CEO Jeff Smisek Out;Oscar Munoz new Pres/CEO,Henry Meyer non-ex Chair;FBI case closed
Sep 9, 2015, 6:42 pm
#586
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Francisco
Programs: DL Silver Medallion, UA Executive Premier, CO Gold
Posts: 312
Like the food that United serves....
This does not pass the smell test!
Sep 9, 2015, 7:45 pm
#588
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 748
You mean like paying a W fare class with hopes of using an upgrade and then being denied? That feels good for the 12+ hour TPAC when you are sitting in E+ after paying a few hundred dollars for the chance.
Sep 9, 2015, 7:57 pm
#589
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
In settlement negotiations, companies will not be able to obtain credit for cooperating with the government unless they identify employees and turn over evidence against them, “regardless of their position, status or seniority.” Credit for cooperation can save companies billions of dollars in fines and mean the difference between a civil settlement and a criminal charge.
Sep 9, 2015, 8:18 pm
#590
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 401
I'm reminded of one of the official CO dos a few years ago (I don't remember which year). Smisek and Larry Kellner were giving the presentation about all the service investments and improvements CO was making, including some at EWR. Smisek, however, cautioned people not to count on EWR happening anytime soon because, "Those of you who watch the Sopranos know how business is done in New Jersey." I remember that very clearly because I lived in NJ at the time.
Amazing what brought him down.
Amazing what brought him down.
Sep 9, 2015, 8:59 pm
#591
Join Date: May 2001
Location: RNO, NV, USA.
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 5,063
However, new routes are getting established (hopefully none in response to government official's personal needs 
), ...
If we compare the United now with the United 2 years ago, a lot of things have gotten better. (Some might argue how much worse can things get.) So, it is pretty unfortunate for Smisek that he is out when things are on the up trend.
), ... If we compare the United now with the United 2 years ago, a lot of things have gotten better. (Some might argue how much worse can things get.) So, it is pretty unfortunate for Smisek that he is out when things are on the up trend.
Many things have gotten worse with United in the last 2 years.
Sep 9, 2015, 9:04 pm
#592
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
An article in tomorrow's WSJ: resignations were a suprise to Feds, were a result of United's internal investigation, and weren't a result of the board's concern about Smisek's performance.
This pokes a big hole in the balloon of those giddiliy celebrating Smisek's failure and raises significant concerns about United's actions with the Port Authority. I think it'd be better if one were let go for failure to perform...
This pokes a big hole in the balloon of those giddiliy celebrating Smisek's failure and raises significant concerns about United's actions with the Port Authority. I think it'd be better if one were let go for failure to perform...
Sep 9, 2015, 9:18 pm
#593
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: PDX/HND
Programs: UA GS 4MM
Posts: 554
the key question is whether things will be seriously improved or it's delta time.
Sep 9, 2015, 9:20 pm
#594
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
An article in tomorrow's WSJ: resignations were a suprise to Feds, were a result of United's internal investigation, and weren't a result of the board's concern about Smisek's performance.
This pokes a big hole in the balloon of those giddiliy celebrating Smisek's failure and raises significant concerns about United's actions with the Port Authority. I think it'd be better if one were let go for failure to perform...
This pokes a big hole in the balloon of those giddiliy celebrating Smisek's failure and raises significant concerns about United's actions with the Port Authority. I think it'd be better if one were let go for failure to perform...
2. Are you asserting that this was a voluntary resignation or a forced resignation (i.e. using the word resignation where firing would be more truthful)? Did Smisek resign or was he forced to leave?
3. From what I've read thus far, I understand there are three possible interpretations for what happened:
a. It was business as usual, or
b. It was a shakedown (illegal action) by the Port Authority, or
c. It was a bribe (illegal action) by United Continental Holdings
If the internal investigation was focused on this issue and only this issue, and they concluded that the chairman's flight was (a) or (b) then there would be no reason to force Smisek out.
One can only conclude then, that the internal investigators looked at the evidence and concluded that (c) was the proper characterization of the actions. Because, only with (c) would it make sense to fire Smisek if the reason for firing was in fact only due to the chairman's flight and no other factor (i.e. pathetic performance).
Sep 9, 2015, 9:37 pm
#595
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Tuesday’s executive exits from United were a surprise to federal authorities pursuing the investigation, who weren’t aware of any action on the Samson probe in recent weeks that would have triggered the shake-up, a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
United has said only that the three executives stepped down as the result of an internal company investigation that was prompted by subpoenas in the federal probe. Another person familiar with the situation said on Tuesday that Mr. Smisek’s departure was strictly related to what the company found in its probe, and wasn’t driven by board concerns about Mr. Smisek’s overall management performance.
United has said only that the three executives stepped down as the result of an internal company investigation that was prompted by subpoenas in the federal probe. Another person familiar with the situation said on Tuesday that Mr. Smisek’s departure was strictly related to what the company found in its probe, and wasn’t driven by board concerns about Mr. Smisek’s overall management performance.
Couldn't care less why the loser was fired. UA has underperformed DL, AA and WN since March, 2012. Revenue has grown much more slowly than at the peer group and profits have lagged. His tenure was filled with numerous mis-steps that can be laid at his feet. He's an arrogant narcissist and a poor CEO. Good riddance to worthless garbage.
Sep 9, 2015, 9:52 pm
#596
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Here's the quote:
Couldn't care less why the loser was fired. UA has underperformed DL, AA and WN since March, 2012. Revenue has grown much more slowly than at the peer group and profits have lagged. His tenure was filled with numerous mis-steps that can be laid at his feet. He's an arrogant narcissist and a poor CEO. Good riddance to worthless garbage.
