But the reality is that, as far as brand is concerned, all UAEX flights are United. The vast majority of travelers get confused by code shares, let alone regional carrier capacity purchase agreements. Bottom line, as was one big lesson from the failed CO Lite experiment in the mid-90s, is that anything with the United name on the fuselage is United in the eyes of the customer.

If United were to proceed with a "well, you were on one of our regional partners not really United..." mentality (which PMUA always really had), they will do significant damage to their entire brand. I'm not suggesting that's their strategy (I think, if anything, they're just ignoring the regionals entirely). But, hopefully for United their obvious negligence on the regional passenger experience at present won't last long enough to bring down the whole brand.

Not really, even though UAX represents UA, they are not the same. WHen you fly UAX (skywest) flight the aircraft, and crew states they are another company. Now this is why the planes, the interior and uniforms all look like UA, bu the P&P and operating manuel are written for X airline.

I think you missed my point here. I get that, technically, UAEX is not the same company as UA mainline. My point was, as you stated, UAEX represents UA. UAEX is sold by UA, is scheduled to connect with UA, and in many markets is the only metal behind the UA brand.