UA Announces Q3 2017 Financial Results 18 Oct/ Conference Call 19 Oct
Oct 22, 2017, 2:31 pm
#121
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,554
Oct 22, 2017, 3:00 pm
#122
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Hindsight is 20/20 and we know today that the history of United is full of bad decisions made in the C-suite. However, I think it is wrong to assume intent.
Correct. Kirby and Oscar are focused on making shareholders happy, which is how publicly owned businesses ought to be focused. But that doesn't mean they should ignore customer sentiment, because if they piss off enough of us, they won't make as much profit for the shareholders.
From 1999-2012, I flew UA almost exclusively. Even when it didn't make sense. I used to spend $10-12K every year. I now spent half that amount, and I don't think I'm alone. Ever since the horribly executed merger took place - which still isn't complete, amazingly so - customers and employees have borne the brunt of the mistakes made by Jeff Smisek and now Scott Kirby.
Let's not forget that Kirby was asked to leave American due to C Suite tensions. https://www.thestreet.com/story/1370...urce-says.html Maybe Kirby has learned from his experiences, maybe he hasn't. If UA is still the inconsistent mess it is today 18 months from now, I expect he will be shown the door. And deservedly so.
From 1999-2012, I flew UA almost exclusively. Even when it didn't make sense. I used to spend $10-12K every year. I now spent half that amount, and I don't think I'm alone. Ever since the horribly executed merger took place - which still isn't complete, amazingly so - customers and employees have borne the brunt of the mistakes made by Jeff Smisek and now Scott Kirby.
Let's not forget that Kirby was asked to leave American due to C Suite tensions. https://www.thestreet.com/story/1370...urce-says.html Maybe Kirby has learned from his experiences, maybe he hasn't. If UA is still the inconsistent mess it is today 18 months from now, I expect he will be shown the door. And deservedly so.
Does United still need to improve? Heck yes.
Is comparing every aspect of United to Delta and ridiculing executives indicative of the intelligent adults we're supposed to be? No.
Oct 22, 2017, 3:08 pm
#123
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,554
He's being treated with far more respect than his predecessor.
Oct 22, 2017, 4:28 pm
#124
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
UAL's pre-tax income, excl special items: $1.0 billion
DAL's pre-tax income, excl special items: $1.7 billion
(DAL's wording for "excl special items" is "adjusted.")
UA did suffer a larger pre-tax profit hit from the hurricanes ($185 million to DL's $120 million), but even taking that into account, UA lagged DL significantly.
The third quarter has historically been the big money-making quarter for airlines, and UA's mediocre performance is troubling given the seven years since the merger (the excuse of "well, the merger just happened, so we need to be patient" no longer holds any water).
If this performance continues, UA employees will become further demoralized as they witness inevitable concession demands from management. Nobody wants to see that again - so it behooves Kirby to right the ship and grow revenue and profit.
Oops. Wall Street did care later in the week. There's now quite a sale on UA stock, so for those who are confident that Kirby will right the ship, there's a lot more upside in UA stock than in DL or AA.
UA operating cash flow in Q3: $577 million
DL operating cash flow in Q3: $1.6 billion
For those who ascribe value to "free cash flow," DL produced $477 million in Q3 while UA's free cash flow was ($505) million - yes, negative. UA borrowed to cover its capital investments.
Immediately following the merger, my take is senior adopted the philosophy they had the ability to walk away from the customer as the customer needed them more than they needed the customer. I see this going back to the CO side of the house and the post-merger management sought to roll it out across the then freshly combined company. The error, as it seems to me, is two-fold:[INDENT] 1. The ability of pmUA customers to walk away was materially underestimated as pmUA lacked the fortress aspect of their hubs of CO/NW/DL. Said another way, the pmUA customer base could find alternative options if needed without too much pain...and they did.
Well said. My follow up comment would be this - if UA needs to defend their competitive hubs they need the capacity to do so. They need 753s, 767s, etc. not 175s. Focusing on increasing frequency with smaller aircraft, especially in space/gate constrained airports, seems like the wrong approach here. Rather punching back...hard with upgraded equipment seems appropriate. NK adds a 320 flight from ORD to wherever? No problem. UA dumps a widebody on the city pair and time with a far deeper well of discount inventory to draw from.
Lately, I've been buying more discounted domestic F rather than hoping for an upgrade, often rationalizing it when AA's domestic discounted F is cheaper than Southwest cattle class.
