CrankyFlier: Blaming United's problems on Continental (and v.v.) is the problem
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,067
There are too many problems when flying UA. They simply do not care for passengers. For example, both of first legs of my recent trip had crew rest caused delays, which would definitely cause misconnections. No one at UA protected me for later connection flights at four hours before the departure times. If I did not act, I would stuck at EWR on inbound and ORD on outbound. As a 1K, I wish that I could be treated better.
The CO procedures for rebooking do not take into consideration a multi-hub environment with proactive reroutes.
The only procedure they have is to autoprotect when a misconnect looks likely after you've departed on the first leg (i.e., already pushed back) and are wholly reactive.
That may have worked in the CO world with limited hubs -- someone flying AUS-IAH-LAX would want the next IAH-LAX when en route to IAH.
In the PMUA multi-hub environment, the strategy has always been to proactively avoid the problem and route around the issue. That's why PMUA would be putting in protection ahead of time for Premiers when something was up, usually rerouting you another way. I would show up at the airport, and there would be some other route in my record, I'd go check in/recheck in, and be alerted to the issue (e.g., we're having issues in Chicago and think it's best to send you thru Dulles today).
That's also why UA's computer systems were optimized to handle multiple segment swaps easily (e.g., change SFO-ORD-PIT to SFO-IAD-PIT), whereas CO's are optimized for one-to-one exchanges (e.g., change IAH-LAX to the next IAH-LAX -- anything more than that is time consuming in SHARES, because it simply didn't happen much in the CO world).
The CO procedures are designed for the customer to roll with it and take what they're given after they're messed up. That doesn't work for an airline this size when customers are interested in reaching their destinations in a timely manner.
#92
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: US Gold, DL, AA, UA
Posts: 145
I took a flight a few weeks ago in paid F (well A) on UA from MCO-DEN. As I avoid United whenever possible, I thought I should compliment the the two FAs in the cabin. When I said I don't fly UA often because of service issues, they, politely but firmly, informed me they were CO (not UA). I think that says alot about the culture right now and puts Cranky Flier in context
#93
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: 19,714
The last four years make Kellner, although I had my issues with him during his days in the CEO's chair, look like a genius of rare perception.
#94
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 260
Crankyflier completely, unmitigatedly, unequvically nailed it.
Except that UA has been a mess for at least the last 30 years. I have looked at the CO-UA merger as voluntairly wanting to contract Hep C.
Your first clue was Larry Kellner, a top finance guy, looking at the books, and passing, and taking retirement when he was overruled.
Your second clue is Jeff Smisek, who I swear has aged a good 15 years in the last 3.
It's sad. I mean, I used to live in LA and will be back for good soon (serving a sentence in Vegas right now, when my house goes up another 15%, i'm out of here). I chose CO because I didn't want to fly UA.
BTW, I'm 300K from MM status, and am not sure how much aggravation I want to put up with to get it. I'm also not sure Smisek won't take it away from me by the time I get there. Right now, I'm guessing 2022 to make it.
Except that UA has been a mess for at least the last 30 years. I have looked at the CO-UA merger as voluntairly wanting to contract Hep C.
Your first clue was Larry Kellner, a top finance guy, looking at the books, and passing, and taking retirement when he was overruled.
Your second clue is Jeff Smisek, who I swear has aged a good 15 years in the last 3.
It's sad. I mean, I used to live in LA and will be back for good soon (serving a sentence in Vegas right now, when my house goes up another 15%, i'm out of here). I chose CO because I didn't want to fly UA.
BTW, I'm 300K from MM status, and am not sure how much aggravation I want to put up with to get it. I'm also not sure Smisek won't take it away from me by the time I get there. Right now, I'm guessing 2022 to make it.
United's problems started with the dot com bubble, which wasn't their fault and then 9/11 which also was out of their control. CO meanwhile took more than one trip the bankruptcy court while others like United were flying high.
