as NYC's airline. Delta does the same promoting JFK and LGA and Jet Blue will always remind you they are the only airline to actually he HQ'd in NY. That said, good to see UA being more aggressive and working to end its reputation as an industry laggard.

This 100%. I was in NYC two weeks ago and saw more United ads in 5 days than I have the rest of my life combined. Most were tacky visually, featuring nothing but uninspired lines like "More flights from Newark, less traffic from NY", "The Most On-Time Departures in Our History", "The new United in New York".

IMO, the branding department really needs to take a lesson from pre-merger UA. I don't want this to get into a Tulip vs Globe debate, but they succeeded in making memorable, visually eye-catching ads, whereas these new ads are nothing more than text on a blue background. I'm glad they're at least trying to fight for NYC passengers.

Still, I can't imagine UA being a competitive option for people in Queens/Brooklyn/Long Island when they have Delta at LGA/JFK right next door offering almost 500 daily departures and a better product. By contrast, UA is only 400 daily from EWR. With a less convenient schedule, high cab/tunnel fees to New Jersey, and irregular NJT schedules, there's not a compelling reason for New York O&D to make the jump to UA.

It is so disheartening that they are spending so much media money on such terrible creative. United: are you reading this?

I think, like Continental, that United could become a strong enough magnet for Manhattanites (except perhaps for the Upper East Side perhaps) and the northern Tri-state. I agree that legacy UA knew how to create an emotional pull with their adverting. Continental did a great job joining the emotional and rational in one ad. If people came to believe that United from EWR was a great experience, it would draw New Yorkers. In fact when CO was HOT, it was a favorite people were willing to travel for. I live on 10th st, and I find JFK much, much worse to get to and not much of a price difference by taxi, black car or UBER.

But United does not yet have the product and services in place to fight Delta. It could, it seems as if they will, but not yet. I am on my first 77W in Polaris soon and shall see.

I wish I could take a shot at redesigning those ads, and creating better content.

VC10er wrote:

It is so disheartening that they are spending so much media money on such terrible creative. United: are you reading this?
I think, like Continental, that United could become a strong enough magnet for Manhattanites (except perhaps for the Upper East Side perhaps) and the northern Tri-state. I agree that legacy UA knew how to create an emotional pull with their adverting. Continental did a great job joining the emotional and rational in one ad. If people came to believe that United from EWR was a great experience, it would draw New Yorkers. In fact when CO was HOT, it was a favorite people were willing to travel for. I live on 10th st, and I find JFK much, much worse to get to and not much of a price difference by taxi, black car or UBER.
But United does not yet have the product and services in place to fight Delta. It could, it seems as if they will, but not yet. I am on my first 77W in Polaris soon and shall see.
I wish I could take a shot at redesigning those ads, and creating better content.

I second your nomination! I think one of the problems we are seeing is that, despite the incredible rise in profits among the majors, airlines are reluctant to spend dollars on professional agencies, and rely more and more on in-house production staff. (in politics, it would be called an "echo chamber).

The result is almost-the-same-old, only-slightly-rehashed drivel that you saw before the "new, ingenious" campaign was introduced: too much creation-by-committee, not enough true creative work. And creativity is what keeps a brand alive.

So who in the last 30 years has had the best in your opinion. Give examples please.

VC10er wrote:

If people came to believe that United from EWR was a great experience, it would draw New Yorkers. In fact when CO was HOT, it was a favorite people were willing to travel for.

The insinuation of your statement being that since the merger UA has fallen out of favor with NYers (OR at the very least for sake of argument at very least just below what CO had pre merger?) Just asking-I'm on the west coast-haven't been to NY in ages (But yes remember CO's ads all over Manhattan back in the day-I figured UA maintained the status quo CO had-but that was before DL blew up at LGA and beefed up JFK)...so curious if indeed DL has edged UA out a bit -at least with Manhattan flyers.

One of the things at play here is that United has lost ground in NYC and now is going on the offensive to win it back.

Per Kirby, 10 years ago, the combined airlines had just over 30 percent of the market share in greater New York, today its down to 26 percent.

Even before the merger I was a lot of Continental ads in NYC. It doesn't matter though, unless you live in lower Manhattan UA can't be a NYC contender because they don't serve JFK, have a handful of flights out of LGA, and EWR is not NYC, it is NJ/PA traffic. Most in certain parts of NYC, the rest of NY state, and CT don't even consider EWR as an option, it's all JFK and LGA.

ridgid727 wrote:

So who in the last 30 years has had the best in your opinion. Give examples please.

