During Tuesday’s JetBlue earnings call, the airline was asked about partnering with another airline, and they confirmed they’re actively having conversations.
So, we’re having conversations with a number of carriers right now to discuss the potential for future partnership. The judge in Massachusetts obviously laid out a framework that would be acceptable under at least the prior administration. So, you know, that’s what we’re looking at, but there’s nothing to announce.
American Airlines and JetBlue had a partnership that was approved by the last Trump administration, and broken up by the Biden administration. Both airlines have discussed openness to re-creating that partnership either simply because the Trump administration might be open to it again or because they recreate it along the lines of the American-Alaska West Coast Alliance that the judge in their anti-trust case said would be acceptable.
However, aviation watchdog JonNYC suggests that JetBlue is in conversations over a potential deal with United Airlines.
I have sources telling me UA is heavily looking at B6 — merger or buying assets or something else I’m not remotely sure at the moment.
— JonNYC (@xjonnyc.bsky.social) January 29, 2025 at 1:38 PM
JetBlue is a weak player in the industry. Spirit Airlines is in bankruptcy. A Trump DOT and Justice Department might look differently at combinations than its predecessor did. United dominates Newark, and with Delta combines to dominate New York but Newark also isn’t New York and is largely blocked from New York JFK – having walked away from its position there in 2015 (leasing its slots to Delta).
Surely there would be anti-trust concerns still over anything more than a small slot sale or lease package, but United is in a stronger position to do a deal than many and a combination in Boston together represent strength against an increasingly aggressive Delta. And United donated $1 million to President Trump’s inaugural and CEO Scott Kirby has made enthusiastic public statements about the new administration.
@Jerry 329
Welcome to VFTW, Mr. Seinfeld. If you actually live in the city, I am sure you are aware that the traffic has improved somewhat since the ‘congestion’ pricing took effect earlier this month. (Oh, no, an extra $1.50 for the rideshare if south of 60th in Manhattan… It’s the end of the world! Not.)
On getting to EWR from the city, the Port Authority is still doing occasional overnight work on the Holland Tunnel, so when for those Downtown, sometimes we have to go all the way up to the Lincoln Tunnel, which adds extra time, but at those hours, the traffic is usually light anyway. Yeah, it can be quicker than LGA/JFK, but not always. If on the cheap, you could take the PATH from WTC to Newark (the other Penn Station), then a rideshare or the bus (but that’s not a good bus).
@Dick and @Gonzo’s ‘poors’ comments were indeed ignorant and hateful, for sure, though probably in jest. I bet they are ‘poor’ by comparison to many of the people who live and work in NYC. Then again, anyone who isn’t a centi-millionaire these days is a peasant, so join the club!
As you likely already know, there are still some spots in the outer boroughs that have not been fully gentrified, mostly in the Bronx, but also in Queens/Brooklyn/Staten Island. Like, most folks don’t go to Far Rockaway, unless they miss the stop at Howard Beach for JFK.
The Port Authority of NY and NJ owns LGA, JFK and EWR.
all 3 are considered NYC in DOJ competitive analysis.
LGA is the preferred airport of the 3 for destinations within the LGA perimeter while JFK is the preferred airport of the 3 for destinations outside of the JFK perimeter.
LGA has two intersecting runways while EWR has just 2 effective parallel runways and JFK has 3 effective runways based on how ATC typically handles all of that intersecting airspace.
All of the discussions about how close any part of anywhere is is subservient to the facts of the airports that actual customers choose.
UA under the current admin wants back into JFK after the very short-sighted decision to leave.
Just because UA wants in and a carrier there might be struggling doesn’t mean that there will be a deal and, even if one is reached, that the DOJ will allow it.
@Tim Dunn
Yeah, you’re right–and I don’t see why this administration would want to stop anything a major corporation wants, unless they literally do the ‘culture war’ stuff against the ‘king’ so that’s quite different than the ‘rule of law’ DOJ from before.
On history, the failure of UA’s brief, ill-fated return to JFK (2021-2022) with those SFO flights can mostly be blamed on the pandemic. Like, a lot of people left both NYC and SF during that time, and the cities have rebounded, substantially. I’m curious if UA was able to try that again today if they’d do better this time–I suspect they would.
On the premium side, JFK has already has AA with Flagship a321 Transcon, DL with 757/763 DeltaOne, and jetBlue with a321 Mint, so three lie-flat options for that market segment. If United were to add a fourth, presumably their ancient Polaris 757 again, I wonder if this would make prices even more competitive, better redemption rates, etc. If so, as a passenger, that’s nice.
that anyone would think that B6 would want to provide any assets to UA so that it could directly compete – as a fourth competitor – in a market that has got to be one of B6’s highest revenue markets requires some serious head-scratching.
Are they so fixated on themselves that they think everyone else is going to shoot themselves in the foot for UA’s benefit?
UA recognizes there is a legitimate market at JFK. They clearly have both AA and DL in their sites. AA, as the weaker carrier both financially and in NYC and with corporate accounts, is the most vulnerable.
But it still doesn’t change that AA, DL and UA are all on the verge of rolling out A321NEO based premium configured aircraft that they will use for transcons – on top of what B6 already has.
There is no NEED in the market. There is a need for UA to fix its strategic mistakes but that doesn’t mean that anyone else wants, let alone needs, to do a deal with UA.
@1990
Thank you for your kind thoughts!
Neither my family or myself sustained any damage/loss with the Palisades fire.
Some years ago, our family business operated a small shop located in what’s known as “The Village'” within the Palisades – and that building (along with other small stores/shops) did not make it.
Due to many L.A. city regulations that are punitive toward small business (taxes, fees, mandatory sick pay – more than the rest of California), we sold/closed all remaining locations within the city limits.
Needless to say, our family business is thriving – throughout California, just not in L.A. city.
SO_CAL_RETAIL_SLUT
@Neal Z
Preferably, I would rather see AS remain at T6, and work out a permanent lease deal with the city of L.A. Department of Airports for all of T6 – and have UA find a “home'” for AC over at T7.
T6 also has customs/immigration (shared with UA – passengers flow into T6). Thankfully, don’t have to hoof back from Bradley and the crowds at that terminal for international arrivals.
UA the past few months has been flapping it’s “wings” by using an underutilized AC gate at T6 for 3 to 4 daily flights – some widebodies and international.
Probably to send a message to AS that UA has the “master lease” at T6 – and no so fast about taking over the AC gates. AS is going to need those AC widebody gates for HA’s 330’s and 787’s.
This will get resolved, and no, AS will not be relegated out to the Bradley mid-field terminal as HA currently is (among others – Allegiant, Breeze, etc.).
SO_CAL_RETAIL_SLUT