Don't forget about FRA....one out of LAX, SFO, 2X ORD, and 3X IAD. These are just the ones operated by UA. Actually to LHR...there are 4 per day to ORD and three to IAD. Add in SFO, LAX, and soon DEN. Of course, these tend to be larger planes...all widebodies not to mention a few 747.

I knew I was missing something ;) I've updated my original post.

It's still a difference between the mesh coverage that UA provides between more metro areas in the USA non-stop versus more total options with a USA connection - which isn't necessarily a good thing. Like I said before, no reason a combined CO/UA can do both.

I agree...they should do both. Money is money. That is the benefit of a giant airliner...they can serve both the smaller and the larger. Now the only issue is 'can they do it well'.

When is the last time you've flown either of these two? While I would have agreed wtih your post perhaps 2-3+ years ago, I've found that UA and NW have improved while CO appears to have slipped.

I've found NWA in the past year to be consistently good in terms of service. Suprising, given the history, I know, but they certainly did something to turn it around. While CO has some great crews, my experience with them has been hit or miss in terms of service quality.

As for CO and UA being culturally aligned, I think from a service perspective, they're rather similar in terms of intent. Where they differ is in terms of empowerment. The CO staff seems to have their hands tied a bit more than the UA staff. So from a service perspective, it wouldn't be to difficult to integrate the two. Basically they need to strip some of the empowerment from the UA folks, and CO could teach them how to say, "No!" and they'd be all set. Let's just hope they don't alienate the customer base in the process.

UA's F seat blows CO's BF seat out of the water. With the current seat upgrades, their C seat will be the best in the USA.

This has been my experience, as well. I have been very happy with the service on my TATL NW flights in the past year or so - in both Y and WBC. I haven't been displeased with the service on my CO flights, but I do not think it better. And I think the hard product on the NW A330 beats a CO 757 and 767 in both classes.

I can't think of two more obvious nickel and dime initiatives than 50% EQMs and $5 for booze on TATL flights. Neither one is practiced by NWA. Not that NWA is blameless, but I think CO does just fine with the nickel and diming on their own.

I guess it's all about perception. I think CO has been fairly consistent - and I give them credit for that. A few problems here and there (there are no perfect airlines), and yes, quite a few of those problems can be highly annoying, but I wouldn't compare NW and CO in the same breath - or CO and UA.

My last NW flight was a few months ago - and I hoped it would be my last NW flight forever. Surly staff, planes that are older and dirtier than some third-world carriers, haphazard service, and the feeling you're being nickel-and-dimed. If CO took over NW, it couldn't really do a piecemeal selection of routes/equipment (there is almost zero fleet commonality between the two airlines) - they would need to buy NW and try and integrate the entire airline, which as we all know, is a huge undertaking full of extensive risk and cost.

I have two nice things to say about NW: 1) they have a nice regional product, I was on a CRJ-700 it was really nice and so was the FA on the flight; 2) the customer service people on the phone are really nice and helpful, I was expecting surly when I called and I got nice.

The comparison is not relevant - CO doesn't have a F product at all.

If you want to go down that road, CO's J product blows UA's J product out of orbit - and no, UA's J seat will not be the best in the USA. There are plenty of other competitors with better seats, including CO's new J seat to be introduced with the 787.

NWA - CoachChoice, food for purchase, restrictions on inflight drinks, etc...

Agreed that some of these are nickel-and-dime stuff, but given the equally egregious stuff on the CO side, I just don't understand how it can be used as an argument against a CO-NW merger. Unless, of course, you are concerned about the additive effect of such a merger, whereby you not only get the 50% EQMs and pay for booze on TATL routes that CO graciously offers, but whereby you might also lose out on the turkey roll.

Actually, its very relevant. I can get a better seat on UA than CO. Period. Furthermore, UA 1k's and GS get 6x systemwide upgrades on UA that can be used to upgrade J-F for those of us that book J for business or to upgrade Y-J. CO offers nothing like this benefit.

You can get a better seat on UA? Sure...at a significant price difference. It's a totally different cabin! How can this be relevant?

True, CO doesn't offer SWUs, and we can debate all day about why they should - frankly, I don't think it would kill them to offer SWUs to Plats flying at or above a certain fare bucket on reservations made x days in advance (30, 45, etc.) and restricted to certain non-peak days of the week.

However, CO's J product is much better than UA's - so the counter argument can be made that getting UA's J for a free upgrade isn't the biggest prize in the world.

On what possible basis can you make a claim that CO’s not even hinted at, let alone announced, year-at-best-away 787 J seat will be better than UA’s?? Just because? UA’s seat was just listed in The Times (UK) list of 10 best business class seats (see my thread on this in this forum), and was the only USA airliner listed.

You are simply assuming that CO’s will be better because it will be coming at least one and 1/2 years later, when the 787’s finally do arrive.

Talk about a vaporware claim!

Some benefit. The only benefit of United First is a fully flat space. Having flown ANA first and Singapore Airlines First multiple times I refuse to pay for either business or First on United. Many feel the same because First on United is filled with either employees or freeloaders(upgraders). United First Class is a low rent product.