I think the late-1980s United Rhapsody in Blue ads were so compelling and dramatic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEpZNKAunIk

I love this one with the 747SP and all the mechanics being featured against the music. It not only draws out the excitement of aviation, but the Rhapsody in Blue makes it directly associated with United. I grew up in Minneapolis and Northwest was my hometown airline. But I always recall this series of ads that made me decide I wanted to dedicate my life to aviation.

Have not seen in New York, but United's new branding and advertising is meh and misleading elsewhere. Last week I was flying out of Kansas City where United flies RJs and at the most 737/A320 yet all advertising featured "brand new Polaris", 77W and 787. I get it that is your new cool thing, but why advertise something you cannot offer to that market?

FlyUSAir wrote:

Even before the merger I was a lot of Continental ads in NYC. It doesn't matter though, unless you live in lower Manhattan UA can't be a NYC contender because they don't serve JFK, have a handful of flights out of LGA, and EWR is not NYC, it is NJ/PA traffic. Most in certain parts of NYC, the rest of NY state, and CT don't even consider EWR as an option, it's all JFK and LGA.

That's a bit of an overstatement. EWR is very much a NYC airport. It is a viable option for all of Manhattan, which makes up the bulk of Greater New York's HVF traffic. Lower Manhattan is the closest and accessible via PATH, Midtown is only a 25 train ride away (fastest of all 3 via public transportation), and the upper West/East sides are just as close to JFK as EWR. Staten Island is also much better served by EWR. Additionally, for international or transcontinental flights, LGA is not an option, so it's just between JFK and EWR. Only Brooklyn and Queens residents would be strictly discouraged from using EWR. And if you offer even a $30 fare difference, I'm sure most pax would take the cheaper ticket in exchange for a longer commute.

TW870 wrote:

ridgid727 wrote:

So who in the last 30 years has had the best in your opinion. Give examples please.

I think the late-1980s United Rhapsody in Blue ads were so compelling and dramatic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEpZNKAunIk
I love this one with the 747SP and all the mechanics being featured against the music. It not only draws out the excitement of aviation, but the Rhapsody in Blue makes it directly associated with United. I grew up in Minneapolis and Northwest was my hometown airline. But I always recall this series of ads that made me decide I wanted to dedicate my life to aviation.

Absolutely! The Rhapsody in Blue theme had a "class" that is totally missing in today's ads - and whenever you heard the music, you immediately thought of UA.

My personal favorite was the orchestra performing in the airplane - and the comparison of precision needed in music and precision needed in flying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Gak1JOito

Obviously the advertising is working as those of you that are complaining about it saw it... and saw it everywhere. That's all that it's meant to do is to create top of mind awareness and it looks like it's working.

Can anyone get some pics of it? I want to see this!

theasianguy wrote:

FlyUSAir wrote:

Even before the merger I was a lot of Continental ads in NYC. It doesn't matter though, unless you live in lower Manhattan UA can't be a NYC contender because they don't serve JFK, have a handful of flights out of LGA, and EWR is not NYC, it is NJ/PA traffic. Most in certain parts of NYC, the rest of NY state, and CT don't even consider EWR as an option, it's all JFK and LGA.

That's a bit of an overstatement. EWR is very much a NYC airport. It is a viable option for all of Manhattan, which makes up the bulk of Greater New York's HVF traffic. Lower Manhattan is the closest and accessible via PATH, Midtown is only a 25 train ride away (fastest of all 3 via public transportation), and the upper West/East sides are just as close to JFK as EWR. Staten Island is also much better served by EWR. Additionally, for international or transcontinental flights, LGA is not an option, so it's just between JFK and EWR. Only Brooklyn and Queens residents would be strictly discouraged from using EWR. And if you offer even a $30 fare difference, I'm sure most pax would take the cheaper ticket in exchange for a longer commute.

As someone who has grown up and lived in the tri-state area practically my entire life, I completely disagree that it would take a small price difference to get people from Queens and Brooklyn to go over to EWR. A cab alone would probably cost you 60-70 to EWR and that probably doesn't factor tolls, tip or the inconvenience of having to travel significantly farther (and possibly through significantly more traffic) to get there.

I think the airport of preference for people is highly dependent on where they live in Manhattan. It can easily take over a half hour to drive crosstown during the day. Upper east and west side are in close proximity to LGA. Midtown east would probably be split between LGA and JFK. Midtown west is easier to get to EWR by car. I think downtown is a wash of driving to EWR or JFK.

