Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > Continental OnePass (Pre-Merger)
Reload this Page >

Continental Pre/Post Merger Speculation Discussion Thread

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Continental Pre/Post Merger Speculation Discussion Thread

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 27, 2008, 4:22 pm
  #1306  
yad
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: CO Plat
Posts: 379
Interesting...not sure whether to be happy or sad...
yad is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 4:45 pm
  #1307  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly AUS or rural England
Programs: BAEC redundant Bronze, AAdvantage Lifetime PLT, CO, WN, B6
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by rkkwan
But doesn't mean no alliance with AA and a switch to oneworld.

Interestingly the stories so far seem to be about seeking anti-trust immunity for an alliance with AA & BA, but not about joining OneWorld.
bernardd is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 5:48 pm
  #1308  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: CLE
Posts: 9,816
Given today's announcement, I am going to remove the sticky from this thread. Please continue discussions in the "no merger" announcement.
MBM3 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 6:03 pm
  #1309  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: BOS
Posts: 3,534
I wonder if CO will negotiate to preserve the current upgrade arrangement with NW or whether that's gone, gone, gone with the new discussion about forming an alliance with AA.

What if mutual upgrades were somehow arranged with AA?
Lurker1999 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 6:40 pm
  #1310  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Congratulations to CO for making the brave and correct move!

I am pleased to see the brand stick around, for the time being anyway. And I am pleased that the management would apparently rather run a quality medium/large airline than a mediocre very large one.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 7:09 pm
  #1311  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Under the Liberty Visual to 27L at PHL. Stranger in a strange land - a Devils fan in Flyers country.
Programs: PWP Le Chancelier des Clefs d'Or || Sarcasm, Anti-Stupidity, Obscure References top tier member.
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by BearX220
Congratulations to CO for making the brave and correct move!

I am pleased to see the brand stick around, for the time being anyway. And I am pleased that the management would apparently rather run a quality medium/large airline than a mediocre very large one.
+1 to that. As much as I had delusions of more than CO RDM's to go TPAC, it's the right move.
ConciergeMike is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 7:12 pm
  #1312  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
99% happy about this...

As a CO employee, I was not too thrilled about joining forces with UA. I think Kellner has made the right decision although I do wonder how much of it was based on how crappy UA is and how awesome we think we are....

We are a great airline. But jet fuel is $145 a barrel. What is that old saying? "Pride comes before the fall..."
JackIsLost is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 7:25 pm
  #1313  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by JackIsLost
I think Kellner has made the right decision although I do wonder how much of it was based on how crappy UA is and how awesome we think we are...
I think it was probably allbased on how crappy UA is. Yes, bigger is sometimes better but not always -- not, apparently, at the cost of absorbing UA's toxic employee relations, shabby inflight product, miserable financials... a merged CO/UA would not have been insured against failure, either. You got fewer X factors and more control by staying independent.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 7:27 pm
  #1314  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 11,572
Originally Posted by BearX220
I think it was probably allbased on how crappy UA is. Yes, bigger is sometimes better but not always -- not, apparently, at the cost of absorbing UA's toxic employee relations, shabby inflight product, miserable financials... a merged CO/UA would not have been insured against failure, either. You got fewer X factors and more control by staying independent.
Actually, the in-flight product is about the only thing UA has going for it. At least for status flyers.
rjque is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 7:49 pm
  #1315  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by rjque
Actually, the in-flight product is about the only thing UA has going for it. At least for status flyers.
Only for status flyers, and then only high-status flyers, and even then it's remarkably inconsistent. Check out all the aggreived 1Ks on the UAL forum who feel like their status counts for nothing. And UA's treatment of non-status/general customers is nothing short of appalling.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 27, 2008, 7:51 pm
  #1316  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Portland
Posts: 11,572
Originally Posted by BearX220
Only for status flyers, and then only high-status flyers, and even then it's remarkably inconsistent. Check out all the aggreived 1Ks on the UAL forum who feel like their status counts for nothing. And UA's treatment of non-status/general customers is nothing short of appalling.
I should revise what I said to refer only to the hard product. UA's seats are great, even for the lowest level elites. E+ means I don't need to worry about upgrades on most flights. And UA's FA's are actually pretty good (though they are admittedly very inconsistent).
rjque is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.