Originally Posted by BearX220
(Post 24528125)
I don't see it but respect your observations. It'll take years to make a difference, though, if you are right. Years. US was a much better airline in the 2011-2014 period, but former US customers were still dumping on it because their frame of reference was 10 years old and they didn't want to resample.
And pmUA had a poor reputation just prior to the merger, but I was actually very pleased with the operations, the service, and the MP program. Hopefully they can make improvements, whether the broader market realizes it or not...Simply because I will notice. |
Originally Posted by Antonio8069
(Post 24527899)
Most of this is clearly not true.
While not quite as bad, I generally find the inflight crew to be similar. It's very inconsistent. I'm sorry, but while you can find attitude on any airline, I find it a lot more on United than anyone else I fly. I've probably flown Southwest 500 times in my life and I don't believe I've EVER had a bad, rude or anything negative experience. |
I don't care as much about how I am treated by UA than that it gets me to my connections and destinations on time! This desire is particularly acute as there are fewer and fewer nonstop destinations from CLE. :(
|
yes - underperformed - confirmed
deleted
|
Originally Posted by GRALISTAIR
(Post 24528483)
Yes me too - 2010.
Needs a Bethunesque transformation? I will reread From Worst to First again tonight. And contrary what NJ people believe, CO was a mess of an operation at EWR in the 1990s as well. Gordo couldn't save it's operational dysfunction and employee turmoil. |
Originally Posted by Antonio8069
(Post 24527899)
Have you ever tried AC? Having made the move from AC to UA over the last 2 years I have been pleasantly surprised by the helpfulness of UA staff, whether in person at check in, or over the phone, or in flight, when compared to what I had become used to with AC. There are some great AC staff but the organization also tolerates a lot of surly, unhelpful types. Less competition seems to breed less concern for the passenger. There are far fewer of those types on UA IME. In addition I find UA to be more upfront and less deceptive than AC in its policies. Not perfect I agree but noticeably better. |
The TOD upgrade issue started under CO before the merger. It has just perpetuated even more under UA. The method used to calculate individual segments for paid upgrade is flawed.
CO wanted to get more revenue for its F cabin, but I think in doing so, they now get less revenue for the entire flight. UA has the numbers, but I continue to see UA scaling back in many markets. Flights out of DCA are way down for the combined airline, with smaller aircraft and less number of seats. You can try to improve the operational perception, but UA has a long way to improve its Frequent Flyer perception. UA is going after GS members and non-Elites, but non-Elites who buy the cheapest and don't really care about FF programs. Some have no choice with corporate contracts and captive hubs, but many do have a choice, and UA is losing that choice. It remains to be seen what the end result will be. And now with the revenue based FF program like DL - time will tell. As long as AA still has a mileage based program, UA is really non-competitive here. If I were UA - I would try to make major changes to improve customer experience. First thing would be elimination of TODs. Offer an upgrade at time of ticket purchase and let that be it. Then let the priority CPU system work. Second, make changes to the new FF program. Maybe not a complete overall again, but something to be competitive with AA. Again time will tell. |
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 24529138)
If I were UA - I would try to make major changes to improve customer experience. First thing would be elimination of TODs. Offer an upgrade at time of ticket purchase and let that be it. Then let the priority CPU system work.
Second, make changes to the new FF program. Maybe not a complete overall again, but something to be competitive with AA. Again time will tell. |
Originally Posted by Antonio8069
(Post 24527899)
Most of this is clearly not true.