Train-wise, I think it depends who you ask. If you live on the east side, E is pretty convenient in getting to Jamaica and catching the Airtrain. I've taken both NJ transit and LIRR to the airports as well. Both take about the same amount of time (JFK is maybe a few minutes longer). However, LIRR has significantly more trains running between Penn and Jamaica, which makes it way more convenient in my eyes. I've had to wait 30-40 minutes for a train at EWR due to some very long weekend gaps between trains.

Another factor to consider is when your flight departs or arrives out of New York. I landed on an international flight which arrived into JFK at 4:50am, got through immigration in 5 minutes (granted this was due to global entry), picked up my suitcase and grabbed a cab to Manhattan and did it all in under an hour and a half. If this has been mid-day, there's probably no way I'd take a cab into the city.

Anyway, I apologize for the side discussion. I have noticed a lot more United advertising across the city recently and I tend to agree with many of the posters who say they're not as creative as many of the old CO advertisements. It doesn't mean that it won't be effective but I just think they could've done a better job in executing the outreach.

Looks like the ads are working very well.

VC10er wrote:

Hello ALL,
Currently, NYC is filled with new UNITED "outdoor" advertising, mostly thousands of taxi-top and bus shelter ads. They remind me of legacy Continental's very effective "Work Hard, Fly Right" outdoor ads, each of which had a cleverly written message or claim...which worked for many years (during CO's heyday) until they ran out of "clever" messages. That said, for all of the years those ads ran, they were ALL very strongly BRANDED, so wether you read the clever line or not...it was, in the flash of the eye, a CONTINENTAL brand impression. Continental was deemed something special out of NYC for many and folks did go to EWR just for them.

It seems like UNITED has returned to that old effective ad strategy, but in my personal and professional opinion these new ads are no where near as good or effective as CO's, and have a critical fault that CO's ads never had. First, (IMHO) they are HORRIBLY designed or branded. They use the strangest dark, dingy and dull color of blue that does not visually pop, and so poorly branded that in a flash of an eye don't register as "UNITED" (or anything). "Fly the Friendly Skies" is small and buried in the corner. They carry zero emotional pull. But my major issue is with the headline that says "The New United in New York" - and rather than "clever" lines, they carry claims in LARGE type, all of which are the good claims UA can truthfully make. But, my major issue with these ads (aside from the design/branding) is the claim about being "The New United". I absolutely think UA is better than it's been in a very long time. The pain and agony pf the merger is over. But this "promise" of a "New UNITED" currently can't truly be experienced (especially for premium business fliers) as much of what is due to come has not arrived yet, and wont for a long time.

I have spent 30 years in branding (and advertising) and learned a very important lesson; that making that promise that a brand cannot really keep is deadly. The "promise" of a "NEW UNITED" for "New York City" is way too premature right now, and that wooing fliers back before Polaris is available, new Polaris lounges are far opening soon, no new aircraft (no 787's, 77W's), p.s. is not competitive yet, not enough of the new domestic F cabins and seats yet, the "new" beautiful United Clubs (except for the one in icky Terminal A) haven't even started renovations yet in Terminal C, that TC is under construction and while service has improved overall - the chest pounding over the "new spirit of United" isn't really palpable yet.

I honestly believe that Mr Munoz can get UNITED where he says he want to take it, and draw people to Newark and to a great airline. There can be an awesome "come-back story" one day. But, EWR is so lacking in any of that right now, that adverting a "new experience" for New York City is a mistake. It may bring someone back, one willing to give UA another chance, but when not fulfilled, they will have lost that customer once and for all. (fool me once....etc). In my opinion, once there is at least the majority of Long-Haul, and ULH flights have Polaris, a Polaris lounge, new United Clubs and better narrow body domestic product, and consistent customer focused service network-wide, that a UNITED RE-LAUNCH should wait.

Questions: Is this same message being sent in other UA hub cities? Anybody know who's is making these ads? Anyone disagree?

But, the last thing I do want to say is, that the UNITED team have (in my experience) made a 180 in service and attitude and I really appreciate the hard work you have done, thank you!

If it's everywhere. Why no pics to show us. Badly colored ad would show up easily, so show those of us that are not in NYC what your complaining about.

Trust me, kids, the ads are fine.