And in case anyone asks why UA's financial performance matters to this forum, it's because some of us have been around here for more than 15 years listening to long-gone windbags spouting nonsense about how the frequent flyer plans were bankrupting the airlines and how pruning those frequent flyer benefits would flow immediately to the bottom line.
UA jumped on the 00train in 2012, and 2017 looks to be the sixth straight year that UA will trail DL in financial success. DL whacked its frequent flyer programme as well, but it must have done something right to outpace UA quarter after quarter, year after year.
For those six years, some posters told us that UA's merger didn't happen until 2010 while DL had a "head start" (having merged with NW two years earlier). DL merged as the economy moved into a severe tailspin, while UA's merger didn't happen until the recovery had begun. Accordingly, I discount the "Delta had a big head start on UA" theories.
Even more telling is that AA began outperforming UA shortly after emergence from Ch 11 in late 2013 when it was dragged to the alter by the ugly girl US Air. UA/CO had a huge merger head start on AA/US yet new AA has beaten UA quarter after quarter.
Now the economic expansion is getting long in the tooth and still UA is making excuses for coming in third place in a three-man race. When the inevitable downturn/fuel price spike occurs, how prepared is UA to weather that storm?
Oct 22, 2017, 5:20 pm
#126
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
It’s a pretty good track record. There’s been a pattern of cost cuts, but also operational and revenue improvements, effectively saving 2 carriers from liquidation.
What’s lost in the FlyerTalk conversation is that C-suite executives are not bound to a pro- or anti-customer mindset. The blanket characterizations sometime used reflect an ignorance of how business works and a high level of immaturity.
What’s lost in the FlyerTalk conversation is that C-suite executives are not bound to a pro- or anti-customer mindset. The blanket characterizations sometime used reflect an ignorance of how business works and a high level of immaturity.
Unfortunately, we have the outlier in Mr. Smisek & Co. - They really were as arrogant as their reputation spelled out. Yet just because Smisek was a certain way doesn’t mean Kirby will be. I already see him as far more nuanced and calculated in his approach than Smisek - You can tell if you listen to the man for a few minutes, especially in person. He doesn’t have the folksy demeanor of Oscar, but I appreciate him not trying to bend into something he’s not - Smisek tried that and he looked like an even larger aloof jerk.
Count me as cautiously optimistic vis-a-vis Kirby.
Oct 22, 2017, 5:47 pm
#127
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
flown many times on 10 across on full flights USA - Abu Dhabi/ Dubai. It's not the worst thing in the world. Just be prepared. Most of the world's airlines have 10 across these days in Y on the 777. I'm not going to fault UA for moving towards this standard (although I'll probably be in J).
Botched BE roll out? Could they have been better there? absolutely. and I think long run they will figure it out and make it work.
10 across in Y on a 777? People want to pay $500 roundtrip from the USA to Europe. That's how you pay for it.
Botched BE roll out? Could they have been better there? absolutely. and I think long run they will figure it out and make it work.
10 across in Y on a 777? People want to pay $500 roundtrip from the USA to Europe. That's how you pay for it.
Oct 22, 2017, 5:59 pm
#128
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,554
Oct 22, 2017, 7:38 pm
#129
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Profits are great. But if we're not allowed to compare the numbers to UA's competitors and discuss anything, then FT threads should be locked after the OP. Funny you mention "cash" (when you really meant "GAAP income") because cash flow was where UA really fell short in Q3:
UA operating cash flow in Q3: $577 million
DL operating cash flow in Q3: $1.6 billion
For those who ascribe value to "free cash flow," DL produced $477 million in Q3 while UA's free cash flow was ($505) million - yes, negative. UA borrowed to cover its capital investments.
UA operating cash flow in Q3: $577 million
DL operating cash flow in Q3: $1.6 billion
For those who ascribe value to "free cash flow," DL produced $477 million in Q3 while UA's free cash flow was ($505) million - yes, negative. UA borrowed to cover its capital investments.
And in case anyone asks why UA's financial performance matters to this forum, it's because some of us have been around here for more than 15 years listening to long-gone windbags spouting nonsense about how the frequent flyer plans were bankrupting the airlines and how pruning those frequent flyer benefits would flow immediately to the bottom line.
