United and the new LaGuardia

VC10er · Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:57 pm

I’ve read a lot about Delta’s plans at the new LGA die to be fully complete by 2021, but not a peep about United operations.

There is a thread about the unlikely return to JFK, but with LGA, all new and fabulous, what can we UA, Star Alliance folks expect?

Given the new LGA structure, but no changes to runways (I believe) is it still unlikely the perimeter rule could change and UA offer transcontinental Premium flights?

Or increased frequency and/or destinations?

I’d even love to hear a rumor!
Thanks R

F27500 · Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:07 pm

Hourly to ORD. Others to IAH, DEN and IAD. 737s, A319s and RJs. In other words, just what they're doing now. UA doesn't step outside the box much. They never have. Its all about their hubs. Real exciting right?

jsteeves3 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:17 am

Yeah they don't do much. If transcon flights ever commence I bet they wouldn't command a premium there either. Loads would be higher on AA and DL because of the endless small cities they serve from LGA. i'm not saying loads would be bad for UA, just not up to AA or DL level.

STT757 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:22 am

Obviously they’re going to build a new lounge, so there’s opportunity to Do something with that but what they need is
More
Slots.

se210 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:27 am

Looking forward to the United Club being airside versus landside. Assuming Air Canada Club will also go airside. Still no scheduled United Caravelles to LGA. There are still at EWR. Darn it... Oops... Time warp... Was thinking of the last LGA upgrade!

airplanedaj · Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:19 am

Since the perimeter rule only exists Sunday-Friday, would United consider launching Saturday only flights to LAX and SFO? I'm guessing they wouldn't necessarily command the business premium that you'd get on weekdays, but would there be enough of a market?

VC10er · Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:57 pm

I’m sorry to read all about United’s lack of innovation at LGA. To be honest when it comes to me personally, I might be part of the problem, I only have flown UA to Chicago from LGA historically. I have considered Denver, but I opt for the 752 out of EWR so I can get a bed seat in First Class. I do a lot of work in Colorado so I like the additional opportunity to sleep!
I guess I was hoping that with the new airport building that UA would up their game. Perhaps it’s too soon for them to announce any service changes yet?
A new Lounge would be nice, although I have warm (familiar) feelings for the old club. I love the staff there and have spent many hours in there over the past 20+ years.
I think it would be smart for them to complete more out of LGA, at least using 752s for Premium pax to other UA hubs for pax that connect to international Polaris flights. But if they cannot do SFO, then that may be pointless/moot.
If they were to ad flights beyond hubs, then what/where could work for them? Miami? The islands? An ATR to Provincetown (lol!)

STT757 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:13 pm

VC10er wrote:
I’m sorry to read all about United’s lack of innovation at LGA. To be honest when it comes to me personally, I might be part of the problem, I only have flown UA to Chicago from LGA historically. I have considered Denver, but I opt for the 752 out of EWR so I can get a bed seat in First Class. I do a lot of work in Colorado so I like the additional opportunity to sleep!
I guess I was hoping that with the new airport building that UA would up their game. Perhaps it’s too soon for them to announce any service changes yet?
A new Lounge would be nice, although I have warm (familiar) feelings for the old club. I love the staff there and have spent many hours in there over the past 20+ years.
I think it would be smart for them to complete more out of LGA, at least using 752s for Premium pax to other UA hubs for pax that connect to international Polaris flights. But if they cannot do SFO, then that may be pointless/moot.
If they were to ad flights beyond hubs, then what/where could work for them? Miami? The islands? An ATR to Provincetown (lol!)

The airport is slot restricted, they only own enough slots to offer their current level Of service. If they want to grow they either have to buy or trade with another carrier to gain more slots or to merge with another carrier.

SamTheGeek · Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:23 pm

VC10er wrote:
using 752s for Premium pax to other UA hubs for pax that connect to international Polaris flights.