You may think they are "boring" and "not fancy" and "uninspired" but the audience for them is moving, either on foot, bike or in a car. Or the ad itself is moving. Simple words for a simple message.
This isn't sitting around admiring a masterpiece like "Sunday Afternoon On The Island of La Grande Jatte."

what most people recognize the united brand most for is cancelled, delayed and super subpar customer service. That's why the minions up to the super elites left in droves during the Smisek regime. Rest assured, all the advertising wont help, that is of course, unless they defected to AA in which case I can see UA winning back a few folks here and there. NYC for the most part is the home of Delta and JetBlue. UA can advertise all they want in the city, its a waste of money. They ply there trade across the Hudson in the swamps of Jersey.

Hmm, another strange negative thread towards UA. What's the deal. I believe WN and UA ads have been the most compelling for years. They almost always speak of a tangible product, service, or performance.

VC10er wrote:

Questions: Is this same message being sent in other UA hub cities? Anybody know who's is making these ads? Anyone disagree?

I disagree and have a question for you. Why in your view is it not proper to advertise products and performances that exist and are available for purchase? I mean, is the airline supposed to wait X amount of years or something?

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:

Have not seen in New York, but United's new branding and advertising is meh and misleading elsewhere. Last week I was flying out of Kansas City where United flies RJs and at the most 737/A320 yet all advertising featured "brand new Polaris", 77W and 787. I get it that is your new cool thing, but why advertise something you cannot offer to that market?

Are airlines only supposed to advertise non-stop products or something? What's the deal?

MSPNWA wrote:

Hmm, another strange negative thread towards UA.

Negative, but laughable. To say UA is known for poor service and a city belongs to DL clearly indicates that the poster has never travelled (or tried to travel) even semi-regularly with DL Connection.

MSPNWA wrote:

I disagree and have a question for you. Why in your view is it not proper to advertise products and performances that exist and are available for purchase? I mean, is the airline supposed to wait X amount of years or something?

I suspect the issue lies in the products in question not being widely available from the NYC market yet -- thus raising customer expectations while not being able to meet those expectations consistently. If your marketing convinces premium customers to plunk down a bunch of money for a product which can't be consistently delivered (even just most of the time), those customers may end up choosing the competition in future instead. Even though they are far from perfect, Delta does a better job of consistently delivering their product and service and that's part of why they have become the market leader in NYC. Similarly, even though Southwest's product is low-frills, they also are quite consistent in delivering the service their customers have come to expect.

usflyguy wrote:

Obviously the advertising is working as those of you that are complaining about it saw it... and saw it everywhere. That's all that it's meant to do is to create top of mind awareness and it looks like it's working.

Eh, that's not entirely clear given the audience of this particular website. The type of people who read or type a post into this site are absolutely not the general public and make up a tiny subset of the people actually purchasing premium seats. But without pictures it's tough to judge for oneself if the advertising catches the eye -- particularly when mounted on vehicles where there may only be a few seconds for the ad to catch the eye.

ScottB wrote:

I suspect the issue lies in the products in question not being widely available from the NYC market yet -- thus raising customer expectations while not being able to meet those expectations consistently. If your marketing convinces premium customers to plunk down a bunch of money for a product which can't be consistently delivered (even just most of the time), those customers may end up choosing the competition in future instead. Even though they are far from perfect, Delta does a better job of consistently delivering their product and service and that's part of why they have become the market leader in NYC. Similarly, even though Southwest's product is low-frills, they also are quite consistent in delivering the service their customers have come to expect.

If that's the issue, then it's simply people looking for any reason to find an issue. The OP finds fault with UA advertising a "new spirit". Best-ever operational performance, a long-awaited enhancement to the entire business class experience, and hopefully good service isn't enough? If you have to wait X number of years, then is it really "new" anymore? It's simply ridiculous to expect any business to not advertise better products and services until they can be somehow "guaranteed" to a certain percentage. If that's the arbitrary benchmark, we'd wouldn't have much advertising except for vague, subjective ads that build a "perception" of better, e.g. DL's "brand" ads. And even those would have to be criticized if they don't match the product X% of the time.

jumbojet wrote:

what most people recognize the united brand most for is cancelled, delayed and super subpar customer service. That's why the minions up to the super elites left in droves during the Smisek regime. Rest assured, all the advertising wont help, that is of course, unless they defected to AA in which case I can see UA winning back a few folks here and there. NYC for the most part is the home of Delta and JetBlue. UA can advertise all they want in the city, its a waste of money. They ply there trade across the Hudson in the swamps of Jersey.

Here we go

jumbojet wrote:

NYC for the most part is the home of Delta and JetBlue.

ScottB wrote:

Even though they are far from perfect, Delta does a better job of consistently delivering their product and service and that's part of why they have become the market leader in NYC.

