CrankyFlier: Blaming United's problems on Continental (and v.v.) is the problem
Jul 11, 2014, 2:49 am
#106
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 260
Fair points. In reality however, UA could bring as many high rev business customers as it wanted, the pre merger airline was still not prepared for the future and not running a sustainable business model while CO was, at least to a point.
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.
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.
"This merger is necessary for Continental"
"Our future as a stand alone entity as far as we can see, one in which we will eek out a hand-to-mouth existence".
-Jeff Smisek, June 16, 2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYCrnHYe0eU
Particular comments begin around 53:00
Jul 11, 2014, 2:52 am
#107
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
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.
As for implying everything is OK - I don't understand what you're asking. Implying what's OK?
As for implying everything is OK - I don't understand what you're asking. Implying what's OK?
They should be named UAL - United Airlines. Even Parker is using AAL (no mention of US). American Airlines Group Inc. (AAL) -NasdaqGS
And get rid of the RJ's or improve service in them on flts over 1-1/2 hours.
Jul 11, 2014, 6:27 am
#108
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
SHARES matters, because it sucks (45 min to rebook my flight on the phone, as an "elite"). Come on. The livery matters to the employees. When DL merged with NW - EVERYTHING was branded DL. It matters to employees (I guess) as morale seems very low in CS. Why would you trade under the symbol: United Continental Holdings, Inc. (UAL) - NYSE
They should be named UAL - United Airlines. Even Parker is using AAL (no mention of US). American Airlines Group Inc. (AAL) -NasdaqGS
And get rid of the RJ's or improve service in them on flts over 1-1/2 hours.
They should be named UAL - United Airlines. Even Parker is using AAL (no mention of US). American Airlines Group Inc. (AAL) -NasdaqGS
And get rid of the RJ's or improve service in them on flts over 1-1/2 hours.
The name and merger approach were driven by different circumstances that everyone seems to forget. Delta is unified under one name with apparently happy employees today, but it was not a pleasant merger and the unification of employees was the result of union decertification for most work groups. Using the AA name seems to be working because everyone know it's really a takeover by US. The AA name and DFW HQ are tokens for the AA employees.
United had two strong unionized work groups entering the merger as relative equals, though UA was a bit larger. The concept of the unified name and livery was to bring the two sides together. Again, it was a concept and clearly not backed up by sufficient strategy.
Jul 11, 2014, 6:38 am
#109
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NYC, FLL
Programs: UA PP 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy LTTE, BA Gold
Posts: 6,324
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).
You got it. And it comes from the 'change/leadership comes from the top down' point that thousands of us are making.
Jul 11, 2014, 7:01 am
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
I just shook my head and went back to my seat.
Jul 11, 2014, 7:03 am
#111
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,613
It still does. I flew with a sCO crew a couple weeks ago...they too were sad about the cuts. I did talk about how great PMUA was for elites, and they were dumbfounded - they said they could honestly not figure out why anyone would want to fly that airline, and they thought PMUA had nothing good to offer, whatsoever.
I just shook my head and went back to my seat.
I just shook my head and went back to my seat.
Jul 11, 2014, 7:09 am
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
It still does. I flew with a sCO crew a couple weeks ago...they too were sad about the cuts. I did talk about how great PMUA was for elites, and they were dumbfounded - they said they could honestly not figure out why anyone would want to fly that airline, and they thought PMUA had nothing good to offer, whatsoever.
I just shook my head and went back to my seat.
I just shook my head and went back to my seat.
Keep in mind that the CO staff have had their heads filled with how great they are for the previous 20 years. Given that background, it's not difficult to understand why they would think that way.
Management did an ineffective job at joining the cultures. They should have plugged the strengths of both and brought things together. That way each side could respect one another through the merger process.
Instead, they continue to reinforce the CO beliefs (e.g., the comment about PMUA's lack of training is a perfect example, or trivializing SHARES concerns by saying it's a familiarity issue).
Jul 11, 2014, 7:15 am
#113
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NYC, FLL
Programs: UA PP 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy LTTE, BA Gold
Posts: 6,324
Right, and I saw your subsequent comments and viewpoints, but it's still immature and to do this customer-facing (in a United uniform on a United plane) is deplorable. Do it in the lunch room by all means. DL/NW didn't have this issue 4 years on (as pointed out by CrankyFlier's article), and that's comparing apples to apples from a customer perspective. Living in the past...
Jul 11, 2014, 7:26 am
#114
Suspended
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Just outside Big D, or many other places in big metal tubes
Programs: WN Rpd.Rwrds, AA, was longtime CO very top Elite tier, Overentitled UA Lifetime 1K (since 2012)
Posts: 1,334
Further, in regards to SHARES, before the merger was there a study done about using SHARES for the merger vs UA's computer system before the merger , and then SHARES was decided upon?
Jul 11, 2014, 8:08 am
#115
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
Right, and I saw your subsequent comments and viewpoints, but it's still immature and to do this customer-facing (in a United uniform on a United plane) is deplorable. Do it in the lunch room by all means. DL/NW didn't have this issue 4 years on (as pointed out by CrankyFlier's article), and that's comparing apples to apples from a customer perspective. Living in the past...
There was probably some Texas/board linkage like with the coffee.
Jul 11, 2014, 9:00 am
#116
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: ABE
Programs: DL DM, IHG Spire, Mariott Platinum (UA SI) Avis First, National Executive
Posts: 764
I'll say it again: Continental was abandoning its own elites pre-merger after Mr. Smisek took over. My upgrade rate plummeted as TODs/FC buyups of some sort became more and more prevalent. The article points out that UA was improving as the merger neared; CO was getting worse. It pains me to hear blanket condemnations of CO, because throughout most of the 2000s it was a damn good airline.
Indeed, there were 2 different cultures serving 2 different kinds of customers and they tried to mix and match, which resulted in total disappointment of both kinds of customers. In retrospect, if that merger was like the AA-TW or the HP-US mergers, which picked one paradigm and followed it, it would had been more successful. On the other hand, it would had lost more customers initially for the side that did not win. What they are did, I think is costing them more customers but the leakage is slower but for much longer...
No right or wrong here. Square pegs in round holes...
Jul 11, 2014, 9:01 am
#118
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CLE or EWR or ORD
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 134
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 7_1_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/537.51.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.0 Mobile/11D257 Safari/9537.53)
Laughable that people are excusing early 2000s underperformance by trotting out 9/11 and the dot-com bust as if all airlines weren't equally exposed.
And if this merger hadn't gone through, it's likely both UA and CO would be Ch7 by now.
Laughable that people are excusing early 2000s underperformance by trotting out 9/11 and the dot-com bust as if all airlines weren't equally exposed.
And if this merger hadn't gone through, it's likely both UA and CO would be Ch7 by now.
Last edited by TheStoicPaisano; Jul 11, 2014 at 9:04 am
Jul 11, 2014, 9:06 am
#119
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: ABE
Programs: DL DM, IHG Spire, Mariott Platinum (UA SI) Avis First, National Executive
Posts: 764
It is more that what the crews are referring themselves as. After the DL/NW merger, the resulting corporate entity's name was Delta Air Lines Inc. After the CO/UA merger the corporate entity's name is United Continental Holdings Inc. That's part of the division here. It implies that there are separate United assets and Continental assets.
Jul 11, 2014, 9:07 am
#120
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: ABE
Programs: DL DM, IHG Spire, Mariott Platinum (UA SI) Avis First, National Executive
Posts: 764