I'm curious why they'd do that, because with the return of SQ's EWR-SIN service, there's not many premium-heavy international destinations United (or another Star Alliance partner) services exclusively from a non-NYC hub. Australia/NZ but that's about all — and if QF pulls off 'Project Sunrise' that'll be moot, too.

Besides, UA has been spending lots of ad dollars reminding people here in NYC that EWR is actually "closer" (time-wise) than either LGA or JFK to both Midtown and FiDi. Their assertion isn't entirely wrong either — and EWR will have nicer premium amenities for the foreseeable future due to lack of space constraints.

VC10er · Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:42 pm

SamTheGeek wrote:
VC10er wrote:
using 752s for Premium pax to other UA hubs for pax that connect to international Polaris flights.

I'm curious why they'd do that, because with the return of SQ's EWR-SIN service, there's not many premium-heavy international destinations United (or another Star Alliance partner) services exclusively from a non-NYC hub. Australia/NZ but that's about all — and if QF pulls off 'Project Sunrise' that'll be moot, too.

Besides, UA has been spending lots of ad dollars reminding people here in NYC that EWR is actually "closer" (time-wise) than either LGA or JFK to both Midtown and FiDi. Their assertion isn't entirely wrong either — and EWR will have nicer premium amenities for the foreseeable future due to lack of space constraints.

The ads really focus solely on JFK being further. I’ve never once seen references to LGA. They also have those taxi tops that digitally display time to EWR vs JFK from the location you see that taxi. It’s quite something to see! Although I assume for the cost, there are not that many of those taxis.
TC is a very nice terminal (for the NYC metro area) and especially now with the Polaris Lounge.
Too bad about LGA, though. I bet the United Club there will be a lot smaller too. Rarely did I ever see the club very crowded.

divemaster08 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:57 pm

LGA still has the major issue on its hands even after the new terminal.... its runway/taxiway/airspace restrictions. With the current set up, it just means that passengers will be able to be more comfortable waiting for aircraft. What the whole NYC airspace needs is some great RNAV routes to help make the airspace less a mess. May add 40 miles onto some routes but I have no doubt that this will help a lot of issues at all the surrounding airports.

jfklganyc · Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:16 pm

UA has always been a token player at LGA. So was CO. Combined, they are a larger token player serving hubs and only hubs with high frequency service.

They were flying a spite-flight to RDU for a while because DL started RDU EWR.

I doubt, if offered, UA would want more in perimeter LGA slots.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

ldvaviation · Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:17 pm

VC10er wrote:
Too bad about LGA, though. I bet the United Club there will be a lot smaller too. Rarely did I ever see the club very crowded.

What else would you expect?

The new CTA does not increase the number of gates. (If JetBlue moves back, there will be more turns per gate.)

With AA's ops now consolidated at the CTA, it has a better case than United for the larger of the two premium club spaces.

flyingclrs727 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:46 pm

Too bad the new LGA won't have the perimeter rule lifted. It would be a great place to have Polaris transcon service. I think it was s mistake to rebuild the terminals at LGA. Instead, JFK should have been expanded, and express train rights of way should have been built from a terminal at JFK to Penn Station.

VC10er · Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:38 pm

ldvaviation wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Too bad about LGA, though. I bet the United Club there will be a lot smaller too. Rarely did I ever see the club very crowded.

What else would you expect?

Actually I don’t have a clue of what to expect which is why I asked “if” the new LGA would open any opportunity for United. It seems like a resounding “no” given all the reasons everyone has pointed out.

In the absence of facts and figures, I could say what I personally would love to see happen, but again they would seem totally moot.

PEK777 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:46 pm

They will continue to operate only erj135's as they do in any market from ABQ to YYZ. For prestige purposes only, they will operate the LA and SFO transcons on their flagship crj200's with 2 first class seats, reserved for entitled UA employees only.

