hobo13

Some executives are over entitled. May he only be the first of this arrogant bunch.

Bonehead

Since it's clear that such employees do exist from the numerous tales of woe in this forum, I would say that Mr. Smisek has a point. Whether those employees are the "root cause" of the problems isn't the issue I was addressing; you made the statement that Smisek was going after pUA employees specifically when in fact his quoted statement said nothing of the sort.

If I was the lead dog in a customer-service-oriented company, you had better believe that employees who demonstrated a disdain for my customers would be shown the door if they didn't rapidly improve their attitude. I think my good employees would get that.

cblaisd

Actually, sometimes you do.

FlyWorld

When I connect the dots, it appears to me that he is, in fact, going after sUA employees specifically.

Example 1: Look at the composition of the executive suite. Look who was hired and fired when he took over.

Example 2: I've been told by several sUA FAs on sUA flights that he is hiring new FAs on the sCO side, he is cutting flights on sUA metal, and he is not allowing those sUA FAs to switch over to the sCO flights that are replacing the sUA flights. More than a few sUA FAs have explained to me in no uncertain terms that they are being pushed out because of their relatively higher earning rates. Note, I tend to fly on sUA routes with senior FAs.

Example 3: I recently posted about my last irrops experience which included both poor operational performance and bad customer service. Those are precisely the two metrics that is is blaming on others and demanding they leave for (i.e. scapegoating). If you read the details of my post, it's absolutely clear that every single bad thing that happened during my 25 hour flight delay was caused by systemic organizational factors - either by SHARES or by policies put into SHARES by his executive team or by complete and overall organizational dysfunction. These failures in operational performance and customer service had nothing whatsoever to do with the front-line employees, and yet, that's who he wants to blame.

Bonehead

First time that's happened after a merger/takeover, eh?

Might be a somewhat biased sample...

uastarflyer

And he was fingering sUA staff by implication

He knew his [barf]co-workers[/barf] from CO already. He would have had a chance to clean house already. It is sUA that is new to him, and he believes the hype that CO cared and UA didn't.

Saying Jeff was speaking evenhanded is naive.

alex_b

I'm not convinced, in a lot of (particularly western) service industries, minimum effort is the norm and unless you proactively encourage and reward excellent customer service you will not get it. If a FA realizes they get exactly the same reward by sitting in the galley all flight as they do running up and down the cabin offering drinks etc, then they'll soon trend towards that unless there is positive re-enforcement for doing the right thing. I'm not saying all FAs are like this or don't want to do a good job, but for many this attitude will creep in over time.

What's worse is some UA targets (e.g. on time push back) actively militate against good CS by making the GA worry more about push back than about serving customers (hence the "go back to check-in" reports we get on here).

So I'd say the root cause is that many staff aren't particularly bothered about providing "better operational performance or consistently good customer service" and the current UA leadership have shown no attempt to strongly encourage this (either through positive or negative means). Think about the brands with great CS, they manage this extremely actively through recruitment, training, morale, rewards and (sometimes) discipline; I've seen little evidence of any of that from the United leadership.

FlyWorld

It's the results that matter. If he did this and created a great airline, we'd all be cheering him. It hasn't worked.

Not worth responding to.

alex_b

+1 - Look at the high flying consultancies, they fire the lowest performing 5-10% of their staff a year, it ensures that you don't build up dead wood and that you keep the organisation fresh. Now it may not be the type of employer that everyone would like to work for, but it certainly improves performance in large companies. If you only rely on staff leaving of their own volition, the highest flyers will tend to leave faster than those marking time and putting in the minimum effort.

xzh445

This is just patently wrong. Clearly, you do not have access to any organization charts. It may be the "appearance" you perceive, but it is not reality.

Bonehead

I flew CO as a Plat for 10 years straight and then switched most of my flying to UA when miles and status began being shared. For most of those 10 years CO was every bit as good as UA (and certainly more reliable in my experience); it was in the last couple of years (post-Larry, I believe) that the airline began to slip (mainly in terms of TODs and a declining upgrade % for elites...customer service was always excellent). Unless one had flown CO extensively in the past decade and also flown UA pre-merger, I question one's ability to validly judge just how good or bad the airline has been in relative terms.

cblaisd

Well.... for too many folks on FT, a "great airline" would be one where they always get their upgrades no matter what, etc. I too would always like to get an upgrade (but also know if that's what I expect I should pay for a seat up front), but I would much prefer United stay in business. Mr. Smisek's discussion on the video that many have seen about "TOD" [sic] upgrades and how upgrades for elites have to be balanced with actually making money was excellently done.

Exactly. When I've come in to lead an organization, there are those who don't like that. I can respect that. I also expect them to be loyal and if they can't be, they need to leave - quietly and professionally and with their dignity intact. I've also been in the opposite position and quietly left when a new leader was not someone I could support.

uastarflyer

CO didn't have E+, a 1K suite of benefits, and for a while had non-earning fares. And wasn't in Star Alliance.

You are right, I didn't fly CO the past decade. For good reason.

There is no reason for Jeff to take his internal battles public. Instead of focusing on people he would like to leave, he could have discusses why his people would want to stay, and by that playing up the strengths of the organization


Does Disney talk about wanting some workers to leave? Surely they have a few but instead they play up the positive

Smisek is just being cancerous in an attempt to sound like a leader

FlyWorld

Well, I know that when you look at the list of officers on the investor relation page, all of them are from CO. Not only that, but the page actually says they are still at Continental! I posted it a while ago, but it was deleted.

He created a false argument in that portion of the discussion. It's not a choice between upgrades or profitability. He created that spin, then tried to get everyone to agree that, of those two choices, clearly we need to choose profit. Nonsense.

Look, CPUs were ridiculous from day one. I get that. He can't and shouldn't give away the front for free with CPUs if he can monetize that asset. Many of us have stated we'd be content to go back to e500's.

So, if we cut CPU out of the conversation, and focus on GPUs, RPUs, and e500's, then I argue that those SHOULD clear with high priority. These are not giveaways. These are rebates that were earned in exchange for a specific amount of travel. It is in bad faith to offer a rebate then make it impossible to redeem. And, the cost of making those instruments useable should simply be baked into the overall business model just like the cost of mile redemption is baked into the business model.

This is where things have gone astray. I'd even be in favor of a model where all but the lowest fare classes are eligible for GPU earning points, to ensure that the company gets the profit they need before giving out the GPU, and then, the GPU should be good for any seat that is redeemable for miles. This is an example of an economic model that allows GPUs to have integrity, that rewards loyalty, and that ensures profitability.

uastarflyer

What mitchmu said!