"Can United Continental Beat Its Bad Reputation?" - Investopedia
 

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.

That's nice, but I've already checked out. :)

The company must change its policy of institutionalizing sanctioned, deliberate underperformance (80% OT threshold, DEN baggage meltdown, replacing competent empowered employees with inept, powerless, cheap contract hires, etc.) in the name of "running the airline like a business."

That is a long comeback trail and in the meantime there is major self-inflicted brand damage and who knows how many travel patterns permanently changed to avoid UA.

This article cites evidence of poor performance, including this one pointing to poor customer satisfaction:

"Yet even by more objective measures, United Continental has done a poorer job of addressing its passengers' needs than have its rivals. Last year, J.D. Power & Associates gave United the second-worst customer satisfaction score among six major North American traditional carriers ..."

And this one, which points to policy:

"Yet United Continental also has other unusual issues cited by the ACSI survey. The number of passengers who were involuntarily denied boarding was particularly high, at nearly 1 in every 4,000. That doesn't sound like much, but compared to the 1-in-250,000 figure at one of its better-performing rivals, United clearly has some questions to answer."

And, then, it quotes United Continental management:

"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 ... "

So, the article posits that United Continental is underperforming due to poor customer satisfaction and hostile policies, and then it quotes United Continental management saying that they're trying to do better about on-time performance, which Smisek has already been quoted as saying that 80% is "good enough" and that there are "diminishing returns" to doing better.

Reads to me like a total disconnect at the top.

I don't have any hope for improvement until there is a significant change at the C level.

To be slightly contrary, I don't think it will be hard for UA to improve, and improvement will, in the fullness of time, result in a better reputation - but it has to recognise that there is a significant time lag, and its reputation amongst the public is still declining.

Metrics such as OT performance are important but not, in my view, vital as long as it's not way out of line. What's important is the customer interface - the treatment of people at bag drop, at the gate, on the plane etc. I know I sit in a privileged position as a 1K, but I find the phone agents generally to be very polite and, whilst their competence varies, they tend to leave a positive impression - I don't think OALs are much better.

Where UA totally fails is in its front-line staff. The bag drop situation is stressful even for a 1K, with staff who would be more comfortable directing traffic, or working the curbside no parking regulations. What it's like in the GM section, where people are less familiar with procedures, I dread to think. I don't experience anything like this when I travel with other airlines with no status. Even EZ are a delight in comparison.

But it only gets worse. The boarding gate experience is truly horrible. I'm not sure that I entirely blame the GAs for losing their tempers on a regular basis, and for being even more traffic cop-ish than the bag drop staff, because they have been handed an impossible job by management. But I find I walk on to the plane seething after having dealt with that lot - at pretty well any US station. DUB and LHR are fine IME.

And then, on the flight, half the staff have clearly been trained by ex-Aeroflot staff from the old days. I know of no normal airline in the West which has staff who are so off-hand to the passengers. There are good FAs but they are few and far between. Again, contrast with EZ, even FR, and they are streets ahead of UA in C.

This is what needs tackling. If they can weed out the bad apples, re-train the rest, put in place procedures which minimise conflict with passengers and re-launch the customer experience, then within a few years they'll be able to reverse the reputational issues. If they can't, then there'll be blood when we have the next downturn.

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)

It's pretty scary when the leader of a service business relies 100% on metrics and claims a specific threshold is "good enough" and there is no incentive to do better - on just that point alone, it seems Mr Smisek does not possess the correct leadership qualities or vision to be running a service business. I was actually shocked that he would say that, but given the number of comments from Rainey ("whiny Elites", Global First is useless, etc etc), it seems all of these people are in over their heads and don't have a clue.

Just reading OT metrics are not completely useful ... yesterday my UA OSL-EWR flight left 25 mins late but still arrived 32 mins early. According to DOT, that flight would show up on the late metrics. But to the real passenger, that flight was on-time/early.

the absolute fastest connection DL was willing to sell me is 11hr15m via AMS. No amount of "on-time"-ness at DL can beat a real nonstop flight by UA. That's why the airline with no network breadth is worthless.

Metrics? Like the customer surveys they only send to nonstop passengers on non-delayed flights?

management has their head in the sand, they've been lucky enough to ride a relatively strong economy, consolidation, and the gift from the tanking oil prices. Relative to their peers, they're doing terribly.