EvanWSFO · Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:47 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Too bad the new LGA won't have the perimeter rule lifted. It would be a great place to have Polaris transcon service. I think it was s mistake to rebuild the terminals at LGA. Instead, JFK should have been expanded, and express train rights of way should have been built from a terminal at JFK to Penn Station.

Exactly where do you expect JFK to expand? There's nowhere to go.

flyingclrs727 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:00 am

EvanWSFO wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Too bad the new LGA won't have the perimeter rule lifted. It would be a great place to have Polaris transcon service. I think it was s mistake to rebuild the terminals at LGA. Instead, JFK should have been expanded, and express train rights of way should have been built from a terminal at JFK to Penn Station.

Exactly where do you expect JFK to expand? There's nowhere to go.

Get Congress to pass enabling legislation to allow landfill to add two more runways at JFK. Realign and rebuild the terminals with an airside people mover between terminals. Build subway rights of way between JFK and Penn Station and EWR and Penn Station. Close LGA to developers. Closing LGA would allow better air traffic in the area.

adambrau · Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:43 am

PEK777 wrote:
They will continue to operate only erj135's as they do in any market from ABQ to YYZ. For prestige purposes only, they will operate the LA and SFO transcons on their flagship crj200's with 2 first class seats, reserved for entitled UA employees only.

Way to kill the vibe dude.

ScottB · Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:50 am

STT757 wrote:
The airport is slot restricted, they only own enough slots to offer their current level Of service. If they want to grow they either have to buy or trade with another carrier to gain more slots or to merge with another carrier.

And if the perimeter were ever dropped or loosened, UA would take a big hit at EWR on its transcons. Worse yet, they just don't have enough LGA slots to match what DL and AA would offer in transcon markets from LGA without dropping more than half their flying to the other hubs.

VC10er wrote:
Actually I don’t have a clue of what to expect which is why I asked “if” the new LGA would open any opportunity for United. It seems like a resounding “no” given all the reasons everyone has pointed out.

Well, as others have pointed out, the "new" LGA is just the same old LGA with a nicer, new terminal. The gate lounges will be improved and the club will be new but you'll probably have to walk further and wait in a longer, but faster-moving line at a consolidated TSA checkpoint. Presumably there will be more overpriced shops and restaurants to help cover the billions being spent.

UA isn't getting more slots so they can't really offer any additional service, and it makes little sense to attract premium passengers in long-haul international markets to connect at another hub from LGA when they're pretty much all offered non-stop from EWR.

catiii · Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:22 am

jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

intotheair · Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:04 am

catiii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

I understand the desire for a return to JFK. But what's missing from UA at LGA? What routes specifically? UA connects all of its hubs that it can to LGA. ORD-LGA is UA's single busiest route. Aside from the odd LGA-RDU episode, I doubt UA will ever care about doing p2p from LGA.

tphuang · Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:13 pm

intotheair wrote:
catiii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

I understand the desire for a return to JFK. But what's missing from UA at LGA? What routes specifically? UA connects all of its hubs that it can to LGA. ORD-LGA is UA's single busiest route. Aside from the odd LGA-RDU episode, I doubt UA will ever care about doing p2p from LGA.

Another reason they don’t even need more slots.

EvanWSFO · Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:40 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Too bad the new LGA won't have the perimeter rule lifted. It would be a great place to have Polaris transcon service. I think it was s mistake to rebuild the terminals at LGA. Instead, JFK should have been expanded, and express train rights of way should have been built from a terminal at JFK to Penn Station.

Exactly where do you expect JFK to expand? There's nowhere to go.

Get Congress to pass enabling legislation to allow landfill to add two more runways at JFK. Realign and rebuild the terminals with an airside people mover between terminals. Build subway rights of way between JFK and Penn Station and EWR and Penn Station. Close LGA to developers. Closing LGA would allow better air traffic in the area.

I think we all know that's never going to happen.

flight152 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:49 pm

PEK777 wrote:
They will continue to operate only erj135's as they do in any market from ABQ to YYZ. For prestige purposes only, they will operate the LA and SFO transcons on their flagship crj200's with 2 first class seats, reserved for entitled UA employees only.

