United says it's on track to return to JFK in 2027, but between slot uncertainty, a crowded transcon market, and Delta's ground product, the strategy still isn't clear.
The real question is whether BlueSky is providing sufficient value to B6 and/or how much UA is proposing to give B6 for the slots. I'm sure the lawyers for the bondholders are already complaining to the company about potentially giving UA any slots (although absent a covenant breach, it will just remain as complaining).
Ah, true, lawyers do be lawyerin’…but, the real, real question is slots and gates, specifically at that new Terminal 6… which along with the new Terminal 1 (both delayed. Regardless, ‘I’m jacked. Jacked to the ti…’ —The Big Short.)
I saw Air India announced yesterday they too will move to T6 in 2028. So there's a T4 lounge up for grabs I suppose.
Maybe they won’t have loyalty in JFK but what about the United loyalists in SFO and LAX who need to fly to JFK. They are two separate markets. Additionally I’m sure there are United loyalists in Manhattan that would fly from EWR or JFK to help fill flights
SFO and lax loyalty will largely fill the flights. Plus there are enough people in the NYC region who have UA accounts for whom jfk flights will be convenient that this should be fine. Anything beyond lax or sfo I have a hard time seeing how they would work. All of United's other hubs are served well from
Lga and ewr. So it'll be interesting.
Hi Lucky,
By the time UA exited JFK in 2015, the "ps" service was aboard two-class cabin aircraft featuring what was then United's pre-Polaris business class cabin, the bones of which remain on the 757-200s still flying with UA, and Economy (with several rows of extra legroom seats).
The original ps format was First Class, Business Class, with that extraordinary row 9 at the exits which had unlimited legroom, and the back of the aircraft (Economy) was all Economy Plus (extra legroom).
None of UAs current 757s still have those bones - all of the PMUA 757s (including the p.s. planes) were retired in 2020. All of the 757s UA flies now are PMCO planes with the rolls royce engines
you can be certain that UA execs will keep saying they have a plan to re-enter JFK - until 2027 passes and they aren't there.
no rational person can explain why B6 would transfer slots to UA so that UA can compete on B6' best routes - perhaps the only ones that make money,
and AA and DL have zero reason to give UA an inch - and DL has already shown its hand in scheduling EWR-LAX which will certainly be the first of far more routes that DL can start.
none of the big 4 are willing to give up anything. Adding anything has to be part of a strategy that is so much bigger than a single airport and also where there is no way that the "attacked carrier" can respond.
That is exactly the strategy behind DL's TPAC and west coast expansion. DL is much healthier financially than UA, has larger, far more efficient and capable aircraft, and has non-airline advantages including Amex and the refinery which UA simply can't match.
There is no way that UA can succeed at re-entering JFK without paying a far higher price from both AA and DL -and probably B6 - than UA can gain.
but let's also be clear that Kirby has promised and tried alot and failed at even more - including and esp. EWR and ORD
The plan was to return to JFK for the S27 schedule, but two things are working against it: XLR and "Coastliner" delivery delays (what airplanes is Delta deploying in that market that are "far" more efficient than than the 321neo?) and gates in T6.
UA is about a dozen or more short on XLR/Coastliner deliveries as compared to what they expected about a year ago. XLRs for the rework delays and the Coastliners for a major paint defect and associated warranty work. Without those airplanes they will not go into JFK. In the meantime the slots UA is acquiring from JetBlue and other airlines (there are more) will continue to be operated by the existing carriers.
The first phase of T6 is allocated to the T1 and T7 carriers that need to move out so the existing buildings can be decommissioned. UA will follow.
No doubt Delta will continue to retaliate. For now United is really the only compettior in its weight class.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm a management consultant, and I'm here to help.'” See also McKinsey’s vaunted Hunter strategy for Swissair.
I am a management consultant who worked on the project ("Revenue Squared") that recommended abandoning JFK and focusing premium transcon flying on EWR (among many other initiatives). It was a good recommendation, and I completely agree with Ben that their return still doesn't make sense.
They have no flow traffic there and are at a major disadvantage compared to AA, DL, and B6 on these hyper competitive transcon routes. Their loyal flyers are all at EWR, so I guess they are targeting the SFO/LAX-origin passengers headed to New York, who Kirby believes prefer JFK over EWR, because it is more prestigious (or something?). I just have a hard time believing that there are that many people who care much about JFK over EWR, particularly since it is a longer drive from the places in Manhattan where most of the high-yielding pax are going.
You'd be surprised at how many people prefer JFK rather than EWR when flying to NYC, mostly because of prestige or they think that JFK is more convenient (despite that not necessarily being the case). I agree with your points, and I too was skeptical at how many people this could apply to. Having lived in NYC and frequently traveling there, I know that EWR isn't too far away.
But I know so many people who fit in this basket, many of whom are wealthy fliers or fly for business into NYC (some of whom are even locals). Many of the people I know fly in premium cabins, yet they won't even consider looking for flights out of EWR. This doesn't apply to everyone, but it does apply to more people than you would think. The general population just doesn't know that much about airlines.
"I am a management consultant who worked on the project ("Revenue Squared") that recommended abandoning JFK and focusing premium transcon flying on EWR (among many other initiatives). It was a good recommendation, and I completely agree with Ben that their return still doesn't make sense."
You might not want to brag about such a blatant & costly mistake. That decision cost UA lucrative, exclusive corporate travel deals. Were you not aware that many of those high-yield customers were heading to the Hamptons? Ever try to drive from EWR to the Hamptons?
Flows? Your research didn't demonstrate that NYC feeds itself? Let me guess you worked for BCG the same gang that recommended de-hubbing IAD, DEN and/or LAX. Pure genius. Thank heavens BCG and their UA CCO were shown the door six months after Kirby and his team came to UA.
But what about the poor baggage handling metrics?
Years ago UA had LHR, ORD, SEA, SFO, LAX, IAD, MIA (as a tag to SA) that I remember. Probably more beyond that-I seem to remember SJC. I would imagine transcons to LAX and SFO (maybe SAN or SNA) and LHR. Possible SEA and other major European cities.
United's peak was around 2000/2001. 3x flights to lhr, 6 or 7 each to lax and sfo, São Paulo/ Rio, Caracas, Tokyo, Buenos Aires, Boston, Seattle, and United express to Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and multiple flights to Dulles. with multiple frequencies. Occasional weekend service to San Juan and chicago. In 2001 for a hot second nonstop to Hong Kong, which was very empty and discontinued after 9/11. A flight to Miami came along after 9/11 when they discontinued the nonstops yo São Paulo and Rio. That was it. Never more than 30-35 flights or so. Hardly the behemoth people like to talk about. By the time they pulled out in 2015 it was 6 flights a day to lax and sfo. That was it.
United will be investing in the ground experience at JFK T6 (United Club, Polaris Lounge), book it. It will not be going back into JFK half-cocked.
they seem to be a little behind on all their (book it) T6 lounges if they're starting routes in 2027?