2016 passenger totals (combined LGA + EWR + JFK):
1. United 29,111,000
2. Delta 28,848,000
3. American 17,758,000
4. JetBlue 16,810,000

I drank the UA "kool-aid" in the 80's and the 90's, but seeing a bunch of ads all over NYC (or wherever) does not inspire me to return to the "new" UA. I don't have faith in UA as a brand. Old habits die hard. I thought a bit of CO would help them, but clearly, blind faith isn't exactly my best friend.

It's way too early for UA to say they are "new." Maybe in ten years, things will be better. After all, Rome wasn't built in a day so only time will tell. But I'm not holding my breath.

And I'm not trying to be a UA-basher just because I was once a former DL-fanboy. I just want consistency and reliability and I want my trust back in an airline that is truly customer-focused.

And they say Air Koryo is a 1-star airline.

CO was a much smaller airline. They absolutely needed EWR. They were the sole airline hub in NYC area. EWR has most pax in the region. Ads reflected a hometown dominance and pride.

That was late 90s, this is today.

UA is a much larger airline. EWR is very important, but one of many hubs that is very important. Delta is just as big if not bigger. Huge LCC presence in B6. Those two have swung JFK into the dominant airport in the region by a large margin.

The ads are good imo. They harken back to a time when the CO hub was the only dominant force in the region. That is no longer the case though.

There is one strength that UA still has over DL: nonstops to Asia. They should really push the ads on this more.

DL will put you on Air China or connect you in DTW. No one wants to fly Air China and a non stop from NY beats DTW.

jfklganyc wrote:

CO was a much smaller airline. They absolutely needed EWR. They were the sole airline hub in NYC area. EWR has most pax in the region. Ads reflected a hometown dominance and pride.

That was late 90s, this is today.

UA is a much larger airline. EWR is very important, but one of many hubs that is very important. Delta is just as big if not bigger. Huge LCC presence in B6. Those two have swung JFK into the dominant airport in the region by a large margin.

But only one airline can take you nonstop to most business and leisure destinations, nonstop, with multiple daily frequency, from one airport on a single airline. United at EWR. This is not debatable. Delta can't, American can't, and jetBlue certainly can't.

United's ads are designed to educate New Yorkers, that Newark is a viable alternative to JFK and LGA. If single carrier service is important to you, United at EWR might be worth a look.

airzim wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

CO was a much smaller airline. They absolutely needed EWR. They were the sole airline hub in NYC area. EWR has most pax in the region. Ads reflected a hometown dominance and pride.

That was late 90s, this is today.

UA is a much larger airline. EWR is very important, but one of many hubs that is very important. Delta is just as big if not bigger. Huge LCC presence in B6. Those two have swung JFK into the dominant airport in the region by a large margin.

But only one airline can take you nonstop to most business and leisure destinations, nonstop, with multiple daily frequency, from one airport on a single airline. United at EWR. This is not debatable. Delta can't, American can't, and jetBlue certainly can't.

United's ads are designed to educate New Yorkers, that Newark is a viable alternative to JFK and LGA. If single carrier service is important to you, United at EWR might be worth a look.

That's the goal, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just inconvenient compared to JFK/LGA for most people in Manhattan. I see EWR as a last resort airport and I live in midtown. Try to get through holland tunnel on Friday afternoon or go from east side to Penn station, wait for the nj transit. Not a fun experience.

On the other hand, Jersey folks see EWR as their only option for longer flights. My colleagues over there would rather fly economy out of EWR than business out of JFK.

tphuang wrote:

That's the goal, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just inconvenient compared to JFK/LGA for most people in Manhattan. I see EWR as a last resort airport and I live in midtown. Try to get through holland tunnel on Friday afternoon or go from east side to Penn station, wait for the nj transit. Not a fun experience.

On the other hand, Jersey folks see EWR as their only option for longer flights. My colleagues over there would rather fly economy out of EWR than business out of JFK.

I'm not going to get into this debate again, but the fact is, EWR is not more inconvenient for "most" people in Manhattan than JFK/LGA. To some, yes. to others, no. And to the vast majority, the incremental differences are not meaningful enough to matter.

That's the point of this ad. The perception is EWR is father away and less convenient. Why that is, who knows. But having lived in NYC over 10 years, as slow as the tunnels are, the same could be said for the Kosciusko Bridge, the Triboro, or any cross attempt in rush hour.

A few weeks ago I took the train from EWR to manhattan and it was a breeze. Much easier than the bus at LGA that connects to a crowded subway train.

