jacklee

so- i originally came here to search as to how the CO/UA merger was going, and to see whether customer svc was going downhill on CO with UA in the mix. But as i'm reading various threads, it seems as though the PERCEPTION is that UA was better than CO.

is this really the prevailing thought post merger?

I'm a fan of CO (use it btn HKG and EWR)- i've flown cathay a bunch of times too, but prefer CO. recently i've only flown UA from HKG to Vietnam- and it was probably the worst i've ever experienced (would've just left it as local ground crew if it wasn't for multiple calls to US based CS and they didn't have a clue either)

short version- website states i can carry clubs/golf bags no issues (and IIRC no weight limit)- on the way over, no issues at all- cept the lack of AVOD (which, for those going from states-hkg...really must've sucked!) in econ. on the way back i paid 100usd pp to upgrade to business (they had some backward seats there too)- but here's where the issue comes into play. the ground crew told me that it was considered regular luggage so i'd have to pay extra. it got as ridiculous as me simply taking out the golf bag from the travel case and then saying- can you take it like this- to which they said yes (keep in mind, more liability for them, and additional work moving two bags etc etc).

i get home, and at first the CS is trying to quote from the website which states i should've paid and Ground crew were correct. i then counter and point out that what she's showing is for domestic. i retrace the ASIA route which applied- at which point she hung up on me. i called back and again spent more time going through my case, and same issues- after about 30mins, finally CS relents and says sorry- we'll provide better training.

the worst part about all of this- no one from the ground crew/CS was ever nice or ever thought that i was right- and treated me as such. if i'm wrong, that's fine, but CS should be about trying to alleviate any issues...something UA didn't.

anyways, not trolling here- genuinely curious as to

a) is the general perception round here that UA>CO (service)/(cabin)
b) if no to A- then has CO gotten worse post merger

(main reason- trying to decide whether to do CO biz, CX biz, or fly some other star alliance carrier)

Halo117

Jacklee,

A. Around here the old UA folks think so, but the public perception outside of FT is just the opposite. (some still cry about the tulip or the paint chipped aircraft...etc.)

B. This is debatable as some good and bad has been implemented from both carriers. I think customers from both carriers have lost something.

If you read some of the threads around here, some folks think nothing PMCO did was better than PMUA. I would ignore those posts and read the ones that offer a pro/con weighting to what is really going on. The bottomline is that the jury is still out on alot of the soon to be merged product/offering/elite benefits.

3bjbno1

Sigh, this OP is so rambling, it's difficult to know where to begin. Ok, let's go with the main question. Is UA or CO better, pre-merger? It depends a lot on what you are looking for, no? If it's the mileage program, then probably UA looks better. If it's seat configuration on 767s, then probably CO looks better in BF and UA in E+. What kind of a question is this? You need to be more precise in the issues you are looking to address.

Vermando

It also depends on what you mean by CO. Smisek, and even LK, had already implemented some negative changes - or at least changes people complain about - before the merger, and, some say, generally changed the culture from the old-style, customer focused one of Bethune. UA folks see these things as being brought from CO. Loyal CO folks don't necessarily associate those with "CO".

lhrsfo

+1.

There have been almost no changes arising from the merger that impact me to date. Still the same cruddy, ancient planes and FAs. Still the same excellent mileage earning possibilities. Still the same 19th century IFE. Still the same improved legroom of E+. The only changes I'm currently experiencing are down to either the economy (more difficult SWU usage, more difficult mileage redemptions) or decisions taken pre-merger (the roll out of worse E+ seating in 777s).

IMHO, the test is whether the combined entity can improve the FA service culture (which will take time) and smarten up the fleet (which will also take time). What I would like to see is an airline that continues to treat me well but that also treats my non-status friends decently and that is not an embarrassment to admit to flying. I'm cautiously optimistic that some of this will be achieved but I do recognise that it's not going to happen tomorrow.

Shigernafy

Don't confuse a noisy minority for a majority.

UAGuy2

Tough to say. They were too very different airlines. UA has a strong contingent of fans here who had a lot vested in the UA system. Plus the airlines had two very different customer bases. CO had people in Texas and New York.. UA had California and the midwaste around ORD. Tastes vary significantly in those different regions. I wouldn't worry too much about it who ruined whom; it won't do any good.

rruaco

That's understandable. UA F on a A320 is better than CO F on a 737 - the cabins are lighter and nicer and F FA service is great. UA handling of 1Ks and even 1Ps is great. E+ is a great perk if you are elite.

So, if (like a lot of FTers) you are a very frequent flier then UA probably gave you a better experience pre-merger than PM CO. I have certainly enjoyed my post-merger UA flying as a 1P whereas my pre-merger flying was as a *S and that was horrible.

PM CO on the other hand was probably better for everyone else. What the PMUA folks don't see (because it started to change after the move to *A and even more so after the merger) is that the CO way had some pretty nice advantages for elites too:

• No need for DYKWIA to get reasonable service.
• Smaller numbers of elites on flights (due to more GMs) so EliteAccess was worth more.
• Smaller numbers of people earning lots of miles so better redemption policies.

Add to that confirmation bias and the fact that every airline has enough bad staff that you can have a long run of bad luck and - there you go.

UA-NYC

Loyalty program and top tier benefits were heads and shoulders better on UA than on CO pre-merger - of course, those are the things in process of being impacted as they try to equalize the programs.

UA had to "try harder" with rewards given their positions in non-hub airports. Whereas before last year, a CO Plat had zero incentive to keep flying once they hit 75K EQM - they knew they had captive pax, and thus the benefits were in line with that.

New United has (or will) eliminate all own-metal requirements it seems for benefits (CR-1 earning, lifetime status, etc.), so it looks like we won't be punished for taking a chunk of business to other Star airlines.

Bonehead

Having spent a great deal of time on both UA A320s and CO738s and 9s I must say that I prefer the CO birds...more comfortable seats, DirecTV, and a bigger cabin. E+ is huge, but almost a non-issue since I rarely miss an upgrade on UA, which ultimately trumps everything else and keeps me flying UA unless the noncompetitive last-minute fares force me over to WN

dinoscool3

Yes, thats the problem, I think most CO folks when they think of PMCO, they think of the great airline run by Kellner and Bethune, and when they think of the merger CO, they think of $misek and the terrible changes he's made. Meanwhile UA people, when thinking of PMCO, think of $misek, which isn't really CO. They dont recognize that CO before $misek was one of the best North/South American carriers.

cordelli

If you post the question in the United forum, you will probably get a totally different answer than if you posted it in the Continental forum.

But in the United Forum, where United is the airline of choice for many people, yes they will really think UA offered a better product than CO.

dinoscool3

I think thats why she posted in the consolidated forum, to get all sides of the picture.

rob_flies_ua

I don't think anyone can realistically state that one airline was better in all aspects than another airline. There are *features* of airline products and *features* of airline loyalty programs that are better than features of other airline products or loyalty programs, and if those features line up with your flying patterns, then that airline or loyalty program is better *for you*. For other people's flying patterns, different features line up better and another airline or loyalty program will be appropriate. Also, for a sense of how the merger is integrating things take a look at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...-ua-vs-co.html

SFOSpiff

And how is that relevant to the OP's question, when Smisek took the helm 2 years before this merger was announced? The CO you praise is long dead, and the United merger has nothing to do with it.

You might as well claim United was the better airline, because it was higher rated than Eastern in 1983.