#95
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: CLE,OH
Programs: UA 1K 3MM, AA Plat, F9 Elite, the later two thanks to Jeff $, HHdia, Mgold, WynDia, Choicepl, IHGDia
Posts: 1,405
I always looked at the CO/UA merger as a repeat of the UA takeover of PanAm service to the pacific and orient. At the time it appeared they over paid for old aircraft but in time it all worked out.
With the merger CO took on the aged UA aircraft that Tilton sent Mr. Clean in to appear better than they really were. In time with less competition, higher fares, higher loads, newer aircraft the new UA will be OK but smaller. Sadly, it appears there will be many more causalities along the way.
I really appreciated both airlines operating separately flying 100K a year on each. Now my flying is 30K UA YTD. The rest is DL, AA, F9.
With the merger CO took on the aged UA aircraft that Tilton sent Mr. Clean in to appear better than they really were. In time with less competition, higher fares, higher loads, newer aircraft the new UA will be OK but smaller. Sadly, it appears there will be many more causalities along the way.
I really appreciated both airlines operating separately flying 100K a year on each. Now my flying is 30K UA YTD. The rest is DL, AA, F9.
#96
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: 2012 Plat-2013 Plat-2014 Silver-2015 GM
Posts: 818
#97
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,824
Perhaps another big difference between United then and now is that, back then, many of us felt empathy for the crew and ground staff. That was much easier to do when we weren't faced with visible and audible evidence of a virtual civil war among current staff.
Back in the day, few demanded that things be a certain way, they just wanted better. Today, the battle is for sCO or sUA to be the winning culture.
Or so it seems.
#98
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: UA Plat, 2MM
Posts: 1,860
List all the blames you want, but it is leadership which makes or breaks a company. In this case it is not CO or UA that are the problem it is two words - Jeff Smisek. ANYONE who does not see that has no concept of business, including the BoD of the "new and ruined "UNITED.
#99
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HaMerkaz/Exit 145
Programs: UA, LY, BA, AA
Posts: 13,167
United was a big airlines with a big fleet, transitioning liveries a handful of years after 9/11, SARS, Ch.11 protection, and thus doing it slowly during maintenance checks. What would you have them do, reduce regular maintinence procedures because it didn't have the same color? Not to sound trite, but "your airline" never had to deal with these problems, as they were using a livery designed in the late 80s.]
And honestly, I couldn't care less what it says on the plane. I care how the CS reps treat me. I'd rather the elite treatment of PMUA and the non-elite treatment of PMCO. Instead, everything sucks, and somehow that's because of SHARES and the CO livery?
#100
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: LAS HNL
Programs: DL DM, 5.7 MM, UA 3.1 MM, MARRIOTT PLATINUM, AVIS FIRST, Amex Black Card
Posts: 4,479
How does an old livery change anything? CO was a great SMALL airline before the merger, who treated regular customers well, and elites a bit better. UA was a mess LARGE airline who treated elites GREAT and non-elites HORRIBLY. That doesn't make 1 better than the other. If the CO route network works and you're not elite, CO! If CO doesn't help and you're elite, UA! Anything in the middle - half a dozen of one, six of the other.
UA as well, was a fantastic airline. When I was a "non-elite" on UA - I was never treated HORRIBLY.
As stated up-thread - what should the Unions and Management do? Base everything on date of hire (If hired on the same date - birthday -oldest first). Than work as a team - TEAM UA. DL figured it out in about 3 years.
Than pour me a drink in 2B Pre-flt, put a smile on, say thank you, serve a decent meal, pour a few more drinks and say you are proud you work for the "new UA" - with new management.
Until than, I will continue to fly DL and AA, or UA on nonstop only.
#101
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
How does an old livery change anything? CO was a great SMALL airline before the merger, who treated regular customers well, and elites a bit better. UA was a mess LARGE airline who treated elites GREAT and non-elites HORRIBLY. That doesn't make 1 better than the other. If the CO route network works and you're not elite, CO! If CO doesn't help and you're elite, UA! Anything in the middle - half a dozen of one, six of the other.
And honestly, I couldn't care less what it says on the plane. I care how the CS reps treat me. I'd rather the elite treatment of PMUA and the non-elite treatment of PMCO. Instead, everything sucks, and somehow that's because of SHARES and the CO livery?