Couldn't care less why the loser was fired. UA has underperformed DL, AA and WN since March, 2012. Revenue has grown much more slowly than at the peer group and profits have lagged. His tenure was filled with numerous mis-steps that can be laid at his feet. He's an arrogant narcissist and a poor CEO. Good riddance to worthless garbage.
And this interesting point:
"Mr. Samson, an ally and appointee of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, wanted to strike a deal with United, the people said, while New York officials didn’t want to cut the airline a break."
And the quote fly talks about that it was not "performance related" is from someone "familiar with the situation." Gee that about ends the discussion right?....
+1000 on the rest of your post.
Sep 9, 2015, 9:59 pm
#597
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA MileagePlus (Premier Gold); Hilton HHonors (Gold); Chase Ultimate Rewards; Amex Plat
Posts: 6,680
1. When you say "weren't a result of the board's concern about Smisek's performance" do you mean to say you have insider information proving that nobody on the board had concerns about Smisek's performance? Or, do you mean to say that the board did have concern about Smisek's performance, but that was not the reason for this action?
2. Are you asserting that this was a voluntary resignation or a forced resignation (i.e. using the word resignation where firing would be more truthful)? Did Smisek resign or was he forced to leave?
3. From what I've read thus far, I understand there are three possible interpretations for what happened:
a. It was business as usual, or
b. It was a shakedown (illegal action) by the Port Authority, or
c. It was a bribe (illegal action) by United Continental Holdings
If the internal investigation was focused on this issue and only this issue, and they concluded that the chairman's flight was (a) or (b) then there would be no reason to force Smisek out.
One can only conclude then, that the internal investigators looked at the evidence and concluded that (c) was the proper characterization of the actions. Because, only with (c) would it make sense to fire Smisek if the reason for firing was in fact only due to the chairman's flight and no other factor (i.e. pathetic performance).
2. Are you asserting that this was a voluntary resignation or a forced resignation (i.e. using the word resignation where firing would be more truthful)? Did Smisek resign or was he forced to leave?
3. From what I've read thus far, I understand there are three possible interpretations for what happened:
a. It was business as usual, or
b. It was a shakedown (illegal action) by the Port Authority, or
c. It was a bribe (illegal action) by United Continental Holdings
If the internal investigation was focused on this issue and only this issue, and they concluded that the chairman's flight was (a) or (b) then there would be no reason to force Smisek out.
One can only conclude then, that the internal investigators looked at the evidence and concluded that (c) was the proper characterization of the actions. Because, only with (c) would it make sense to fire Smisek if the reason for firing was in fact only due to the chairman's flight and no other factor (i.e. pathetic performance).
Sep 9, 2015, 10:00 pm
#598
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
1. When you say "weren't a result of the board's concern about Smisek's performance" do you mean to say you have insider information proving that nobody on the board had concerns about Smisek's performance? Or, do you mean to say that the board did have concern about Smisek's performance, but that was not the reason for this action?
2. Are you asserting that this was a voluntary resignation or a forced resignation (i.e. using the word resignation where firing would be more truthful)? Did Smisek resign or was he forced to leave?
3. From what I've read thus far, I understand there are three possible interpretations for what happened:
a. It was business as usual, or
b. It was a shakedown (illegal action) by the Port Authority, or
c. It was a bribe (illegal action) by United Continental Holdings
If the internal investigation was focused on this issue and only this issue, and they concluded that the chairman's flight was (a) or (b) then there would be no reason to force Smisek out.
One can only conclude then, that the internal investigators looked at the evidence and concluded that (c) was the proper characterization of the actions. Because, only with (c) would it make sense to fire Smisek if the reason for firing was in fact only due to the chairman's flight and no other factor (i.e. pathetic performance).
2. Are you asserting that this was a voluntary resignation or a forced resignation (i.e. using the word resignation where firing would be more truthful)? Did Smisek resign or was he forced to leave?
3. From what I've read thus far, I understand there are three possible interpretations for what happened:
a. It was business as usual, or
b. It was a shakedown (illegal action) by the Port Authority, or
c. It was a bribe (illegal action) by United Continental Holdings
If the internal investigation was focused on this issue and only this issue, and they concluded that the chairman's flight was (a) or (b) then there would be no reason to force Smisek out.
One can only conclude then, that the internal investigators looked at the evidence and concluded that (c) was the proper characterization of the actions. Because, only with (c) would it make sense to fire Smisek if the reason for firing was in fact only due to the chairman's flight and no other factor (i.e. pathetic performance).
The continued attempts to make this about revenue performance are misplaced and, quite frankly, childish. Particularly when they're supported by gross exaggeration of facts.
Sep 9, 2015, 10:06 pm
#599
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I don't think Smisek was fired. If he was, his compensation package would look different. Reading between the lines of various press reports, he resigned because an internal investigation revealed United behaved inappropriately with the Port Authority. What that means, we don't yet know.
The continued attempts to make this about revenue performance are misplaced and, quite frankly, childish. Particularly when they're supported by gross exaggeration of facts.
The continued attempts to make this about revenue performance are misplaced and, quite frankly, childish. Particularly when they're supported by gross exaggeration of facts.
99% of folks on this board are interested to find out that he was a crook, as well as an incompetent narcissist.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Sep 9, 2015 at 10:38 pm Reason: Stay to the issues, not the other posters
Sep 9, 2015, 10:17 pm
#600
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 11,468
As I mentioned it to a FA, he smiled and said:" And we are not showing the introduction video anymore!"