UA already has a paid upgrade system: it's called TODs.

It's just that Kettles get them for less than elites because UA already owns its elites.

If it's not already, the destruction of UA will make a good business school project of what not to do.

The end of the following paragraph in that article does not make sense to me. Should the last "Continental" be "United?"

"The biggest issue cited in the ACSI survey was that United has done a bad job of integrating Continental's operations into the post-merger company. To gain cost savings from the merger, United has made changes to the way Continental did business, and that has annoyed former Continental customers who grew used to the advantages the airline gave them. "

No KPI target is ever 100%; that's wishful thinking and ignoring reality. That said, I think 80% OT is a bit too low of a target for OT%. Furthermore, you don't go around telling people that your OT KPI target is 80%. *That* is bad management of a service industry. That sort of talk should stay upstairs.

Re-training and weeding out the bad apples won't work, as employees will not change their attitudes as long as they are treated by management as minimum wage slaves.
Simply said: Front line employees have ZERO incentive to by nice, hardworking and forthcoming.

That's the problem right there - metrics are a scorecard, not a business driver. They should be used to measure goal achievement and identify problems - not be a goal in of itself.

What management is doing here is failing to communicate the overall value proposition and attainment strategy of a best in class US domestic airline. Gordon Bethune, love or hate him, had a very clear, concise, written document "Go Forward Plan" that set specific goals, attainment timeframes and laid out a framework for achieving those goals (or exceeding them) and made sure employees were empowered, equipped and trained to make the GFP a success.

Today's management has no such plan and finds it easier to point fingers and blame others for their failure, be it customers, gulf state carriers, employees, the weather, Delta, or pie in the sky.

If anyone can find me a management book that demonstrates how success can come from such a plan, I'm all ears - but to date, I haven't read one and frankly I am growing rather aggravated because I want the company to succeed, to do well and be a best in class airline - but any chance of that is being thwarted by incompetent or uncaring management and one of the worst Board of Director groups in any US company.

...and this is what made Southwest a well respected product in the minds of so many customers. The simple fact that Herb Kelleher could have cared less about angry stockholders or idiots like Hunter Keays, and instead made sure his employees were the number 1 priority so they could take care of customers, and allow everything to fall naturally into place as a result....which for so many years it did just that with stellar financial, operational and satisfaction performance scores.

...and this is why United will never change as long as greedy, egoist, narcissists run the show.

That's really nothing more than a matter of opinion, frankly, because the facts show that the current iteration of the airline is measurably worse in just about all of important categories than either of the predecessor companies. Anecdotally, flying out of Newark often, I still hear chatter bemoaning the loss of Continental, whereas in the former UA hubs, I have found the opposite to be true.

For better or worse, the current leadership has done an abysmal job managing employee relations. Across the system, my view is that morale is still very low as many staff are in constant fear of losing their jobs, and feel that management would not have their back if they needed to go the "extra mile" to do right by their customers ("no waivers no favors"). At the same time, one of the prime job functions of customer-facing United employees has long been apologizing for many shortcomings, including industry-laggard OTP/completion/MBR/IDB, inoperative wifi, lack of amenities, etc. That has to get awfully tiring after a while, especially when it seems like everyone else is doing a much better job at the same task.

It's something that can't be reliably measured on a spreadsheet or survey (which may be why UAL seems to have a problem with it) but any manager in a customer service business will tell you that there is a direct correlation between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Until United can find a way to turn the tide in the relationship between management and its employees, and just get to breakeven, at least, I don't think we will see the company flourish to the extent it is capable.

It's great to see the company realize that they have a perception problem and deploy more resources to visibly improve the customer experience. I think a lot of the damage is self-inflicted, and many of the changes only bring United to parity with its direct competitors (AA/DL) but at least it points toward a realization that customers are not the problem. There needs to be some kind of similar 'revelation' regarding United's view of its human assets, too.

When the airlines adopted this system of upgrades, personally, I think they knew exactly what they were doing: a race to the bottom. If you make something 'free', people are less upset when the amenities that come along with a Complimentary Premier Upgrades are pretty pathetic. Whereas, if you have to pay a little something extra, ie a 500 mile certificate, there's an expectation that you'll get something a little special. That said though, I completely agree and wish these instruments would be re-introduced.