For those six years, some posters told us that UA's merger didn't happen until 2010 while DL had a "head start" (having merged with NW two years earlier). DL merged as the economy moved into a severe tailspin, while UA's merger didn't happen until the recovery had begun. Accordingly, I discount the "Delta had a big head start on UA" theories.
Even more telling is that AA began outperforming UA shortly after emergence from Ch 11 in late 2013 when it was dragged to the alter by the ugly girl US Air. UA/CO had a huge merger head start on AA/US yet new AA has beaten UA quarter after quarter.
Now the economic expansion is getting long in the tooth and still UA is making excuses for coming in third place in a three-man race. When the inevitable downturn/fuel price spike occurs, how prepared is UA to weather that storm?
Even more telling is that AA began outperforming UA shortly after emergence from Ch 11 in late 2013 when it was dragged to the alter by the ugly girl US Air. UA/CO had a huge merger head start on AA/US yet new AA has beaten UA quarter after quarter.
Now the economic expansion is getting long in the tooth and still UA is making excuses for coming in third place in a three-man race. When the inevitable downturn/fuel price spike occurs, how prepared is UA to weather that storm?
Oct 22, 2017, 10:17 pm
#130
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I did not even bother looking at UA BTB as legs would be on the 77W.
I am now looking at trip to LHR in April, 4 tickets. Not even willing to look at UA, too much risk of 77W, we will take BA or more likely VS in PE.
The problem, as I keep saying is that yes, you may be able to try to keep your cost down to compete with ULLCs. But lets be serious, there is no way that UA with its high labor costs, big complex operation, and legacy costs can have lower costs than the ULLC, but if they offer ULLC like product, they will cause those who are willing to pay more to fly another airline.
Unlike say the ME3 - where most of their Y traffic has rarely, if ever, flown, and is also 2/3 the weight of an average american.
- United relies on repeat traffic, and a bad experience, and 3-4-3 with big-ol-fat Americans next to you, is a great way to chase away repeat business.If is not lost on me, although I think its probably lost on United that in the current (2017) sky track rankings this is how US flag carriers stacked up:
DL: 32 (up from 35 in 2016)
AS: 36 (up from 60 in 2016)
B6: 39 (up from 53 in 2016)
SWA 54 (up from 66 in 2016)
AA: 74 (up from 77 in 2016)
UA 78th (down from 68tth in 2016).
I think this is a realistic reflection of what UA has become, and putting seats in E+ (for their elite customers) that are .6" narrower than on a 737, with narrow aisles as well, and then expecting that they will be happy 5-10-12-15 hours later, well it just shows UA deserves it's crappy, and falling, reputation.
p.s. http://www.worldairlineawards.com/aw...ne_rating.html
Oct 22, 2017, 11:16 pm
#131
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
But that's NOT what happened.
That's wishful skewing.
Paraphrased, they didn't say "Shove off, we're doing what is best for us LONG-TERM."
They said, "We don't know the answers to your questions, so stop asking them."
And investors want profits. That's the way publicly traded companies work. If United can't handle that expectation, they should take themselves private.
Every corporation has to deal with short-sighted investors, as well as smarter ones.
And they have to deal with it better than Oscar/Kirby did.
I like Oscar's honesty. It tempers Kirby's arrogance, but not enough to justify the way the call went.
That's wishful skewing.
Paraphrased, they didn't say "Shove off, we're doing what is best for us LONG-TERM."
They said, "We don't know the answers to your questions, so stop asking them."
And investors want profits. That's the way publicly traded companies work. If United can't handle that expectation, they should take themselves private.
Every corporation has to deal with short-sighted investors, as well as smarter ones.
And they have to deal with it better than Oscar/Kirby did.
I like Oscar's honesty. It tempers Kirby's arrogance, but not enough to justify the way the call went.
They dealt with the analysts by rebuffing their desires. If they really wanted to, they could have placed capacity cuts on the potential menu and eased the delirium. They didn't, and the short-term investors weren't happy. Nice to see them sticking with what they believe is right for the company, not for what the investors want right this minute.
Last edited by minnyfly; Oct 23, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Oct 23, 2017, 6:19 am
#132
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
That's a very poor paraphrase. When it came to capacity, your first quote is far closer to what actually was said than the second.
They dealt with the analysts by rebuffing their desires. If they really wanted to, they could have placed capacity cuts on the potential menu and eased the delirium. They didn't, and the short-term investors weren't happy. Nice to see them sticking with what they believe is right for the company, not for what the investors want right this minute.