I have no issue with the staff. Trained by ex-Aeroflot? Give me a break! The FA's on long haul flights are mostly high seniority (read Experience). That's what happens, lhrsfo, when you eliminate company pension plans! (Very British I might add). You have an issue with bag drop for 1K? Care to elaborate? The worst of your hyperbole is this: I know of no normal airline in the West which has staff who are so off-hand to the passengers. Have you ever tried AC? |
Show Me The Money
Originally Posted by StingWest
(Post 24527108)
Another area of deliberate under-performance: Complimentary Premier Upgrades (aka Unlimited Domestic Upgrades). This idea was flawed from the beginning and should be scrapped in favor of a paid upgrade system where the paid upgrades get priority over last minute sales. Sort of like the 500 mile certificate system that UA used to have (or the coupon system that AA has)
|
At this rate, American and US Air will be fully integrated before United and Continental. Just the name United Continental Holdings is misleading. American Airlines Group only brings the word Group from US Airways Group. But its CLEARLY American Airlines rather than two separate airlines.
|
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 24526430)
Interesting read on how United Continental Holdings is trying to turn its bad reputation:
Can United Continental turn the tide? - Investopedia United Continental understands that its underperformance compared to its peers results in part from its customer service reputation, and it has taken steps to try to improve its operations. In January, Chief Operating Officer Greg Hart detailed a number of projects geared toward improving on-time arrival and departure performance, which plays a huge role in ensuring passengers make connecting flights and don't have to deal with the hassles of rebooking entire itineraries on the fly." At least it seems they're starting to acknowledge their underperformance. http://my.fool.com/profile/TMFGalaga...pippit10000001 Author? Dan Caplinger "Dan Caplinger is a contract writer for The Motley Fool. In addition to his writing, Dan works as an independent financial consultant and estate-planning attorney. Finding that taking one bar exam wasn't enough punishment, he took three (and passed them all!) and went on to become a CFP (certified financial planner) professional in 2004 before voluntarily relinquished the designation in 2012. Dan focuses on making complex legal and financial concepts easier to understand. His experience in drafting legal documents, administering trusts and estates, and developing personal financial plans all contributes to the content of his articles. Although he generally doesn't pay attention to conspiracy theories, Dan has a healthy skepticism of the mainstream financial industry" At least, unlike our old friend Adam Levine-Weinberg, Dan has taken and passed the Bar Exam 3(!) times. Reviewing AL-W's latest, it appears he now is less negative on UA than in the past: United Airlines Is Turning the Corner It appears he got squeezed hard enough, as his profile also indicates he is no longer short UAL. |
Originally Posted by Longboater
(Post 24529875)
Just the name United Continental Holdings is misleading.
There are still differences in service standards (they might be standardized on paper, but in practice, they crews and agents handle things differently -- sometimes very differently). The branding is a hybrid of United and Continental (United name, Continental logo/paintjob). And we all know that flight attendants are not yet integrated.
Originally Posted by Longboater
(Post 24529875)
American Airlines Group only brings the word Group from US Airways Group. But its CLEARLY American Airlines rather than two separate airlines.
But while branding is a problem, it's not as high a priority as other areas (customer service, operations, technology, etc.). Once they clean that stuff up, a rebrand may be in order to show they turned a new leaf. They can also fix the name at that time. |
Originally Posted by Antonio8069
(Post 24527899)
Most of this is clearly not true.
I have no issue with the staff. Trained by ex-Aeroflot? Give me a break! I'd reckon about 20% of UA FAs are really good; 30% are just OK; and the other 50% should be fired.
Originally Posted by Antonio8069
(Post 24527899)
The FA's on long haul flights are mostly high seniority (read Experience).
OMG, try Lufthansa, SG, or just about any other carrier and the scales will fall from your eyes about what real service can be. |
Originally Posted by porciuscato
(Post 24530017)
I'd reckon about 20% of UA FAs are really good; 30% are just OK; and the other 50% should be fired. No. Read crabby, tired, and imbued with an unbelievable sense of entitlement. The worst possible combination. I've also seen some on overseas flights that looked so decrepit I felt like I should help them up the upper deck stairs. OMG, try Lufthansa, SG, or just about any other carrier and the scales will fall from your eyes about what real service can be. The thing that stuck out in my mind was the FA, when I asked for coffee saying "oh, and its now starbucks." She and the rest of the crew were happy to work for a company that (1) values their work, and (2) gives them the tools to succeed. If I worked for UA, I would be lazy as well, but that is because I would have signed up for quality job, and suddenly found myself working at a company like McDonalds or Walmart. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:00 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.