WineCountryUA

A merger with US would have brought nothing of interest and a pack of issues. CO brings a much better selection of routes. And honestly the livery issue is of zero interest to me and hardly a reason for picking a partner. And the "keeping" of Glenn T is even less of a reason -- GT needed to go so UA can get past its labor issues.

TurtleFlyer

I used to fly US regularly before CO joined the Star Alliance. US is a hideous airline. CO has its strengths and weaknesses relative to UA, but it is indeed a merger of equals that strengthens both partners. I likely would have taken my business elsewhere if UA had merged with US.

LAX

If the UA-US merger were to go through, I would not have been sure about Tilton remaining to run the show. Parker always seems to find his way at the helms of merged airlines he has been involved in.

LAX

UAL awesome

I wasn't saying GT being there as a super positive thing, but with the United CEO comes the rest of the UA practices we do like, like E+, etc going over to the US fleet, where now with CO there is somewhat uncertainty with a new CEO.

WineCountryUA

perhaps best to wait to see what happens before fretting too much
With CO there is a chance of the best of both -- With US there was nothing that added to the good.

Thunderroad

^ And even if not completely the best of both, there's still a chance that on balance UA/CO it will end up being a better airline with good long-term prospects for survival. With US, we would have likely gotten the worst of both worlds, much of that wrapped up with US's bad baggage.

FriendlySkies

It would have been a disaster.

fastair

No, Glenn was on his way out given ANY merger, at least as far as industry insiders thought.

UALpremier

Except for the labor issue, I never bought the idea that a UA/US combination would be a bad thing for United flyers. Some analysts pointed out that the PHL/ IAD proximity would mean that one hub would win out, and that either way, the destinations in Europe that US would add to UA would be complementary. US would also give UA access to the southeast, which would have better positioned it to compete against DL. Domestically, all CO really adds is ERW, and let's face it, that is not the "pretty girl" of NYC airports anyway. At least US has a large presence in LGA. I also agree that the UA brand would be intact if they had gone that route.

fastair

Not a bad analysis, but domestically, CO in ER is fare bigger than US in LGA. TX is big, and CO rules over either UA or US there. US does add the SW, but the SE, excluding Fla, which is very low yield, is covered well enough.

CO adds Latin America, and parts of the Pacific that UA doesn't, from a geographic hub that is far superior for their routes than UA or US have. In Europe, both choices add about the same. CO has fare better long range routes than US ad, and ace it, we (most) want some long range routes.

UA got the right one this time...while my judgement is still reserved, I am cautiously optimistic about the merger, and would be very pessimistic about US.

SFOtoORD

Did the question really even need to be asked? Just read this thread or one of the previous UA/US merger threads and see all the negative opinions. US brings nothing to the table that UA needed. CO rounds out the US network, has a great European network and fills in LatAm.

emcampbe

The labor issue working out is a pretty big assumption, don't you think, considering that US still hasn't worked out the issues with respect to US/former AWA pilots, and they still operate as two separate labor groups.

halls120

The "labor issue" is one of the main reasons US is a hideous airline, and would have brought a combined US/UA airline down to that level. Given the choice of losing the tulip or having my bags misrouted every time I've flown through the nightmare that is PHL, I'll gladly take the ugly CO globe on the tail.

UNITED959

I know the knee-jerk reaction is, "are you on crack," but hear me out.

Most folks feel that UA was well on its way towards the right track to recovery prior to any CO merger.

They trimmed the fat, installed (are installing) a very competitive hard product in their international fleet, offered E+, and had a frequent flyer program that satisfied most.

Upon hearing the news, my only real excitement for the UACO merger was hearing about the purported opportunity for UA's balance sheet. From a customer perspective, it didn't do anything for me.

And I admit, the initial thought of a US merger made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

However, had UA merged with US, we wouldn't constantly hear from Jeff about the merger of equals. Phooey, I'm tired of hearing that, if CO were so great on its own, then why did Jeff entertain the merger to being with? You're either with the merger or you're not.

This attitude has clearly come across in the limited merger communication we've received, and it seems the changes we've seen thus far have been pushed by the CO crowd, and ever increasingly I'm thinking an airline rename to "Jeff's Airline" or something similar is appropriate.

As a customer, there hasn't been one change I have found to be "something I'm going to like." Granted, the changes have been minimal and it takes time, but increasingly I'm doubting the hyperbole of "we're combining the best of both airlines" when in reality, it's CO with the UA name.

UA merging with US would bring a nice fleet of Airbus narrowbodies and some nicely placed hubs, and I feel that UA would have definitely had the upper hand in the merger instead of the "peeing" contest that's resulted from the CO/UA merger. Also, the frequent flyer program would probably not be altered as much.

Selfish? Maybe. But I'm quickly losing interest in the UACO merger because I'm sick of reading "how we did it at CO" or "CO did XYZ," and it just feels like there is no enthusiasm in working together, rather it's trying to show whose [you know what] is bigger.

The stirring uncertainty has me wondering who I should start collecting miles with come Jan 1, 2011.

mahasamatman

It sounds like you have it all mapped out exactly how a merger with US would have gone. A year ago, people were saying the same things about the CO merger. Imagination is always better than reality, and if a US merger were in the works, you would be making the identical post about "Would you have preferred that UA merge with CO instead of US?".

However, living in the Bay Area, UA is the only real choice for flying anywhere interesting. If they has merged with US, we would have saved a lot of money because we would have cut our travel from 100,000 miles a year to practically nothing.

Now, if the question were "Would you have preferred that UA purchased all of US's assets at a liquidation sale?", I might have a different answer...