They dealt with the analysts by rebuffing their desires. If they really wanted to, they could have placed capacity cuts on the potential menu and eased the delirium. They didn't, and the short-term investors weren't happy. Nice to see them sticking with what they believe is right for the company, not for what the investors want right this minute.
Oct 23, 2017, 6:42 am
#133
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,554
I just had the opportunity to read the transcript of the earnings call, and some of it was hilarious.
Right, the award costs are going to go up, but our customers aren't going to care.
And this on the Polaris roll-out:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/411...script?page=16
Really? Andrew must be focused on customer comments about the food and drink immediately after roll out, not the recent comments about cutbacks and downgrades.
Joseph DeNardi
Okay. Andrew, it looks like you guys recently made some changes to mileage plus award valuations, you had increased the price on some saver awards, added a fee to cancel. It seems like those decisions benefit the airline business, because the miles flow through at a better rate, but they effectively devalue the currency for consumers. So how far can you push that, before people stop signing up for the card, and why shouldn't I be worried that, unless your disclosures improve and the transparency gets better, the marketing company won't continue to subsidize the airlines?
Andrew Levy
We have made some changes. We have gone through a dynamic type of pricing environment. But we have been really careful on how we do that, to make sure that our customers still see a great value. And I don't think that has changed here. There were a few price points that went up. But there are not many price points that are actually lower, as they reflect the true availability on particular flights. So I don't think what we did over the last two weeks is going to change the dynamics at all.
Okay. Andrew, it looks like you guys recently made some changes to mileage plus award valuations, you had increased the price on some saver awards, added a fee to cancel. It seems like those decisions benefit the airline business, because the miles flow through at a better rate, but they effectively devalue the currency for consumers. So how far can you push that, before people stop signing up for the card, and why shouldn't I be worried that, unless your disclosures improve and the transparency gets better, the marketing company won't continue to subsidize the airlines?
Andrew Levy
We have made some changes. We have gone through a dynamic type of pricing environment. But we have been really careful on how we do that, to make sure that our customers still see a great value. And I don't think that has changed here. There were a few price points that went up. But there are not many price points that are actually lower, as they reflect the true availability on particular flights. So I don't think what we did over the last two weeks is going to change the dynamics at all.
And this on the Polaris roll-out:
Andrew Nocella
...........
But we also remember, there is many other components to Polaris. There is a new refined food offering, there is new amenities, blankets, and all of those things are available on all United Intercontinental flights, and are being well received by our customers. So we are well along the way. We'd like to go faster. But the feedback we have gotten in two days, I think has been fantastic, about the seat we have put on board and the changes we have made, and you will look for more and more of it over time, as we get more aircraft converted to include the seat, as well as all the other Polaris experiences.
...........
But we also remember, there is many other components to Polaris. There is a new refined food offering, there is new amenities, blankets, and all of those things are available on all United Intercontinental flights, and are being well received by our customers. So we are well along the way. We'd like to go faster. But the feedback we have gotten in two days, I think has been fantastic, about the seat we have put on board and the changes we have made, and you will look for more and more of it over time, as we get more aircraft converted to include the seat, as well as all the other Polaris experiences.
Really? Andrew must be focused on customer comments about the food and drink immediately after roll out, not the recent comments about cutbacks and downgrades.
Oct 23, 2017, 7:32 am
#134
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: AA LT Plat, UA 1k/1mm+, National EE, IC Plat, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 2,605
There are two issues as I see it (and I think United does as well), which are in what Kirby said on the 1Q call:
"We have a Newark-based global services or 1K customer, and we started flying the regional jet to Atlanta and regional jets to Dulles and regional jets to Detroit...."
"We have a Newark-based global services or 1K customer, and we started flying the regional jet to Atlanta and regional jets to Dulles and regional jets to Detroit...."
Let's not forget that Kirby was asked to leave American due to C Suite tensions. https://www.thestreet.com/story/1370...urce-says.html Maybe Kirby has learned from his experiences, maybe he hasn't. If UA is still the inconsistent mess it is today 18 months from now, I expect he will be shown the door. And deservedly so.
I agree - the broad brush strokes painted here aren’t really representative of reality. As you state, Parker and Kirby both had experience in transitioning from a second tier operation, to a truly world-class global one in succeeding AMR. To insinuate they were too naive or arrogant to change their predisposed mindsets is a little far fetched.
