entropy

I mentioned a while back in the Terminal relocation thread that I thought that COUA would probably have to give up some space/slots at EWR. The airport is just too concentrated with CO. I guess with IAH there's hobby, and its a spoke for most carriers.

18 flights won't materially harm UA, its enough for basic service on four routes plus some odds and ends. Unless they use half of them for EWR-MDW, UA will have the vastly better schedule. CO probably figured if they use that carrot to satisfy the DoT, they can cap WN with a relatively non-threatening schedule.

theblakefish

Turn out the lights,
The party's over.

They say that all,
Good things must end.

Call it a night,
The party's over.

And tomorrow, I'll be
Flying United again.



So long, Continental.

theblakefish

+1

sbm12

The other main difference is that EWR is slot restricted while IAH and CLE - both of which are higher density UA/CO in terms of passenger numbers - are not.

Agreed. The 18 is basically about the same number that UA operates out of EWR today. Not a huge deal to lose those.

LinBros

Basically existing UA operation will move from Terminal A to Terminal C which raises the question as to when Expressjet (dba Continental Express) and Air Canada will make the same transition.

Will be interesting to see how soon there is some consolidation in frequencies (and probable increase in aircraft gauge) on routes like EWR-ORD (CO = 9 & UA = 8 flts), EWR-DEN (CO = 3 & UA = 3), EWR-IAD (CO = 6 & UA = 4) and EWR-SFO (CO = 8 & UA = 2).

bordeauxboy

While I agree that getting the IT integration right will make things smoother in the short run, it the big operational decisions that will drive satisfaction in the longer run. Having flown both quite a bit, over the past decade my impression of CO has been that of an airline run with a bottom line focus and UA as one being run by marketing (albeit sometimes in a Dilbert sense).

In mergers of this scale, the big decisions are usually based on the bottom line, which is right up Smisek's alley.

I have tried to avoid thinking about it the past few months, and really do wish I could say that I was unconcerned, but now that it is done, this is what I dread regarding the possible major decision outcomes if using a strict bottom line criteria:

Unless the UA finance types made a compelling case, this seems likely to fade away. Since it is expensive to change out seats, pulling an AA (regarding MRTC) and changing out en masse doesn't look likely. Besides, CO mgt has always seemed to be looking for ways to ensure that every single plane in their fleet has a unique configuration , leading to IRROPS nightmares (a CO specialty)...and Smisek is in charge of the merged airline. I can easily see E+ phasing out over the next 10 years - I am even picturing myself in a plane change situation where my seat disappears because one of the old planes is substituted, and then being assigned to a middle seat in the row directly behind so that I can see what I have been missing.

If it is justified, it is probably on just a few high margin routes. New planes will likely be delivered with 2-class service, including lie-flat BF, and if 3-class survives on some routes, it will be in existing aircraft for as long as they are serviceable. See above for a/c substitution fun potential.

CO used to much more limited service map, and even now much of its international service consists of puddle jumpers to Mexico (I consider any aircraft that I have to watch my head when entering to be a puddle jumper, regardless of engine type). A smaller number of miles for top elite made sense in that environment. The merged airline has far more long haul routes, making the 100K seem more likely as top tier.

In my dreams, it's PC policy for booze and RCC policy for food. Food service is expensive, so that looks endangered, and liquor is a high margin item - if RCC shows that to be profitable, even with all the free booze tickets handed out - so pay bar is not out of the question. I'd rather dream here.

Otherwise, I feel for my old friends in Chicago, as the new mgt is probably already looking for ways to replicate the IAH Terminal B experience at ORD. As for other hubs, CLE was already being cut back and this won't change it, and DEN looks ripe for right-sizing. And finally, the inevitable ad campaign to tell us how great an airline they are

But until they actually make the announcements, I will continue to hold out hope for better outcomes

RNE

True and wonderful for shareholders (who are unimportant) and for non-elite, non-Kettles with dough, like me (who are important). ^

I'm on the other side of the fence on this one. The Giant Ferret is always looking for ways to up-sell; witness the recent addition of ELR. E+ is that in spades. Jeff Baby will keep E+ and sell it like hotcakes. (One hopes E+ becomes a PP card perk. Are you listening to me, Chase? Yes, of course you are.)

True and terrible for everyone except friends of Bill W.

Shhh. The Lake Buckeyes still believe in the hub dream, despite cold, stark reality. They won't wake until the spoke pokes 'em in the eye.

sbm12

I'm not so sure of that. CO will not be particularly eager to give up real estate in EWR and the significant lounge and gate space that UA controls in EWR holds significant value. Much like I do not expect the new carrier to abandon the JFK slots and real estate that they hold, I would expect them to come up with creative ways to leverage as much of the space and gates as they possibly can hold on to. It is in their best interests to do so.

Plus there's the issue with the fact that there simply is not sufficient gate space in C for all the UA, AC and XJ operations to move over.

channa

But aren't they giving up slots more or less equivalent to what UA is running anyway?

They can upgauge the EWR-ORD/IAD/DEN/SFO flights (they'll have planes now), and still keep about the same lift with the same number flights that CO presently runs.

N830MH

The entire CO website will be transformation into UA website. UA will have refreshed new UA website and will try to repainted new UA livery scheme.

PHLGovFlyer

Searching a random Friday in September shows UA operating 18 pairs of slots:

4 IAD (RJ)
9 ORD (4 RJ, 1 757, 4 Airbus)
3 DEN (2 Airbus, 1 757)
2 SFO (Airbus)

For that same day CO is operating:

9 ORD on 737s
6 IAD on Q200s
3 DEN on 737s
6 SFO on 737s and 757-300s

Just by dropping RJ/Q200 flying and combining flights UA/CO can "save" the 18 slot pairs that are going to WN:

IAD goes to 5 daily 737 flights saving 5 pairs.
ORD goes to 11 daily flights with more 757s and no RJs saving 7 pairs.
DEN goes to 4 daily flights with more 757s saving 2 pairs.
SFO goes to 6 daily flights with more 757s and (perish the thought) some international config widebodies(!) saving 2 pairs.

Note that this last one also throws gas on the flames of the future of P.S. service debate in the other thread (sorry, I couldn't resist).

You might also see some of UA's domestic widebodies on these routes to provide added lift.