FlyUSAir wrote:

Even before the merger I was a lot of Continental ads in NYC. It doesn't matter though, unless you live in lower Manhattan UA can't be a NYC contender because they don't serve JFK, have a handful of flights out of LGA, and EWR is not NYC, it is NJ/PA traffic. Most in certain parts of NYC, the rest of NY state, and CT don't even consider EWR as an option, it's all JFK and LGA.

EWR can be better than JFK from the west side as well.

I live in Brooklyn Heights and work in Downtown Manhattan. It's faster for me to take public transit to EWR than JFK for both work and leisure. Hop on the express 2/3 train to Penn Station and then transfer to the NJ Transit train. Takes about 45-50 minutes total with perfect connections and a little over an hour if I just miss a train. Compared to JFK which is a long, slow ride on the A train then a long transfer at the Air Train. It can sometimes take me 1:15. In a car it's a tossup depending on traffic - though I would never cross the Holland Tunnel on Friday after work (made that mistake once, never again). In that case I learned from my coworkers that the best move is to take the ferry across the Hudson to NJ and then cab it to EWR from there.

The multiple transportation options to EWR combined with the fact that UA has the best non-stop network out of NYC makes me choose them as my carrier of choice.

tphuang wrote:

Try to get through holland tunnel on Friday afternoon or go from east side to Penn station, wait for the nj transit. Not a fun experience.

That's not fair. It's a nightmare to get to JFK from Manhattan by car just as often as it's a nightmare to get to EWR by car. I've been stuck in traffic for over an hour trying to get to JFK in a cab.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Try to get through holland tunnel on Friday afternoon or go from east side to Penn station, wait for the nj transit. Not a fun experience.

That's not fair. It's a nightmare to get to JFK from Manhattan by car just as often as it's a nightmare to get to EWR by car. I've been stuck in traffic for over an hour trying to get to JFK in a cab.

Obviously, this is based on one's experience, so there will be disagreements.

For cab/car services, JFK is normally one hour during the afternoon rush hours from midtown for me. I was stuck outside of holland tunnel for an hour on multiple occasions, so getting from union square to EWR took close to 2 hours.

public transport to JFK from manhattan, taking LIRR from penn station has been the fastest for me. Around any other part of manhattan, E train is normally a lot faster than A train.

A normal afternoon experience to EWR for me on public transport has been an hour from penn station to the terminal (including the wait time for the train itself) and whatever amount of time it takes to get to penn station. Now try coming back to upper east side for a late night flight. The trains come once an hour by then and you have to figure out how to get home from penn station.

DoctorVenkman wrote:

I live in Brooklyn Heights and work in Downtown Manhattan. It's faster for me to take public transit to EWR than JFK for both work and leisure.

Now you did it.

I also lived in Brooklyn for 10 years and often found almost no difference between EWR and JFK by car, and found EWR faster using public transportation. But I was run off the boards here by those who don't even live in NYC telling me I'm making it up and I'm just a EWR fanboy. No matter what the facts and real numbers are, get ready because a bunch of people (who again don't even live in the city) are going to try to make you feel really dumb.

Everyone in the EWR vs JFK echo chamber love to talk about the holland tunnel at 4pm Friday, but fail to mention the other 164 hours during the week when it really isn't a problem.

tphuang wrote:

A normal afternoon experience to EWR for me on public transport has been an hour from penn station to the terminal (including the wait time for the train itself) and whatever amount of time it takes to get to penn station. Now try coming back to upper east side for a late night flight. The trains come once an hour by then and you have to figure out how to get home from penn station.

It's no different to/from JFK. It's a 40 minute train ride from the airport to JFK to penn station. It's 30 minutes from EWR to penn. And LIRR also runs a night schedule, so good luck coming from JFK after a late flight.

But this debate has been beat to death on this site, so all I'll say is this and then I'm done. Its all about perception. If Newark was in the state of New York and JFK was in the hypothetical state of Long Island, people would complain about how hard it is to cross the east river and sing the praises of the convenience of EWR.

B737900ER wrote:

tphuang wrote:

But this debate has been beat to death on this site, so all I'll say is this and then I'm done. Its all about perception. If Newark was in the state of New York and JFK was in the hypothetical state of Long Island, people would complain about how hard it is to cross the east river and sing the praises of the convenience of EWR.

This is very true. People are fickle. I have a hard time convincing my friends in Chelsea to visit Brooklyn Heights even though it's only 15 minutes on the subway. It might as well be Mexico for all they are concerned. They'd rather travel 30 minutes to UES because in their mind it's still in Manhattan.

