UA1P

Title pretty much says it all. If a strike occurs between now, and say, June 5, would you continue to book travel for June-onwards, or do you think that onboard service levels and on-time arrivals will deteriorate significantly?

I for one intend to continue booking on United, but I sincerely hope that strikes do not take place. I still feel confident booking mission-critical travel on UA; do you?

LAX

I don't have the latest info, but I doubt there would be a strike. Like others have mentioned in other threads, the employees (namely the mechanics, which are the ones threatening, right?) don't have much alternatives should UA go under. Look at US's unions, there were so much talk of an imminent strike, but it never materialized. I think it didn't pan out because the employees realized a smaller pay check is better than no pay check, and alternative retirement benefits is better than no retirement benefits.

IMHO, I would just book on UA as usual. If there is a strike between now and June, it doesn't matter if you are booked beyond June because there will be no UA after a strike.

LAX

fredmartens

Since there isn't going to be a strike, sure I am.

UNITED959

I wonder how many times we've been threatened with a strike over the past 2.5 years?

Until I hear of UA selling its entire fleet to profitable carriers, for me it's booking as usual.

UScolorado1k

I've flown UA during pilot's strikes, I've flown UA during FA strikes, so the answer is: yes, unless I absolutely, positively, have to get there, then I may consider another carrier.

SEA_Tigger

Since this is fantasy (cause that is what the idea of there actually being a strike at UA is), I suppose I can make up any answer I want. So I say yes I would book since, being fantasy, UA would fire all the "bad people" and hire "good people" making UA the wonder of the aviation world in terms of it's employees.

lihue1k

I'll treat the OP as serious in the question and so I'll give a serious answer.

Yes, I'll continue to book.

Seriously, if you're employed by UAL and could have found better employment elsewhere I presume you'd be long gone. Afterall, UAL has been operating in C11 for 3 years!

The bottom line for employees (and I'm sorry if this is difficult to hear) is can anyone REALLY believe that failure of UA will somehow create a new start up who'll hire these same 60,000 employees at terms more favorable than those in place at UAL?

I've been through a quite similar "introduction to reality" in my own (telecom) industry over the past 5 years. I can tell you from experience, the only relevant question is can you do better elsewhere?

Yes, I know UA management has made some terrible errors - as has union leadership. But sadly it's impossible to punish them without hurting yourselves far worse. Why not get to work rebuilding a world class carrier - perhaps then there will be some money on the table to fight over.

Please no firestorm by return, I'm just stating one (loyal UA customer) opinion.

Aloha

Lihu'e 1k

SEA_Tigger

Seriously, depending on who strikes and how large a percentage of that workforce walks, it might be a rhetorical question. If enough folks from a group that are needed to maintain flight operations walk, you might have to shut down operations at a station. You do that across all stations, and you can't count the life expectancy of UA as an operating entity in days using just one hand, as there is no way UA will recover from those losses.

If it's more a "nuisance strike" like Summer from Hell or CHAOS, then yes, I will continue to book. I'll just pick the overnight and late evening flights since the objective would be to honk off the business passengers whose loss UA will really feel (and want to avoid), so they will be going for the morning, afternoon, and evening flights - not the "off hours" ones.

acregal

It all depends as to what you consider better. Numerous people that work there have Bachelor's degrees and could find employment elsewhere. Moreover, if you consider the travel benefits, you'd be hard pressed to find a job that is better (for an average person with a Bachelors).

I should also point out that May 11th is when this may all be the trial date but the President (Bush) has the power to order the unions back to work and into mediation for 30 days (one period, so you can't just keep extending it). Of course, he might not do so (nobody thought EAs mechanics would be allowed to go on strike, but Bush let them).

DENPremEx

I agree completely, there is more than enough blame to go around (management, unions, etc.). I'll go one further and say if union members want a better situation they had better go out and create it for themselves. Don't depend on union leadership to do it for you, they have their own agenda and it isn't neccesarily aligned with every memebr of the union.

I'll support UA to the bitter end.

ridgeback

I may get flamed but I have a headache and need to be nasty. If UA is going to hire all the new service employees from the bay area, I don't hold much hope that they'll be so wonderful.

SEA_Tigger

Well if UA was smart, they'd hire them all from the SEA area (like the 400 agents we just lost in our local reservations center), since they are godlike when it comes to positive and proactive customer service.

Don't know what it is about this station that makes them all so darn good, but I for one am happy to have them everytime I decide it's time to fly.

Random_Flyer

There's plenty of experience and talent in the aviation industry that is currently "laid off" as it is.

If any UA union wants to go on strike, of course I'll keep booking on UA. There's plenty of talent to pick up the slack. Hell, there's probably enough open talent out there looking for work that if a union goes on strike UAL can just saw "fine, you're all fired" and hire a bunch of non-union employees.

And, if the **** hits the fan in a major way I just hope I'm near a PS biz seat when it happens. One of those "United" branded DVD players would make a nice bit of history should the airline go under.

p1cunnin

The real question will be what happens to service. Most of the time when I'm flying, I need to be where I'm going at a certain time. While weather is a variable that you don't have control over, strikes are something that the traveler should be able to work around. Of course, the big question is whether the other airlines will have enough capacity to pick up UA's slack. I would imagine that it would take a while for the others to ramp up enough capacity.

And while it may be the IAM that is striking, the question is whether the other unions will honor the picket lines. I imagine the pilots will be there for us, but the FAs have tended to make enough noise that they might honor the pickets. That's when the wheels come off.

In the meantime, I'm continuing to book UA and hope for the best. I really don't want to shift over to AA.

COS_Flyer

I need to be where I need to be when I need to be there. F9 is not as convenient, but its my next best option if UA is not flying or not likely to be flying when I need to go. If UA manages to rescusitate itself after a strike and still has a hub in DEN, I'd likely go back, as long as it still had more connections that F9.

Edit: After reading the AFA's CHAOS website, I've reconsidered. see p 6 of this thread for an update.