Seriously? Go away. No one needs your nonsense.

tpaewr · Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:12 pm

catiii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

I am pretty sure DL would swap their fractured NYC operation for a single omnidirectional global hub in a heart beat if they had the chance.

jfklganyc · Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:34 pm

I dont think they would.

It is the nature of the market.

They wont leave LGA.

I could argue that UA would love a Delta sized operation at LGA to supplement the EWR hub.

Without LGA in your NYC operation, you have nothing.

WWads · Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:47 pm

A larger UA operation at LGA won't work for the simple reason that passengers consistently do not pick UA if there are other comparable nonstop options.

UA is completely reliant on its fortress hubs, and doesn't do point to point flying. Going up against DL and even AA at LGA would be suicidal for them. They'd have to replace DL as the dominate airline, and that's no happening.

tphuang · Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:09 pm

WWads wrote:
A larger UA operation at LGA won't work for the simple reason that passengers consistently do not pick UA if there are other comparable nonstop options.

UA is completely reliant on its fortress hubs, and doesn't do point to point flying. Going up against DL and even AA at LGA would be suicidal for them. They'd have to replace DL as the dominate airline, and that's no happening.

All the legacies are heavily reliant on their fortress hubs. It just happens DL ones are more dominated and therefore higher yielding.

tpaewr · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:26 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
I dont think they would.

It is the nature of the market.

They wont leave LGA.

I could argue that UA would love a Delta sized operation at LGA to supplement the EWR hub.

Without LGA in your NYC operation, you have nothing.

My uncle lived for years in Brooklyn Heights, so I am very familiar with the belief that LGA is the nexus of all air travel. But for people not in or around Queens or need to travel beyond the East Coast and fly over states there is life beyond LGA. For large parts of Manhattan or anyone going long haul LGA is almost pointless.

Of course UA would take LGA to butress EWR. That is obvious. My point was having a single consolidated hub is vastly more powerful than being fractured over multiple airports. Just look at DL failure in the NYC-Asia market to demonstrate the short comings of that model.

VC10er · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:54 pm

Is flying 65,000 people a day (I think that’s the number) on UA out of EWR make them irrelevant in the NYC metro area? Are people who don’t live in Manhattan less of a passenger- if they pay? Aren’t there many Corp contacts for NJ companies and does UA have a problem filling seats, up front or in the back (soon some in the middle?)
I’m being slightly facetious...only because I know A LOT of people in Manhattan who choose EWR and United despite the UA dislike on this forum ala: PEK777
But this is about LGA. Does UA fly the most passengers to ORD from LGA than their much larger competition?
Would UA ever consider a few flight to Midway as well? Perhaps there isn’t room for additional “anything”?

catiii · Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:58 am

tpaewr wrote:
catiii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

I am pretty sure DL would swap their fractured NYC operation for a single omnidirectional global hub in a heart beat if they had the chance.

I am pretty sure they wouldn't. LGA is the most desirable airport in the city.

catiii · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:00 am

tpaewr wrote:
My point was having a single consolidated hub is vastly more powerful than being fractured over multiple airports. Just look at DL failure in the NYC-Asia market to demonstrate the short comings of that model.

Counterpoint: UA is utterly irrelevant east of 6th Avenue. Delta is relevant all over.

Cointrin330 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:34 am

catiii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

What a stupid statement. I'm not much of a UA fan, but what they have is a fortress hub, under one roof, with a network that has much further global reach than the competition in NY. UA is much more focused on P2P flying from EWR and while it flows a substantial amount of connecting traffic through EWR, a lot of it is O&D from the biggest catchment area in the country.

Delta smartly grew LGA, by challenging the PANYNJ and the DOJ to make the airport more efficient and swapped slots with US to achieve it. It cannot make JFK a hub comparable to what UA has at EWR because the real estate and the slots aren't available, so it did the next best thing, and it works really well.

catiii · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:41 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA.