Much more frequent trains Jamaica to Penn vs Newark Airport station to Penn

Land at 2pm (midday weekday) today and you're waiting 30 minutes at EWR for NJT to Penn.

That's not perception...it is very real.

Back to topic... the new UA ads look an awful lot like Prudential's latest work. So much that I almost have to do a double-take when I see an example of either.

It's good to see UA back on the offensive in New York for the first time since the CO days, but I think the campaign leaves something to be desired.

B737900ER wrote:

tphuang wrote:

A normal afternoon experience to EWR for me on public transport has been an hour from penn station to the terminal (including the wait time for the train itself) and whatever amount of time it takes to get to penn station. Now try coming back to upper east side for a late night flight. The trains come once an hour by then and you have to figure out how to get home from penn station.

It's no different to/from JFK. It's a 40 minute train ride from the airport to JFK to penn station. It's 30 minutes from EWR to penn. And LIRR also runs a night schedule, so good luck coming from JFK after a late flight.

But this debate has been beat to death on this site, so all I'll say is this and then I'm done. Its all about perception. If Newark was in the state of New York and JFK was in the hypothetical state of Long Island, people would complain about how hard it is to cross the east river and sing the praises of the convenience of EWR.

Alright, my final comment on this.

I have never managed to get inside a JFK terminal in 40 minutes from penn station and I have never managed to get inside EWR terminal from penn station in 30 minutes. The 30 minutes ride time doesn't include the getting there ahead of time, buying ticket and finding the platform and then getting on the airtrain on EWR to get to your station and into the station itself. It's 20 minutes to where airtrain starts from penn station on LIRR and probably 10 minutes from jamaica station to terminal 1 on jfk.

The main difference between the 2 airport is you have the option of E train when lirr/njt are not around. For example, on saturday/sunday afternoon at EWR, just checking the schedule now, there are trains coming through at 6, 15 and 18 minutes after an hour. Imagine if you get to the train station at 20 minutes after an hour, that's a nice 45 minutes wait. And I've been at the end of that and also the hour long wait for the last train of the night. Not an issue with subway.

jfklganyc wrote:

Much more frequent trains Jamaica to Penn vs Newark Airport station to Penn

Land at 2pm (midday weekday) today and you're waiting 30 minutes at EWR for NJT to Penn.

That's not perception...it is very real.

Sure, but the passengers the airlines are targeting are not the ones taking the train to save a few bucks. Hence the ads. United is trying to change the perception that Newark is less convenient than other NY airports.

from a purely marketing perspective, United can't its new CMO quick enough. They are making progress in overcoming their product and service issues of the past, but coming from someone in the field of marketing and branding, their public image is a train wreck. Every touchpoint is BLAND blue globe at best, clip art and disjointed messages at worst. Brand polish and durability are sorely needed and critical. Strong brands have the ability to recover easier from mistakes and keep loyal customers. As United stands now, it looks like summer interns are doing the work of branding and marketing.

There's two big things UA can use to win market share that are going on right now:

UA in Terminal C just opened a new consolidated fully-automated security checkpoint. This is by far the best security facility among the major NYC airports.

LGA construction is forcing many long-time LGA flyers to re-consider their options.

VC10er wrote:

but in my personal and professional opinion

I think that because you are in the advertising and branding industry, you are naturally more observant and critical of these things than the average person. Some people gravitate towards the intricate details in things such as font, color, pictures etc. while other people tend to go straight for the "meat" or the message.

I recall some of United's billboard ads in Chicago when the BusinessOne promotions were rolled out. They had a series of 6-8 billboards along the Kennedy Expressway (O'Hare to downtown) that were simply white background with huge "LaGuardia is hours", "Boston is hours", "Washington DC is hours" etc. for every hourly city they served. The print was a simple courier or newspaper-looking font in solid black. BAMM, you couldn't miss it. No frills, no fine print but just a direct message. Then again, one of my favorites: http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarc ... -97176.jpg

Have you ever seen an architect go into a new house or building and not critique every detail? It's in their DNA to critique. Same with a professional chef going to a new restaurant. Heck, I'm a controller and I sometimes cringe listening to ATC on Channel 9. I sometimes want to whack someone across the head with a (virtual) stick when I hear some of the phraseology or clearances some controllers use. I'm sure it sounds great to an untrained individual but to a professional it's sometimes painful.

I will try an post a picture of the ads that I am criticizing. I have yet to post an image here - but I shall try. I just figured that everyone has seen them: they are everywhere!

