AeroWesty

Good point. The execs at my workplace flying in Biz (despite our all Economy rule) or on B-fares internationally aren't generic staffers, they're decision-makers. These folks know how to read and interpret financials in order to manage what they're responsible for.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the folks where I am know UA better inside and out than UA execs do, but they know how to find and interpret the info out there when it comes time to discover why they might be having problems.

Actually, I have a modicum of respect for the guy. Some of the things he said in his presentation will be quite good for UA going forward, if they can attain those goals. Borrowing money to invest in planes and the product vs. covering losses is one of the top items he spoke about at some length (considering the elapsed time of the whole event). Responsible restraint on capacity, swapping 787s with 777s on/off-season is another. Sounds like they have a grip on some important issues, and a plan in place to make them work.

I also realize who his audience was. Those who have invested or loaned capital to UA, or that they want to cultivate in the future to do so, or that have that influence with their clients. Rainey's audience wasn't FlyerTalk.

BUT, UA needs to have One Voice. They can't on one day have one dept. saying they want people to be loyal to the airline, then another day have someone in another dept. say they want people to be loyal to the FF plan. That shows a distinct lack of cohesion within the Executive Suite on what the end goal is of The Big Picture. The blame for that goes to Smisek. It's his responsibility for his VPs to carry out his and his board's vision for UA, and to deliver that message to staff and the public.

FlyWorld

UA Insider has done that at least 3 times. The problem is, nothing actually seems to work the way she says it does.

So, in addition to clear and unambiguous, we need truth.

AADC10

The UA CFO said a lot of things that Elites do not like but as CFO but his audience is supposed to be investors. He could have done a better job by using "code words" and other techniques to avoid annoying passengers but for investors, it is all about getting more money out of passengers while providing less service.

Investors are not your friend. They have nothing but contempt for passengers, employees and even aircraft. It is all about ROI.

All they want to hear is that passengers are paying as much as possible while being provided as little service as possible. They cheer when fares rise, elite programs are cut back and capacity cut.

For labor, they want to get as much work as possible for as little pay as possible. Nothing is better for investors than layoffs. The bigger the mass layoff the better.

Investors hate new planes and maintenance. Fuel costs are pushing aircraft into retirement but equity investors hate capex. That is why many growth companies talk about EBITDA, so capex can be charged to the Tooth Fairy, to paraphrase Warren Buffett.

Heavy maintenance has been farmed out to questionable facilities. SHARES is worse than Apollo, but it is cheaper and still CO owned, so it is great - for investors.

Investors have objectives different than everyone else, often in direct opposition. MBAs and consultants are geared to push companies, often to their doom, toward the interests of investors. Some of that will be balanced by the need to offer a competitive product and driving away too many elites will be damaging. At the same time, most of us know that there are too many elites and some need to be pruned.

I think that many of the UA issues will eventually be resolved and GS and 1K will be treated better than they are now. Some of it is the SHARES limitations which need to be fixed and probably will be.

Post Texas Air CO was a 2nd tier carrier and depended on Kettles to survive. With consolidation, the new UA needs to balance moving Kettles with retaining elites. Some elites will stay because of the routes and fares. Among the elites that have a choice, UA apparently thinks they are spending too much to try to retain them.

malgudi

Exactly! Every time Shannon (UAI) comes up with an explanation, it doesn't take very long for posts to show up with actual data that shows otherwise.

Not to pick on her (there's only so much she can do/say), but a sad commentary on UA.

Michael D

Like this flight I was pricing for my wife this afternoon. (I merged to selections.)

viaIAH

Maybe they should dump SHARES and use ebay. They could have a minimum reserve for the seat and let the users bid them up. Truly dynamic pricing! You want 7C in economy? You better beat my bid of $501!

Michael D

Quibids!

channa

In fairness, it may be the confusion managing SHARES and its ancillary systems, rather than deception, why there is this sort of disconnect.

In other words, she, nor anybody at UA, may not know the truth. And investigating incidents is not likely easy -- look at how difficult the system is, how complicated processes are, and how little visibility people have into things.

For those of us who used to be PMUA 1Ks, just look at the difference in upgrade accounting history between PMUA and PMCO where we lost all sorts of history and detail when we moved to CO systems. If all their systems lost that level of detail, how can they even try to track down something reported that may have gone awry? Especially when multiple systems are now involved?

FlyWorld

That is precisely why I asked her to engage with us in a connected and continuous fashion. Since 3/3, she has popped in here and there and she has posted one or two messages here and there then she disappears again for weeks. There is no engagement. If she was willing to engage with us and work with us on a continual basis rather than coming in, posting a message, and disappearing, then maybe we'd get to the bottom of this. For example, some back and forth. She says something. Someone else says something. She responds. We discuss. We study. We research. Do you know what I mean?

I'm not presuming she has lied to us (though it sure feels that way comparing words and experience) nor am I suggesting this is easy - but what I'm asking for is a commitment to continual dialog and working through this stuff until we get to the bottom of it.

Can you think of a better way for us to get to the bottom of this?

RedEyeDelight

Just a guess: All communications through UAI are now, perhaps opposed to just recently, verified by corporate communications.

Mike Jacoubowsky

I would be scared to death of posting to this group from a high-level management position. United would, in my opinion, be much better with someone who could field issues and have conversations with us without being seen as a person in authority to make those changes. Shannon cannot come out and say "What if..." and have anything but an explosively-polarized exchange. An exchange with her held accountable, by all.

We can't ask Shannon why something can or can't be done without the answer potentially setting policy. That really dumbs down the conversation.

As a result, we don't see much of Shannon. She wades in once in a while to let us know that United hears us, but not so much that we think United understands us.
+1

Superguy

You missed the point. Does buying full Y get me into E+ US-ICN? Nope. It doesn't work on international, which was my point.

A gold could by a $1200 fare and fly in E+, but a silver could pay full Y at $5800 and not get E+ until check in unless they pay an extra $150 each way on top of that.

You'd think that extra $4600 would more than cover the E+ fee.

Just to add: if you have one of those golds flying on those $200 transcons, that one Y fare at $5800 could easily top in one trip what a 50k flyer pays all year. Not always, but it does show how ridiculous it is NOT to give full Y fares E+ access internationally or domestically if it doesn't clear.

majortom

Well put. Sort of like the townsfolk with the torches and axes had an interest in Dr. Frankenstein's Monster.

What concerns me most is that you might actually believe this statement despite the fact that it is obviously not true. While things have gotten worse since 3/3 they had already deteriorated substantially since the merger. As a 1K 2.85 Million Mile flier who almost exclusively purchases tickets within 24 hours of flying, my experiences have gotten so bad that I see no reason to stay. I rarely get E+ and have routinely found myself sitting in Economy between another 1K and a GS. I almost never get upgraded (I was much happier before United moved to Continental's CPU/UDU).

There is no way as far as I can tell that things have improved for me (or anyone else) as a 1K. I am less than 150,000 miles from 3 Million. Six months ago I was planning to do quite a few extra international trips to hit 3 Million this year. The way things have been, I doubt I will hit 3 Million Miles in 5 more years.

Given that our views of the world are so far apart, I will not bother to respond to the rest of your post point-by-point. Suffice it to say your response to the firestorm of "Everything's great and you should all be happy!" probably will not be sufficient.

BigPoppaCO

Just make it a revenue based system and call it a day. One tier only: $20K in annual spend. Spend less, get nada. Spend more- you're a king. Problem solved.

Michael D

This has always amazed me also. Knock off the >$500 YZ(fuel) surcharge and its even more contradictory. >7:1 ratio, much more if you just look at profit/pax.