They live and die with Newark for better or worse.

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

What a stupid statement. I'm not much of a UA fan, but what they have is a fortress hub, under one roof, with a network that has much further global reach than the competition in NY. UA is much more focused on P2P flying from EWR and while it flows a substantial amount of connecting traffic through EWR, a lot of it is O&D from the biggest catchment area in the country.

Delta smartly grew LGA, by challenging the PANYNJ and the DOJ to make the airport more efficient and swapped slots with US to achieve it. It cannot make JFK a hub comparable to what UA has at EWR because the real estate and the slots aren't available, so it did the next best thing, and it works really well.

It's a stupid statement to say they are as relevant as Delta in New York. They are not. They're not relevant east of 6th Avenue, they have token presence at LGA, and no presence at JFK. Delta is the largest carrier at JFK, the largest carrier at LGA, and has TATL presence out of EWR in addition to the hub flying. Delta also owns practically every sponsorship that matters in NYC. Delta simply has built a better NYC network than UA. UA knows that they are disadvantaged to DL in the market, otherwise they wouldn't have hired Jill Kaplan (after trying to hire Gail Grimmett) to stop the bleeding.

United may have carried more total pax at the 5 PANYNJ airports, but they are NOT as relevant as DL in the NYC market.

tpaewr · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:48 am

catiii wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

What a stupid statement. I'm not much of a UA fan, but what they have is a fortress hub, under one roof, with a network that has much further global reach than the competition in NY. UA is much more focused on P2P flying from EWR and while it flows a substantial amount of connecting traffic through EWR, a lot of it is O&D from the biggest catchment area in the country.

Delta smartly grew LGA, by challenging the PANYNJ and the DOJ to make the airport more efficient and swapped slots with US to achieve it. It cannot make JFK a hub comparable to what UA has at EWR because the real estate and the slots aren't available, so it did the next best thing, and it works really well.

It's a stupid statement to say they are as relevant as Delta in New York. They are not. They're not relevant east of 6th Avenue, they have token presence at LGA, and no presence at JFK. Delta is the largest carrier at JFK, the largest carrier at LGA, and has TATL presence out of EWR in addition to the hub flying. Delta also owns practically every sponsorship that matters in NYC. Delta simply has built a better NYC network than UA. UA knows that they are disadvantaged to DL in the market, otherwise they wouldn't have hired Jill Kaplan (after trying to hire Gail Grimmett) to stop the bleeding.

United may have carried more total pax at the 5 PANYNJ airports, but they are NOT as relevant as DL in the NYC market.

I love that closing sentence. The larger airline that carries more passengers to more places is less relevant because they are not based out of the regional airport you think is cool.

I dunno about anyone else but I am convinced!!

millionsofmiles · Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:10 am

PMUA was never really committed to LGA. This goes back decades. UA was slow to return to LGA when the airport was redone in the mid-1960s. UA only had a few gates...which it shared with Braniff International, National, Southern and Ozark, whereas AA and Eastern had entire concourses.

The only time that United seemed to throw attention at LGA was in the three-way battle with AA and TWA for dominance on the LGA-ORD route (later a two-way battle when TWA ceded its market share). UA threw its brand-new 767 on the route in the early 80s to counter AA, but one might argue that UA's moves to protect the LGA-ORD was more about protecting ORD rather than LGA.

VC10er · Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:35 am

It never ceases to amaze me how an negative emotional perception toward United will blind someone so much as to write something so nakedly absurd.
I live East of 6th Ave, Lmao!!!
It’s true that United has a Premium product on international WB right now that is not competitive but that is undergoing massive changes as everyone knows- and that’s where the money is.
Flying United out of EWR one day in the near future with all new cabins, 787-10s, a handful of new 77W and soon 737MAXs will be both seen and felt. TC is arguably “one of” the best terminals in the metro area and with new stunning Polaris Lounge that even Star Alliance fliers will be impressed with and major improvements to customer service have already been noticed (except by haters) all totaled may actually attract many business fliers perhaps all the way over to EVEN 5th Ave - that 5th goes downtown unlike 6th Ave! Lol!!!
Many people here don’t understand NYC and the 23 million people who live in and around a circle that has the Empire State Building in the middle, and who’s tenants surely ONLY fly Delta.

