MilesBuzz! - United, United as Randy sees it

I'm going to make three statements on the current situation with United Airlines and the seemingly unsettled way in which we've all traveled this Summer. In order to protect the good name of Biztravel.com, these opinions are solely mine and come about under duress. I am no longer the Teflon Flyer, able to get in and out of every conceivable travel situation with ease. Yes, I got my wings clipped by United Airlines as many of you have, so here goes:
http://misc.biztravel.com/content/news_and_views/miles/miles.htm

Interesting points.

Sometimes there are larger issues than just miles or points......

Wow, Randy is upset! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif




------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Mr. Peterson,

I completely agree with you that United
has done a bad PR job with their current
delays. They sound like politicians who
try to point the finger elsewhere instead of
admitting mistakes.

I cannot agree with you that we should
have the governement intervene because of
poor customer service with the airlines.
There are plenty of choices of which airline
to choose. We can take our business elsewhere
just like we'd do if we were treated badly by
any other company. We need to let the free
market work. It's not perfect but much more
desirable than government intervention.


Sincerely,
Paul Eccles

In my view, the best way to get the government involved is for the authorities to encourage competition at each airport and for each market.

Here in Denver, the economy is great and the airport must be generating huge excess of revenues into the city in excess of what was projected. Denver should use that excess to encourage carriers to come compete with United. By use of revenues, I don't mean more high priced consultants. Rather, I mean direct financial incentives to add flights and commit to gates.

The UA pilots who are shamefully tarnishing their company's reputation will hardly care about a passenger's bill of rights. However, they own 25% of UA and will likely care a lot when they start to see some empty seats.

Its been unclear to me what the "passenger bill of rights" are. In general, like Paul, I am opposed to more legislation.

PG, Paul and others concerned about this matter may enjoy reading an article in the current issue of The Milken Institute Review noted at:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/003252.html


[This message has been edited by doc (edited 08-18-2000).]

> I cannot agree with you that we should
> have the governement intervene because of
> poor customer service with the airlines.
> There are plenty of choices of which
> airline to choose.

I most vehemently disagree with you.

Cancelled/delayed flights are not a
"customer service" issue. Rather; it
is a business issue ... and my business
cannot count on their business.

WRT your "there are plenty of airlines ..."

Where do you live? Many (most?) of us
suffer from Fortress Hub syndrome where
there are **** few alternatives. When a
Fortress Hub Airline craters. Decreasing
a city's airport capacity by up to 80% is
baaad business - my business, my customers,
and the service industry that I rely on.

I'd like to see govt regulation limiting
an airline to a maximum of 40% of the gates
*and* 40% of the arrival/departure slots at
any airport with more than 2,000 pax/day.
Heck a 40%:40% cap might even be too high.

I want a choice. Sadly; I am a hostage.

-doug

Randy is right. Firstly, it is a governemnt problem. By maintaiining control of slots at the biggest airports, they have erected barriers to entry, and helped entrench the "majors". They, in turn, have gone nuts. Not satisfied with reducing air transportation to a commodity, something akin to animal transport, they have extended their arrogance to crapping on their better customers. Nobody gets a break, not even the elites. Want an award seat? Get in line. Empty cabins, and yet still "no inventory" for this purpose. Want to change a flight..forget the $75...now it's "we'll have to refare the whole thing". Want to take a pet....all of a sudden they have to go as freight, for up to $200...and by the way, don't call until 7 days before you're travelling (CO). You'd like to say they're getting what they deserve...but it's us, not them, who are getting nailed.Then there's overscheduling to the point that if it rains for an hour, the whole system collapses. They won't listen to the government, so it just lets them do it, then puts all kinds of holds in the system, undoubdetdly hoping if they delay them enough maybe they'll slow down the growth a little. When the airlines finally cause enough grief to really get themselves reregulated (and wonder why), maybe they will get it. United isn't the problem. It's just a symptom.

But according to United wasn't it the weather to blame for most of the delays. YE RIGHT!

Seems like there is more than enough blame to go around. I do have to say I am amazed that an "employee owned airline" employee (pilots) would do so much to damage their own company and financial livlihood (sp?).

I hope it gets settled soon.

William

What would resolve the situation? More competition. Restrict the big boys (for 1 year) from lowering fares below what they have offered for at least 60 days over the past 12 months when an upstart moves in (on same destinations). This would 1) give the upstarts a chance to get established with lower fares and 2) keep fares from being outrageous in dominant markets for fear of an upstart moving in. Also need to figure a way to have gates / routes available for other carriers in "dominant" markets.

The government should encourage some competition where there isn't much already.

And while you're at it, have the government regulate your consulting fees!

Shhhsh, please! No ideas like this please, QL! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Needless to say I'm NOT a huge fan of regulation. It should be an absolute last resort, IMHO! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Can ANYBODY find me an example of government that is run well?!?

The only "efficient" branch is the Dept. of Extortion. They are efficient from the government's point of view - not those of us who actually try to deal with the IRS.

