The JFK conundrum for SA

Discussion in 'Star Alliance' started by jfhscott, Apr 26, 2013.  |  Print Topic

  1. jfhscott
    Original Member

    jfhscott Silver Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    525
    Status Points:
    645
    I am not a New Yorker, so I really do not grasp the preference for JFK for international routes. Every time I've been there, I've just hated it.

    Burning UA miles, I've always had to fly DCA-LGA on US, and then cab to JFK for the international flight. The one exception involved an ICN-JFK-IAD, using UA's sporadic IAD-JFK service - flight was delayed to the point that I had 6 hours in the lounge. (I will allow for how SFO and LAX have superior service to JFK).

    But upon Singapore's exit from EWR this fall, and US's upcoming exit from SA, JFK will become a terrible transfer point for SA pax. Of course, many SA pax on Turkish, LOT, Singapore, TACA, South African, Copa, TAP, ANA, China, Asiana, and Avianca may only need to go to New York.

    But at what point do these SA partners opt for the transfer pax opportunities to be had by moving to EWR? Just seems like a missed opportunity.
     
    downhillcrasher and MX like this.
  2. downhillcrasher

    downhillcrasher Gold Member

    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    2,395
    Status Points:
    1,270
    I too have had to do the LGA cab to JFK deal and it can really be a pain in the *A. But anyway, I would flip your argument and blame UA for a lack of connections. JFK is a decent enough airport and for a lot of people much more convenient than EWR. So what I don't get is a lack of United domestic service from JFK. I know the UA and CO killed most of their JFK routes due to lack of profitability leaving only the p.s. flights and a token hop to IAD. Perhaps it is a business strategy on UA's part to force traffic onto their own metal via EWR or IAD rather than partners out of JFK. As for the partners I can only imagine that flying to JFK and its beautiful T4 is more prestigious and commands better fares than flying to EWR's dump of Terminal B (in just the same manner that JFK can support a premium transcon market). I guess for them missing out on some connecting traffic is bad but its just better than the alternative. In any case, I agree with you that its a missed opportunity.
     
    boondr and jfhscott like this.
  3. jfhscott
    Original Member

    jfhscott Silver Member

    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    525
    Status Points:
    645
    Well, this explains the JFK "prestige" factor. And prior to the CO merger, it did not present such a glaring issue, as UA did not have a meaningful presence at EWR. I suppose a *A carrier like ANA must decide whether a move to EWR would open enough connecting traffic to make up for the loss of non-stop NRT-JFK pax who might move over to JAL. Perhaps they also think that they can also serve passengers going to secondary markets with itineraries which connect in ORD or IAD.

    But it is tantalizing to know just how many *A airlines and flights I effectively cannot access through so great a gateway simply because they are insistent upon remaining at JFK at the expense of EWR.
     
    downhillcrasher likes this.
  4. edekba

    edekba Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,462
    Likes Received:
    3,783
    Status Points:
    2,145
    I dont get JFK's "prestige" factor ... What is so prestigious about it? The Name?
     
  5. mattsteg
    Original Member

    mattsteg Gold Member

    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    5,543
    Status Points:
    4,170
    History, diversity of carriers and destinations, size, reputation...
     
    downhillcrasher likes this.

Share This Page