STT757 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:42 am

jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA. So was CO. Combined, they are a larger token player serving hubs and only hubs with high frequency service.

CO purchased Eastern's LGA operation during EA's liquidation, NWA had acquired the DCA operation.

CO flight from LGA in the October, 1991 OAG:

Albany 5 EM2s- Atlanta 3 737-200, 2 737-300 - Buffalo 1 727-200, 2 737-200, 1 737-300- Cleveland 4 DC-9-30, 1 MD80, 1 727-200, 1 737-200, 1 737-300- Columbus 3 737-300- Denver 3 MD80- Fort Lauderdale 1 727-200, 2 737-300- Hartford 4 ATR-42- Houston IAH 6 MD80- Manchester 4 EM2- Miami 3 MD80- Orlando 1 737-200, 2 737-300- Providence 5 EM2- Tampa 1 MD80, 1 737-300- West Palm Beach 1 737-200, 2 737-300- Worcester 4 EM2-

Also LGA, or the nearby area, played a major role in CO's rebranding in 1991. Their logo, which UA uses today, comes from the New York World's Fair Unisphere nearby:

http://www.nywf64.com/airlines10.html

jasoncrh · Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:52 am

I have a cousin on 94th and Park and another on 81st between first and second. They fly United in paid J almost exclusively on their near weekly trans cons to la or sfo for work, and often fly them internationally as well as United has the nonstop they need. Saying United is irrelevant easy of 6th ave is just ridiculous.

VC10er · Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:05 pm

STT757 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
UA has always been a token player at LGA. So was CO. Combined, they are a larger token player serving hubs and only hubs with high frequency service.

CO purchased Eastern's LGA operation during EA's liquidation, NWA had acquired the DCA operation.

CO flight from LGA in the October, 1991 OAG:

Albany 5 EM2s- Atlanta 3 737-200, 2 737-300 - Buffalo 1 727-200, 2 737-200, 1 737-300- Cleveland 4 DC-9-30, 1 MD80, 1 727-200, 1 737-200, 1 737-300- Columbus 3 737-300- Denver 3 MD80- Fort Lauderdale 1 727-200, 2 737-300- Hartford 4 ATR-42- Houston IAH 6 MD80- Manchester 4 EM2- Miami 3 MD80- Orlando 1 737-200, 2 737-300- Providence 5 EM2- Tampa 1 MD80, 1 737-300- West Palm Beach 1 737-200, 2 737-300- Worcester 4 EM2-

Also LGA, or the nearby area, played a major role in CO's rebranding in 1991. Their logo, which UA uses today, comes from the New York World's Fair Unisphere nearby:

http://www.nywf64.com/airlines10.html

Wow! Learn something new everyday. I never read that in any of the branding books I’ve read, L&M (the agency who created it) I don’t recall ever mentioning the Unisphere in their case history. But I believe it. Also, what is a tad surprising, is that I don’t believe the Flushing Meadows Corona Park had been fixed up by 1991. Before the city spent a lot to fix up the park and restore the Unisphere, it was not in the best shape with small continents falling off! But what is ironic is advertising at the time 1964-1965 United touted itself as “the airline for the World’s Fair” - in fact I own a beautiful vintage United poster of a UA tail flying over the ‘64 World’s Fair. (I wish I knew how to upload a pic) it’s one of my most loved pieces of airline memorabilia! Thanks

jfklganyc · Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:16 pm

They had that operation for a NY minute before they sold and leased slots and terminal to US Air

Check out plaque to the right of the security checkpoint.

