Originally Posted by
joshwex90
You didn't mention SHARES; others constantly do. You mentioned the livery, which seems completely unconnected. You've based your entire premise on not updating a livery meaning they clearly didn't update a business plan. That's a very immature way of looking at a business, and ignores their stellar record heading into the merger as a business.
Ok, call me immature if you wish. As far as the stellar record - UAL had the higher revenues and better reported operational performance during the time of the merger announcement.
The fact remains: The SHARES transition was handled horribly, with is adequate training of employees on the inferior command line based interface, a system that was not properly scaled to handle the load of all of the UAL side's flights, and inferior ability to operate in a combined multi-hub operation. The only people I still see defending SHARES are washed up consultants paid by CO during the lead up to the switchover (no, honestly).
Originally Posted by
joshwex90
As for implying everything is OK - I don't understand what you're asking. Implying what's OK?
I'm simply asking how you would currently describe the company's current situation.