The government should make sure that competition remains in the industry. They should do that by rejected mergers and not micro-managing slots at airports.

Once any time of regulation is involved, it is inevitably a "race to the bottom" for service providers. They'll provide the service as detailed by the government because they can.

If United (hypothetically) removed a passenger benefit in an open market, they'd better hope others follow suit or they'll reinstate it.

If the government requires (X) benefit, then that's what UA will do, along with everybody else.

And if it is weaker than the current benefit (and you can almost count on that - those airline lobbyists spend a lot of time in Washington), all the better.

The ONLY thing that keeps us from the sheer idiocy that government attempts to impose on us is the sheer ineptitude of the bureaucrats running the day-to-day.

Regulate safety, fine. Don't attempt to regulate "rights", because they AREN'T "rights". We are CONSUMERS and history has proven over and over and over again that COMPETITION improves service, NOT regulation.


------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

And I thought my elected representatives were doing such a fine job! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I, too, am wary of most government intervention. But we do have antitrust laws, and whenever a hub becomes a de facto monopoly, it should be subject to antitrust regulation. Look what AA did to Vanguard at DFW, what UA did to Western Pacific in DEN, and what DL has tried to do to AirTran in ATL. It is a miracle that any of these airlines have survived. And their survival has been very important to maintain reasonable fares and decent service. When you have both slot control and gate control at a hub, you do have a monopoly.

As was stated above, if people really had a choice, many of the problems would not exist. I am fortunate to fly out of SJC where there is a choice on almost every route. But I sympathize with those in other cities where the situation is less competitive.

So my question is - to those opposed to government "intervention", why not just apply antitrust regulation to hubs?

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that it was the govt. which was controlling allocation of gates at an airport. I have no problem if the govt. rules that airlines are price dumping to drive off competition from upstart airlines.

Another point is that the govt has been collecting taxes on tickets for several years, but it has not been using the tax money for much needed ATC improvements.

Good point(s) PG! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Randy comments further:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum109/HTML/000990.html

The simple fact of the matter is, almost all of United's former passengers will continue to fly United. The airline knows this. Thats why they, and the pilots, can thumb their noses at their customers.

The only way to really impact things is to vote with your feet.

I hope I won't upset anyone here but here goes.
The main problem I see with these pilots refuse to fly overtime with UA and remember those pilots and FAs from NW and US earlier this year and last year well the main problem to me is Union. Unions were good back in the old days, but not now, they slow alot of things down. I am not blaming the Union for the UA but they ARE part of the problem, as for the owners, they are part of the blame as well, excess flying hours for tired pilots is not my idea of happy traveling, anyone saw 20/20's special on tired pilots? UA really blew it this time, with bad PR from Owners and Unions.

Overall, I am not too happy with Unions, not only in the airline industry but in all the industries. As an investor, I never buy union-based companies such as baby bells and ma bell, seen those Verizon technicans on-strike? Total BS. As a former MCI tech myself, we would love to earn over-time for they pay us, and what do these techs want? Less overtime? Granted these telcomo giants don't treat their employees like people, too overworked and not enough pay big reason that I left, but the Union are just way out of hand. What good will strike do if you are stranded somewhere and your $200 dollar state-of-art cell phone won't work because these techs don't want to work overtime???? Good thing I have ATT wireless this time, but who knows, they might be next. No support for the Union for me.



[This message has been edited by afang (edited 09-11-2000).]

Well Randy does not beat around the bush in today's New york times comment. Bet CEO Jim Goodwin loved his opening line:

The first thing I would do is I would probably resign.


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


------------------
~ Glen ~

In the airline industry, unions are absolutely essential for the well-being of the rank-and-file employees. Unionized employees (like those at UA and CO) get far better treatment and pay than those at nonunion airlines (like Delta).

The problem isn't unions, it's corporate greed by management. The workers are only looking to recoup the heavy pay and benefit cuts they took years ago to save their carriers; management is looking to hoard every last penny, even though such a stance is only hurting the airline as a whole.

Originally posted by ozstamps:
Well Randy does not beat around the bush in today's New york times comment.


The funny thing IMHO is how many so-called "experts" missed the point totally:

"I think what they desperately need to do is have better control over delays ." But wait! The delays are the fault of (pick one): a) the FAA & ATC; b) the pilots; c) the weather; d) Monday Night Football
"If a customer... pushes employees, he should be arrested and not allowed to fly that aircraft." Yeah, that'll help United quite a bit; after all, many of their systemic problems are really caused by rude pax.
"...come up with very tangible things, like what Jacques Nasser did with Ford to respond to the Bridgestone tire crisis." Sure. Nasser has been so successful handling this crisis that he got invited back to testify before Congress again this week. Surely an example to emulate.
"All airlines should charge more when it's more congested and less when it's not." Gotcha. That means airlines should jack up the price of high-load segments like JFK/EWR/LGA-LAX/SFO. Oh, wait; they did that already.


[edited to fix list formatting, since UBB doesn't do nested lists]


[This message has been edited by paulr (edited 09-13-2000).]