I think that many stay with UA exactly because of E+ and go out of their way to fly UA even if service is low in their area. I, for example, live in NYC where UA service is paltry but I really like some of their features (E+, Ch 9, SFO/LAX-JFK P.S. etc) so go out of my way to fly them.

In the case that E+ were to go away in a CO/UA merger, it would probably be offset for me by the greatly increased service in/out of EWR which I really would love to see. I think many people would make similar decisions and weigh any dropped services with other factors that are important to them (i.e. service in their area) and base their decision on that.

Although I'm a UA fan, I actually like the idea of a merger with CO. I don't know much about CO but what I have heard CO seems like a very strong brand with a loyal following. I'd certainly rather see UA/CO than someone else, i.e. UA/US (yikes)

AA. They give free upgrades (and have larger Y) to Plat Exec, and generally better hard product in Y than CO. Since they will buy AS, I'd go with them and CX in the pacific - easy choice. :) [and I say this as someone who has 700K miles on the old TWA then AA, and dropped them cold in 2002 in favor of CO, I know their issues].

CO mangement has to build a better airline or they will loose a lot of UA high rev passangers, and given how little margin they have to loose revenue, I would expect them to tread carefully. I hope I am right.

and FYI: CO lost 32 Million in Q4 after allowences. http://www.cnbc.com/id/23287463/ See also the statement in their filing they are looking at mergers and statement by "knowledgable" people its UA. [not AA, which would never never pass DOJ muster without major major divestments in TX, NYC, South American, and to Europe]

AA offers far more F seats for upgrades than CO does. Particularly if you learn how to work its system, you have a considerably greater likelihood of scoring upgrades than CO seems to provide. I know there are trade-offs in terms of the quality of its planes and FAs, though on-the-ground customer service is not bad and actually beats CO if you're an AA exec plat.

You're right about B6's limitations, but it does offer good options for some travelers. And Southwest's new system allows you a good shot at securing its better seats if you check in at the 24-hour window or (if I understand its system correctly) join a new program its set up.

So for me, I'd switch to AA to accrue and spend international miles, and supplement that with B6 and perhaps Southwest for some domestic flights. The upshot is that for most of my domestic flights I'd either get upgraded or have relatively good economy seats. Neither of which would be the case with CO/UA if it retains the worst of One Pass and eliminates E+.

Oh well. I'm a hub captive. Thankfully, I've never gotten used to E+, as I have never flown in E+ (I just use UA for Q-UPs). I'm hoping IAH will remain the eye of the storm (kind of like how CLT is passable, despite the rest of US being an abominable trainwreck). If I can get by with avoiding EWR & ORD, and steering clear of former UA crew with a chip on their shoulder (I imagine IAH will continue to be staffed primarily by CO folk), I think the merger should be relatively painless for a flyer such as myself. Depending on what the domestic upgrade landscape looks like, I will either maintain my *G status through the combined UA/CO (if they offer EUAs), or just purchase Q-UPs that earn at 3cpm or less, and maintain *G on either BD or LH (if the combined carrier switches to upgrade instruments). With an instrument-based system, I'd rather just pick and choose my domestic F itineraries by cpm, then use my GUVs (BD) or LH Upgrade Certs for long-haul.

No airline merger is ever painless.

True, but I draw the line at wearing the leather hood. No US for me :p

FWIW, UA FA's get a worse rap than they collectively deserve. Some are great and most are at least OK. UA probably does have a higher percentage of poor FA's than CO does, and such personnel can definitely ruin your flight and day, but that percentage is still pretty low. At any rate, I agree that being IAH-based you'll continue to be dealing with mostly CO personnel in a merged airline.

By the way, your line about a US merger is LOL (not that I think that is at all likely). That would truly be torture.

I've found that one thing UA is consistant at is mediocre at best service. I find CO to be the opposite end of the spectrum.

For me and possibly other ex-DEN flyers, F9 comes to mind. 32", perhaps a bit more, in seat pitch, which I'll take over CO's 31" pitch any day; plus full AVOD.

The only bad thing about F9 will be no Channel 9, but you do get a map feature, albeit with a plane icon that takes up half the screen.

Within 2-5 years, most airlines will have internet onboard, meaning that you should be able to get web based ATC to listen to, essentially making "Channel 9" available on any airline; so UA's currently unique "feature" will eventually be ubiquitous to those who know the right URL to call up.

This is the funniest thing I've heard all day...I love it. :D

I don't know that I'd sell out a carrier wholesale for 1" of pitch in Y, especially if there was a decent chance of a free F seat every now and then and much better redemption opportunities from the FF program.

As to the Channel 9/Internet option, unless there is a significant change in the way LiveTV is implementing their "internet" connectivity, I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. The service that will be installed is a terrible injustice to the term "internet" and the idea of open access. And they do have the ability to filter content, so it wouldn't be very hard for them to block streaming audio for the sake of making everyone's browsing experience better.

I haven't seen anything consistent in UA's service in the past 4 months that I've been flying on them (way more UA miles than CO miles recently). I could say that the service is mediocre on average, but that's a very different situation than consistently. I had a FA yell at me and my wife (in J, no less) for not responding quickly enough when she asked what we wanted for breakfast. I also had a few FAs in Y who were absolutely delightful and happy (enough) to be working. The bit of complaining about work that they did was lighthearted and engaging. Not A+ by any means, but also not terrible, and probably comparable to an average CO experience. CO's FAs are better on average, but UA has a much wider distribution.

I'm afraid that I could almost envision such reasoning taking place in the near future in a CO office on Smith Street in downtown Houston. Why can I envision it?....well it's pretty much how things are now. It's reasoning sort of like this: "We may be bad, but we're no worse than any of the rest"

SFO, LAX, WAS, and ORD are not IAH or CLE.

SFO, LAX, WAS,and most certainly ORD have many more flight options both domestically other than United. If a merger happens, CO should very carefully how they make changes, assuming that those folks are 'hub captive' could be very unprofitable.

At 6-4, literally every inch counts. Plus, F9 allows reward redemption at 15K miles, and from what everyone says about CO's upgrade program, I'd have to be a super elite to get any, which I'm not.

In that case everyone will be equally bereft of ATC, so it wouldn't figure into my decisions. This is assuming a UA/CO merger kills off channel 9, which I heartily hope will NOT happen.

I have, doesn't mean much for a short-haul, but anything over 4-5 hours and I sure notice.