Unfortunately, we have the outlier in Mr. Smisek & Co. - They really were as arrogant as their reputation spelled out. Yet just because Smisek was a certain way doesn’t mean Kirby will be. I already see him as far more nuanced and calculated in his approach than Smisek - You can tell if you listen to the man for a few minutes, especially in person. He doesn’t have the folksy demeanor of Oscar, but I appreciate him not trying to bend into something he’s not - Smisek tried that and he looked like an even larger aloof jerk.
Count me as cautiously optimistic vis-a-vis Kirby.
Unfortunately, we have the outlier in Mr. Smisek & Co. - They really were as arrogant as their reputation spelled out. Yet just because Smisek was a certain way doesn’t mean Kirby will be. I already see him as far more nuanced and calculated in his approach than Smisek - You can tell if you listen to the man for a few minutes, especially in person. He doesn’t have the folksy demeanor of Oscar, but I appreciate him not trying to bend into something he’s not - Smisek tried that and he looked like an even larger aloof jerk.
Count me as cautiously optimistic vis-a-vis Kirby.
But on the flip side, I just bought 4 tickets SFO-KUL-HKG-SFO (with side tickets to LGK.) I got offered $1575 RT on EVA, $1600 on CX. I did not even look at EVA, totally dead to me due to 3-4-3. I ended up paying CX $2150/ticket mostly in PE (with HKG-KUL is J). EVA, and I mean all of it, is off my radar.
I did not even bother looking at UA BTB as legs would be on the 77W.
I am now looking at trip to LHR in April, 4 tickets. Not even willing to look at UA, too much risk of 77W, we will take BA or more likely VS in PE.
The problem, as I keep saying is that yes, you may be able to try to keep your cost down to compete with ULLCs. But lets be serious, there is no way that UA with its high labor costs, big complex operation, and legacy costs can have lower costs than the ULLC, but if they offer ULLC like product, they will cause those who are willing to pay more to fly another airline.
Unlike say the ME3 - where most of their Y traffic has rarely, if ever, flown, and is also 2/3 the weight of an average american. - United relies on repeat traffic, and a bad experience, and 3-4-3 with big-ol-fat Americans next to you, is a great way to chase away repeat business.
If is not lost on me, although I think its probably lost on United that in the current (2017) sky track rankings this is how US flag carriers stacked up:
DL: 32 (up from 35 in 2016)
AS: 36 (up from 60 in 2016)
B6: 39 (up from 53 in 2016)
SWA 54 (up from 66 in 2016)
AA: 74 (up from 77 in 2016)
UA 78th (down from 68tth in 2016).
I think this is a realistic reflection of what UA has become, and putting seats in E+ (for their elite customers) that are .6" narrower than on a 737, with narrow aisles as well, and then expecting that they will be happy 5-10-12-15 hours later, well it just shows UA deserves it's crappy, and falling, reputation.
p.s. http://www.worldairlineawards.com/aw...ne_rating.html
I did not even bother looking at UA BTB as legs would be on the 77W.
I am now looking at trip to LHR in April, 4 tickets. Not even willing to look at UA, too much risk of 77W, we will take BA or more likely VS in PE.
The problem, as I keep saying is that yes, you may be able to try to keep your cost down to compete with ULLCs. But lets be serious, there is no way that UA with its high labor costs, big complex operation, and legacy costs can have lower costs than the ULLC, but if they offer ULLC like product, they will cause those who are willing to pay more to fly another airline.
Unlike say the ME3 - where most of their Y traffic has rarely, if ever, flown, and is also 2/3 the weight of an average american.
- United relies on repeat traffic, and a bad experience, and 3-4-3 with big-ol-fat Americans next to you, is a great way to chase away repeat business.If is not lost on me, although I think its probably lost on United that in the current (2017) sky track rankings this is how US flag carriers stacked up:
DL: 32 (up from 35 in 2016)
AS: 36 (up from 60 in 2016)
B6: 39 (up from 53 in 2016)
SWA 54 (up from 66 in 2016)
AA: 74 (up from 77 in 2016)
UA 78th (down from 68tth in 2016).