And honestly, I couldn't care less what it says on the plane. I care how the CS reps treat me. I'd rather the elite treatment of PMUA and the non-elite treatment of PMCO. Instead, everything sucks, and somehow that's because of SHARES and the CO livery?
And as far as having an old livery, I would say that was indicative of CO's reluctance to update many parts of their company - whether it be paper logbooks for aircraft, an old patched together res system with no front end GUI, a shyness towards updating their brand in any way, etc. It all strikes me as them believing they didn't have to, given the operating environment of having captive hub customers at two airports. That's what CO was - a 2-hub carrier. Now that they've layed their business model and ethos on top of the 5-hub UAL, the results have been disastrous. Again, are you still implying everything is ok?
#102
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HaMerkaz/Exit 145
Programs: UA, LY, BA, AA
Posts: 13,167
Well first, I never said it's all because of SHARES, but now that you mention it, yes, that has been a completely verifiable failing in the integration process. Are you saying it wasn't?
And as far as having an old livery, I would say that was indicative of CO's reluctance to update many parts of their company - whether it be paper logbooks for aircraft, an old patched together res system with no front end GUI, a shyness towards updating their brand in any way, etc. It all strikes me as them believing they didn't have to, given the operating environment of having captive hub customers at two airports. That's what CO was - a 2-hub carrier. Now that they've layed their business model and ethos on top of the 5-hub UAL, the results have been disastrous. Again, are you still implying everything is ok?
And as far as having an old livery, I would say that was indicative of CO's reluctance to update many parts of their company - whether it be paper logbooks for aircraft, an old patched together res system with no front end GUI, a shyness towards updating their brand in any way, etc. It all strikes me as them believing they didn't have to, given the operating environment of having captive hub customers at two airports. That's what CO was - a 2-hub carrier. Now that they've layed their business model and ethos on top of the 5-hub UAL, the results have been disastrous. Again, are you still implying everything is ok?
As for implying everything is OK - I don't understand what you're asking. Implying what's OK?
#103
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 260
If non-elites were treated so horribly at United, they would've never endured the "horror" enough to become elites and be treated well. That argument doesn't hold any water.
This is part of the reason I don't get why the love affair with CO was so strong. They were completely stagnant brand wise, product wise, and image wise. Absolutely refused to update themselves in any way shape or form, believing that they were still the best airline, even while they made cuts their competitors were also doing. They had a great turn around in the late 1990s, nobody can deny that. But they pretty much coasted on that reputation since and tried to shove it down everyone's throats. And because of that, United is now failing because the CO leadership team is full of themselves.
I can't think of any other airline taking brand new state of the art 787s and putting 1991 seat covers in Y and brand new 737s without any sort of IFE. Truly a stale and half-assed airline branding wise, always has been since they dumped their Saul Bass heritage.
Well first, I never said it's all because of SHARES, but now that you mention it, yes, that has been a completely verifiable failing in the integration process. Are you saying it wasn't?
And as far as having an old livery, I would say that was indicative of CO's reluctance to update many parts of their company - whether it be paper logbooks for aircraft, an old patched together res system with no front end GUI, a shyness towards updating their brand in any way, etc. It all strikes me as them believing they didn't have to, given the operating environment of having captive hub customers at two airports. That's what CO was - a 2-hub carrier. Now that they've layed their business model and ethos on top of the 5-hub UAL, the results have been disastrous. Again, are you still implying everything is ok?
And as far as having an old livery, I would say that was indicative of CO's reluctance to update many parts of their company - whether it be paper logbooks for aircraft, an old patched together res system with no front end GUI, a shyness towards updating their brand in any way, etc. It all strikes me as them believing they didn't have to, given the operating environment of having captive hub customers at two airports. That's what CO was - a 2-hub carrier. Now that they've layed their business model and ethos on top of the 5-hub UAL, the results have been disastrous. Again, are you still implying everything is ok?
I can't think of any other airline taking brand new state of the art 787s and putting 1991 seat covers in Y and brand new 737s without any sort of IFE. Truly a stale and half-assed airline branding wise, always has been since they dumped their Saul Bass heritage.