Just a few clarifying comments:

1: I am not really bashing UNITED. I actually like UA very much, I had 2 great flights on UA already this week. I am bashing these ads because 1: they lack the emotional pull that I believe is sorely needed and that both UA and CO did well in years past. Touting some of the truly great facts they have bragging rights to, is NOT enough. They may help hit a consumer in the head but if you're not connecting to hearts too...it's all just noise.

2: "Top of mind recall" means NOTHING in marketing and advertising and does NOTHING to create strong relevant and differentiated brands that make money. This is not an opinion, it is FACT. "Top of mind recall" was debunked by the late 1980's/early 1990's, by ad agencies who spent untold millions in research, with "MILLIONS" of consumers as a sample size, and found out brands are actually built backwards from how the industry had firmly believed for almost 100 years of adverting (once upon a time, being top of mind was everything, but Brylcreem is factually very "top of mind" in the men's hair care category, but who the hell buys Brylcreem anymore?, Sanka still registers high in brand recall for decaf coffee, but it's near dead...and it was those kinds brands that helped spark the change in approach in ad strategy. (I would site to Y&R's Brand Asset Valuator study, and WPP's "BrandZ" study) as well as "Landor's Image Power Survey".
First, a brand must build it's "relevant differentiation" because if a brand is not seen as "different" and "better" and "relevant to me" then being top of mind is actually a BAD THING. The kiss of death is: "I know you and I don't like you, and I am not willing to listen to your ads (I've read this above from people who will never believe what UA has to say)" and this dynamic is the exact problem UNITED faces now. But it IS fixable over time, Continental went from "worst to first" so can UA, because when CO was "worst", it was actually worse than UA is today.
(I remember, I was there and flew CO when it was bad)
Next is building "esteem", a brand, a company and it's product and especially its actions must build "esteem" which means it is not just different, it's different in a good, or even great way. Once a brand has delivered on it's different, relevant and highly regarded attributes, then top of mind will grow, and it will grow quickly. Mature brands (DL, AA and UA) go through cycles of brand strength. Delta will not stay on top if they let their brand erode and and not constantly maintain their leadership through it's service and innovation and understanding their consumer wants and needs.
Apple is one of the best (and admittedly obvious) examples: they established their difference first, earned their high esteem, that in turn it built brand "heat", and if the product (computers and cell phones) are relevant to both customers and consumers (which computers are, as are airlines)...then "top of mind recall" will be a good thing vs a bad thing. Delta (like CO) did a great job as we all know. I worked on Delta decades ago and the brand scores were in terrible decline, But they understood this one thing: being "top of mind" but NOT seen as different, better and relevant...will not build a powerful brand.

I applaud UA for investing. I simply think they missed the mark in execution, and that they are prematurely trying to woo back fliers (EWR or not) with their "new United" claim. While their product. serviced new "spirit" improvements are still too nascent...especially out of EWR where there is not many palpable positive changes yet, I repeat: no new lounges, aircraft, hard product. Service is better, but the tangibles aren't.

I did like Mr Munoz's letter in the current issue of HEMISPHERE'S... such messages are great starts. But then the need to be seen and felt.
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!

I'm catching up on a*net reading, and came across this thread. I was in Manhattan (mid-town east) from 11- to 18-April and never saw a single UA ad on a taxi. I only saw one ad on a bus-stop shelter. The last previous post on this thread says "3 weeks ago" as posting date which would mean around 8-April? Did UA pull the ads all of a sudden?

quiet1 wrote:

I'm catching up on a*net reading, and came across this thread. I was in Manhattan (mid-town east) from 11- to 18-April and never saw a single UA ad on a taxi. I only saw one ad on a bus-stop shelter. The last previous post on this thread says "3 weeks ago" as posting date which would mean around 8-April? Did UA pull the ads all of a sudden?

No there are still a lot all over the city but a bit less then before.

Aloha All!

Just came across an article detailing a new marketing scheme UA has deployed in NYC advertising drive times city wide between UA's EWR hub and JFK using NY Taxis. It appears UA is attempting to appeal to New York City residents that the trip out to EWR is less time consuming than to JFK. It is certainly an interesting marketing move that will get attention without having to take a direct jab at its competitors. Will be interesting how residents will react and how UA's NYC competitors will respond. Link below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news ... -cabs.html

Please lets try to keep the thread on topic about the marketing scheme. There are plenty of other threads to post to if you need to rant/vent about any other aspects of United Airlines.

Mahalo,
77H