I still remember when the front-line was pretty hostile during the Tilton days, but that's nothing like what customers are experiencing to-day. I don't fly UA very often these days, but they still have one of the most expansive networks in the world and some great employees out there. I can only hope that management realizes what a mess the airline is these days. Eighty per cent on time arrivals is hardly acceptable, neither is outsourcing dedicated staff :(

IMHO, if UA management had a do over or a wish list, it would include exactly what Parker did over at AA with the unions. Granted, it was a bankruptcy but when the merger there cleared, the employees and management were more or less pulling in the same direction. At UA, management had and continues to have two inflight operating systems each refusing to accept the other: that begets a mindset among everyone that, until that issue is solved, all else is secondary- like WiFi, in flight amenities, etc.- and can wait

Did United actually have to integrate Continental? It certainly feels more like the opposite. While the United name (as the superior brand) was kept, it's the Continental management that took over and the airline feels more like Continental "plus" than United.

this is just not true
 

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?

I have personally noticed improved customer service over the last 6-9 months, although my flying with UA has decreased some. I think its headed in the right direction, but still a ways to go.

The operational metrics are more interesting. Its pretty easy to manipulate those by changing block times, increasing boarding times, etc. which I think they've done in the past. I hope they really are attacking the problems this time, as the article suggests.

Overall, after years of taking away from customers, there are some signs of giving something back. The new food in the lounges is something I appreciate. I think if we start to see UA trend in that direction, a lot of the other issues will be forgiven.

"...and it's looking at ways to decrease the need for ramp agents to bring planes in and out of gate areas."

I agree. Things are getting better and have been since summer of 2014

When you hit bottom, the only direction is up.

I was skeptical of this but I've come to agree with you, as UA's CPU proposition has degenerated into such a joke. The CPU offer is borderline fraudulent when you have a waitlist 50 elites deep, two seats up for grabs, and simultaneous sub-$100 TOD offers.

That doesn't mean all CPU programs are stupid -- AS has one, and I bat about .500 as MVP Gold. But UA's is now worse than nothing because it's so terrible relative to expectations.

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...yet, peoples' memories are short in some regards.

I don't think an upgrade certificate program is going to make any difference. You'll still have Elites waitlisted knee deep, few R seats and plenty of TOD sales - the only difference will be a new cost, which is not something we really want, right?

I think that is probably true, but there are two important considerations here: (1) the integration of the unions at CO/UA has been and will continue to be a colossal task, given the almost diametrically opposed agendas of the various workgroups subject to integration (especially the flight attendants); and (2) the timing of the merger, as a delay in CO+UA would have led to US+UA, which would have been materially worse for US consumers in the big picture. US+AA had the luxury of more time as their merger was essentially fated once CO+UA was done, despite AA's proclamations that it was charting an independent post-bankruptcy course.

The integration of the workgroups can't all be blamed on management, either, IMO.

Ah, the wingwalkers. This is something that came from the CO side. I can think of dozens of occasions where we have waited short of the gate for several minutes while marshals got into position to allow the flight to proceed to the gate. It was arguably extraneous then, and definitely extraneous now that winglet 737 ops are pervasive through the former UAL network and gates have been appropriately marked for some time.

Yes me too - 2010.

Needs a Bethunesque transformation?

I will reread From Worst to First again tonight.

If you mean it will take years to reverse their reputation in the market, I completely agree. I was one of the US-haters who actually found it to be quite improved a couple years ago.

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.

In your opinion it may not be true, but it certainly matches my experiences. Check in at EWR as a 1K is anything but a VIP experience. The agents rarely look at you, acknowledge you, or offer anything but the bare minimum communication. For example, even if you offer a nice thank you at the end, it is met with "OK", not "you're welcome" etc.

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

It's a good, yet dated read. Keeping in mind Gordo's business plan is over 20 years old. He got the employee empowerment and core values down pat, but I was never a fan of the Gordo philosophy of "if you want first class, PAY FOR IT!" or the pay for play & brag award circuit.

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.

+1

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.

People seem to think it is a complicated issue. It isn't, just stop screwing over your employees and passengers and the rest will take care of itself.

It's a subjective impression just like yours. I think the staff are pretty rude on all American carriers but UA probably just about "wins" in that department.

Show Me The Money
 

Or they could have both. Priority would be a) direct purchase, b) paid upgrades (coupons), c) complimentary. Pre-merger, the old United left seats unoccupied in the forward section, some people defended that move as preserving their value.