Last edited by united4; Jul 11, 2014 at 2:40 am
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, Marriott Tit, HHonors Gold
Posts: 12,809
Well that's certainly unnecessarily harsh. Legacy UAL had nearly 100 3-class widebody aircraft to the deal - no small number. They also brought with them high-revenue business flyers in numbers and spend that CO never had. And let's not forget the most enviable hubs in the industry (in the top business/governmental centers of the country).
Do I agree UAL was in a period of contraction following 9/11? Yes, absolutely, and the numbers prove it. They went through a long painful Ch.11, with management focused on making the company an attractive dance partner, so to say. Much of what Tilton did still angers me to this day. But to insinuate they sat there and did nothing is a bit much - p.s., Ted, a branding overhaul, IPTE, 787/A350 purchases can all be directly attributed to the previous regime.
And they also achieved their end goal, having all but reached a complete merger framework with US right before Smisek called out to Chicago at the 11th hour and asked to start talks again. Either way, Chicago and Tilton won - they had both US and CO asking for a transaction to take place. Without it, CO would have been squeezed to its ultimate demise. They needed UAL more than they needed them, as CrankFlyer post makes abundantly clear in his characterization of CO as having an incomplete route network.
Do I agree UAL was in a period of contraction following 9/11? Yes, absolutely, and the numbers prove it. They went through a long painful Ch.11, with management focused on making the company an attractive dance partner, so to say. Much of what Tilton did still angers me to this day. But to insinuate they sat there and did nothing is a bit much - p.s., Ted, a branding overhaul, IPTE, 787/A350 purchases can all be directly attributed to the previous regime.
And they also achieved their end goal, having all but reached a complete merger framework with US right before Smisek called out to Chicago at the 11th hour and asked to start talks again. Either way, Chicago and Tilton won - they had both US and CO asking for a transaction to take place. Without it, CO would have been squeezed to its ultimate demise. They needed UAL more than they needed them, as CrankFlyer post makes abundantly clear in his characterization of CO as having an incomplete route network.
P.S. was a last ditch effort to remain relevant in a market that AA basically invented (and then reinvented) more than a decade earlier with Flagship Service. Today's P.S. is by no means better than any other product offered on this route.
TED was an answer to Delta's Song (and maybe the US MetroJet to some extent), which at the time offered a superior onboard product, though regardless, all were miserable failures. The early 2000s branding overhaul was necessary to distance UA from its pre 9/11 battleship gray image, but unfortunately was executed too slowly and never fully realized before the merger anyway.
The 2-4-2 IPTE J product was just an unfortunately timed overhaul. On one hand, flat J was an important step forward, though aisle access J stared to become the industry standard shortly after. AA had the same unfortunate timing rolling out the ski slopes shortly before flat J became standard. 787s and A350s yes, also important, but again, by that point the rest of the industry in the US was also already set to go with new wide body orders.
I strongly disagree though that CO would have been squeezed to its demise had it not merged with UA. Post Kellner, Smisek would have I'm sure still been the little snake he is today along with his crew of misfits and ruined a once turned around airline, but CO was set up so well it's difficult to believe even an imbecile like Smisek could have screwed it up too royally. I would argue that instead Tilton would have run UA to its ultimate demise and DL, AA, and CO would have been left picking over the parts they wanted, likely the Pacific network more than anything else.
#105
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
You didn't mention SHARES; others constantly do. You mentioned the livery, which seems completely unconnected. You've based your entire premise on not updating a livery meaning they clearly didn't update a business plan. That's a very immature way of looking at a business, and ignores their stellar record heading into the merger as a business.
The fact remains: The SHARES transition was handled horribly, with is adequate training of employees on the inferior command line based interface, a system that was not properly scaled to handle the load of all of the UAL side's flights, and inferior ability to operate in a combined multi-hub operation. The only people I still see defending SHARES are washed up consultants paid by CO during the lead up to the switchover (no, honestly).
I'm simply asking how you would currently describe the company's current situation.