Mayor Dinkins dedicated the terminal in 1992 as the US Air terminal. No mention of Continental.

But, you already know this because you are very well versed in NYC aviation and Continental’s Newark operation

VC10er · Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:26 pm

jasoncrh wrote:
I have a cousin on 94th and Park and another on 81st between first and second. They fly United in paid J almost exclusively on their near weekly trans cons to la or sfo for work, and often fly them internationally as well as United has the nonstop they need. Saying United is irrelevant easy of 6th ave is just ridiculous.

THANK YOU!
Believe it or not, some people (like me) love UA. Especially people who have flown them for years and have benefited from having status with United. I’m not GS anymore but I will never forget the amazing treatment you get when you are. (I’m sort of envious of the folks that get to use the beautiful GS check-in at EWR, although I’m happy to be home more) Perhaps this is the case with your cousins?

I started my relationship with UA when their ops at JFK was sizable. The 747’s to Asia were fantastic. Then I just stuck with them, with CO as my #2 airline.

Initially, the merger was music to my ears, sadly it did not go so smooth, but I love UA at TC today. Which is why I had hoped for something good/better to happen at LGA.

stlgph · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:13 pm

catiii wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

What a stupid statement. I'm not much of a UA fan, but what they have is a fortress hub, under one roof, with a network that has much further global reach than the competition in NY. UA is much more focused on P2P flying from EWR and while it flows a substantial amount of connecting traffic through EWR, a lot of it is O&D from the biggest catchment area in the country.

Delta smartly grew LGA, by challenging the PANYNJ and the DOJ to make the airport more efficient and swapped slots with US to achieve it. It cannot make JFK a hub comparable to what UA has at EWR because the real estate and the slots aren't available, so it did the next best thing, and it works really well.

It's a stupid statement to say they are as relevant as Delta in New York. They are not. They're not relevant east of 6th Avenue, they have token presence at LGA, and no presence at JFK. Delta is the largest carrier at JFK, the largest carrier at LGA, and has TATL presence out of EWR in addition to the hub flying. Delta also owns practically every sponsorship that matters in NYC. Delta simply has built a better NYC network than UA. UA knows that they are disadvantaged to DL in the market, otherwise they wouldn't have hired Jill Kaplan (after trying to hire Gail Grimmett) to stop the bleeding.

United may have carried more total pax at the 5 PANYNJ airports, but they are NOT as relevant as DL in the NYC market.

I live in Long Island City. I've flown United out of Newark. Try again.

evank516 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:38 pm

UA operates E-jets to ORD from LGA. If you ask me it's pretty pathetic considering AA's hourly flights on 738s. Sure, DL has E175s on the route, but they're upgauging and UA is doing what UA typically does, flying RJs on routes that shouldn't have them.

GSPSPOT · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:44 pm

STT757 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
I’m sorry to read all about United’s lack of innovation at LGA. To be honest when it comes to me personally, I might be part of the problem, I only have flown UA to Chicago from LGA historically. I have considered Denver, but I opt for the 752 out of EWR so I can get a bed seat in First Class. I do a lot of work in Colorado so I like the additional opportunity to sleep!
I guess I was hoping that with the new airport building that UA would up their game. Perhaps it’s too soon for them to announce any service changes yet?
A new Lounge would be nice, although I have warm (familiar) feelings for the old club. I love the staff there and have spent many hours in there over the past 20+ years.
I think it would be smart for them to complete more out of LGA, at least using 752s for Premium pax to other UA hubs for pax that connect to international Polaris flights. But if they cannot do SFO, then that may be pointless/moot.
If they were to ad flights beyond hubs, then what/where could work for them? Miami? The islands? An ATR to Provincetown (lol!)

The airport is slot restricted, they only own enough slots to offer their current level Of service. If they want to grow they either have to buy or trade with another carrier to gain more slots or to merge with another carrier.

