If non-elites were treated so horribly at United, they would've never endured the "horror" enough to become elites and be treated well. That argument doesn't hold any water.
Originally Posted by
tuolumne
Well first, I never said it's all because of SHARES, but now that you mention it, yes, that has been a completely verifiable failing in the integration process. Are you saying it wasn't?
And as far as having an old livery, I would say that was indicative of CO's reluctance to update many parts of their company - whether it be paper logbooks for aircraft, an old patched together res system with no front end GUI, a shyness towards updating their brand in any way, etc. It all strikes me as them believing they didn't have to, given the operating environment of having captive hub customers at two airports. That's what CO was - a 2-hub carrier. Now that they've layed their business model and ethos on top of the 5-hub UAL, the results have been disastrous. Again, are you still implying everything is ok?
This is part of the reason I don't get why the love affair with CO was so strong. They were completely stagnant brand wise, product wise, and image wise. Absolutely refused to update themselves in any way shape or form, believing that they were still the best airline, even while they made cuts their competitors were also doing. They had a great turn around in the late 1990s, nobody can deny that. But they pretty much coasted on that reputation since and tried to shove it down everyone's throats. And because of that, United is now failing because the CO leadership team is full of themselves.
I can't think of any other airline taking brand new state of the art 787s and putting 1991 seat covers in Y and brand new 737s without any sort of IFE. Truly a stale and half-assed airline branding wise, always has been since they dumped their Saul Bass heritage.