I think this is a realistic reflection of what UA has become, and putting seats in E+ (for their elite customers) that are .6" narrower than on a 737, with narrow aisles as well, and then expecting that they will be happy 5-10-12-15 hours later, well it just shows UA deserves it's crappy, and falling, reputation.
p.s. http://www.worldairlineawards.com/aw...ne_rating.html
For private companies, saying, “we have a new CFO and want to finish reviewing our financial plan before committing to it,” could be an acceptable response. It is not for a public company. The call was poorly planned for and mishandled. It can happen to any company, but I would expect a bit more foresite from an IR team run by a former analyst.
Oct 23, 2017, 8:00 am
#135
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,309
fair enough
but you know that Cathay is going to 10 across on its 777s in economy, right?
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/03/cat...cross-economy/
And BA does the same on its 777s, as does Air France - you're aware of that yes?
Glad you can afford PE - that'll make the trip nice I'm sure.
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/03/cat...cross-economy/
And BA does the same on its 777s, as does Air France - you're aware of that yes?
Glad you can afford PE - that'll make the trip nice I'm sure.
But on the flip side, I just bought 4 tickets SFO-KUL-HKG-SFO (with side tickets to LGK.) I got offered $1575 RT on EVA, $1600 on CX. I did not even look at EVA, totally dead to me due to 3-4-3. I ended up paying CX $2150/ticket mostly in PE (with HKG-KUL is J). EVA, and I mean all of it, is off my radar.
I did not even bother looking at UA BTB as legs would be on the 77W.
I am now looking at trip to LHR in April, 4 tickets. Not even willing to look at UA, too much risk of 77W, we will take BA or more likely VS in PE.
The problem, as I keep saying is that yes, you may be able to try to keep your cost down to compete with ULLCs. But lets be serious, there is no way that UA with its high labor costs, big complex operation, and legacy costs can have lower costs than the ULLC, but if they offer ULLC like product, they will cause those who are willing to pay more to fly another airline.
Unlike say the ME3 - where most of their Y traffic has rarely, if ever, flown, and is also 2/3 the weight of an average american. - United relies on repeat traffic, and a bad experience, and 3-4-3 with big-ol-fat Americans next to you, is a great way to chase away repeat business.
If is not lost on me, although I think its probably lost on United that in the current (2017) sky track rankings this is how US flag carriers stacked up:
DL: 32 (up from 35 in 2016)
AS: 36 (up from 60 in 2016)
B6: 39 (up from 53 in 2016)
SWA 54 (up from 66 in 2016)
AA: 74 (up from 77 in 2016)
UA 78th (down from 68tth in 2016).
I think this is a realistic reflection of what UA has become, and putting seats in E+ (for their elite customers) that are .6" narrower than on a 737, with narrow aisles as well, and then expecting that they will be happy 5-10-12-15 hours later, well it just shows UA deserves it's crappy, and falling, reputation.
p.s. http://www.worldairlineawards.com/aw...ne_rating.html
I did not even bother looking at UA BTB as legs would be on the 77W.
I am now looking at trip to LHR in April, 4 tickets. Not even willing to look at UA, too much risk of 77W, we will take BA or more likely VS in PE.
The problem, as I keep saying is that yes, you may be able to try to keep your cost down to compete with ULLCs. But lets be serious, there is no way that UA with its high labor costs, big complex operation, and legacy costs can have lower costs than the ULLC, but if they offer ULLC like product, they will cause those who are willing to pay more to fly another airline.
Unlike say the ME3 - where most of their Y traffic has rarely, if ever, flown, and is also 2/3 the weight of an average american.
- United relies on repeat traffic, and a bad experience, and 3-4-3 with big-ol-fat Americans next to you, is a great way to chase away repeat business.If is not lost on me, although I think its probably lost on United that in the current (2017) sky track rankings this is how US flag carriers stacked up:
DL: 32 (up from 35 in 2016)
AS: 36 (up from 60 in 2016)
B6: 39 (up from 53 in 2016)
SWA 54 (up from 66 in 2016)
AA: 74 (up from 77 in 2016)
UA 78th (down from 68tth in 2016).
I think this is a realistic reflection of what UA has become, and putting seats in E+ (for their elite customers) that are .6" narrower than on a 737, with narrow aisles as well, and then expecting that they will be happy 5-10-12-15 hours later, well it just shows UA deserves it's crappy, and falling, reputation.
p.s. http://www.worldairlineawards.com/aw...ne_rating.html