Originally Posted by char777

Look at the article again. The article in the OP says that PMUA was planning on axing E+: ....

Originally Posted by garykung

Thanks - It is difficult for me to believe PMUA want to axe E+ (I remember around that time, DL rolled out EC to compete with E+).

BTW - I am the OP.

Originally Posted by WineCountryUA

and the article is about "new united" so I'm a bit suspicious of timeline of pre-merger E+ discussion. Is pre-merger -- the announcement of merger or referring to 3/3.

Originally Posted by Indelaware

We simply have different perspectives of PMUA and PMCO which is not surprising. Those who liked CO dislike the new UA because it is not like the old CO and those who liked the old UA dislike the new UA because it is different. Besides integrating labor, merging customer expectations is a very difficult thing for any management team to do. At worst, UA will see PMUA and PMCO customers leave for AA, DL, and US. Leaving is a choice customers can make and they are thus happy with the new airline once the choice is made. But when changes come as a result of a merger customers of both prior airlines dislike the changes because they are not changes they would have made. One thing saving UA from all of us leaving: consolidation has gone so extreem and planes are so full, there is not enough space for everyone to not fly UA.

Originally Posted by char777

I think the article means it was decided pre-merger. Here's why:

1) The article says "Before the merger between United and Continental"

2) The article credits Maria Walter, director of merch, as the one who saved E+ by coming up with the idea to monetize it. A quick search shows that Maria Walter worked at PMUA for several years. (I can't tell if she's at the new UA; her LinkedIn page says she is, but there's no mention of her on the corporate site).

The end of that section is ambiguous in talking about "the new United", but I think the author skipped a few steps and failed to realize that the airline called "United" evaluated E+ at two separate occasions.

Originally Posted by char777

If what this article says is true (and admittedly it can be difficult for journalists to pick up complex details like this and convey them properly), we can say that "United" evaluated E+ twice: once right before the merger, and once during/after the merger w/r/t extending it to the PMCO fleet.

Originally Posted by char777

The article quoted in the OP says that PMUA (that's right, UA before the merger) seriously considered, or even planned, to axe E+. A lot of the squawk boxes on here are either misreading that, reading over it, or didn't bother to read the article altogether and jumped to attack mode.

It was also reported several months ago that the new UA also went through another evaluation as to whether E+ should continue. There was a quote from Smisek at that time (or perhaps it was one of the other executives) who said something along the lines of that E+ was a 'no-brainer' to keep just looking at the cost benefits and not even considering the loyalty aspect. I tried to find the quote quickly just now but couldn't.



Look at the article again. The article in the OP says that PMUA was planning on axing E+:



If what this article says is true (and admittedly it can be difficult for journalists to pick up complex details like this and convey them properly), we can say that "United" evaluated E+ twice: once right before the merger, and once during/after the merger w/r/t extending it to the PMCO fleet.

Originally Posted by WineCountryUA

and then it says and the article is about "new united" so I'm a bit suspicious of timeline of pre-merger E+ discussion. Is pre-merger -- the announcement of merger or referring to 3/3.

Originally Posted by char777

Gotcha. I meant OP to stand for just 'original post', but it can stand for the original poster as well I guess.

Reading that section a little more closely, the decision to axe E+ at PMUA must have been when it was elite-only and before they realized they could start charging GMs to sit in it. IIRC, that was quite some time ago.



I think the article means it was decided pre-merger. Here's why:

1) The article says "Before the merger between United and Continental"

2) The article credits Maria Walter, director of merch, as the one who saved E+ by coming up with the idea to monetize it. A quick search shows that Maria Walter worked at PMUA for several years. (I can't tell if she's at the new UA; her LinkedIn page says she is, but there's no mention of her on the corporate site).

The end of that section is ambiguous in talking about "the new United", but I think the author skipped a few steps and failed to realize that the airline called "United" evaluated E+ at two separate occasions.

Originally Posted by Indelaware

Please, no need to call people names. i am not dense and hardly selfish. If E+ was eliminated seating space throughout the plane could be equalized. A bit more for those currently in standard E and a bit less for those in E+ thus being more fair for everyone. Likewise, it might also permit a tad more customers aboard which would both allow for decreased fares (greater supply of seats) increased fuel efficency (more profit for airline) better usage of limited natural resources, and decreased per passenger polution (a plus for everyone).