Are they at least able to upgauge a/c on busier routes in order to carry more pax? Remember when DC10s & L1011s were common at LGA?

BC77008 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:58 pm

[photoid][/photoid]

evank516 wrote:
UA operates E-jets to ORD from LGA. If you ask me it's pretty pathetic considering AA's hourly flights on 738s. Sure, DL has E175s on the route, but they're upgauging and UA is doing what UA typically does, flying RJs on routes that shouldn't have them.

Anecdotal, perhaps, but I just did a dummy search for next Tuesday and of the 17 nonstops, 3 are on E175 equipment, and the rest mainline with a mixture of A319/320 and 737-700/900 service. This was going from LGA to ORD.

United1 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:59 pm

evank516 wrote:
UA operates E-jets to ORD from LGA. If you ask me it's pretty pathetic considering AA's hourly flights on 738s. Sure, DL has E175s on the route, but they're upgauging and UA is doing what UA typically does, flying RJs on routes that shouldn't have them.

Both UA and AA operate ~15 daily flights between ORD and LGA (depending on the day UA may fly 17 flights.) UA operates 3 out of those 15/17 with E175s the rest are mainline (everything from an A319 to a 739 are on the route.) It's interesting to see how far AA has cut back on ORD-LGA as 10 years ago they were flying 18-20 flights a day...I guess DL took a chunk out of their business.

VC10er · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:02 pm

I just did a mock booking a month out, there are just 2 E-175’s out of many non-stops, and the others are almost a mix of every kind of mainline 737 or Airbus they have.
Also, I for one love an E-175 and would have no problem getting one to ORD.
I would assume that United understands this route very well and there is a good business reason why there is a 737-700 or 737-800 at certain times and an A320 or A319 on another and 2 E-175’s on another, and not just scheduling an aircraft based on what happens to be available that day? No?
Also, we know (as United does) that they need more NB aircraft and many are coming.
Could a 737MAX show up there one day? Or is the route too short?
I used to wish for a 752 with bed seats in F at around 7pm or later. After an extremely long day, waking at 4:30am to get to Chicago, then standing on my feet for hours making a high-stress presentation, I would absolutely have treated myself to a 2+ hour nap on the way home. Heck, I’d have loved it on the way out too.
“P.S. Chicago” would be a great innovation!

Cointrin330 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:09 pm

catiii wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
catiii wrote:

Exactly. And this is why they will never be relevant in New York. If they were truly a New York airline they’d have meaningful presence at all 3 airports, like DL does, instead of presence at one, token presence at another, and zero presence at a third.

What a stupid statement. I'm not much of a UA fan, but what they have is a fortress hub, under one roof, with a network that has much further global reach than the competition in NY. UA is much more focused on P2P flying from EWR and while it flows a substantial amount of connecting traffic through EWR, a lot of it is O&D from the biggest catchment area in the country.

Delta smartly grew LGA, by challenging the PANYNJ and the DOJ to make the airport more efficient and swapped slots with US to achieve it. It cannot make JFK a hub comparable to what UA has at EWR because the real estate and the slots aren't available, so it did the next best thing, and it works really well.

It's a stupid statement to say they are as relevant as Delta in New York. They are not. They're not relevant east of 6th Avenue, they have token presence at LGA, and no presence at JFK. Delta is the largest carrier at JFK, the largest carrier at LGA, and has TATL presence out of EWR in addition to the hub flying. Delta also owns practically every sponsorship that matters in NYC. Delta simply has built a better NYC network than UA. UA knows that they are disadvantaged to DL in the market, otherwise they wouldn't have hired Jill Kaplan (after trying to hire Gail Grimmett) to stop the bleeding.

United may have carried more total pax at the 5 PANYNJ airports, but they are NOT as relevant as DL in the NYC market.

Delta will have no TATL out of EWR by Q4 this year. EWR-AMS was cancelled. EWR-CDG is being dropped. All that's left is EWR-LHR and that's on VS.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net