If not mistaken, the former UA and CO are now one company, United Airlines, Inc. But UA is still a subsidiary of United Continental Holdings, Inc.

What's the purpose of the holding company when there's only one subsidiary? Or are there others? Can't see any reference to anything other than United Airlines on the UA/CO Holdings website. Wouldn't it be simpler to only have United Airlines, Inc. as the single corporate entity?

UA and CO are very much still separate airlines.

Labor groups are separate, payroll systems are separate, work rules are separate, accounting is separate.

There is one brand, United. But there are still two airlines working under that brand. s-CO and s-UA are both subsidiaries of UCH.

IIRC, CO and CO Micronesia were two separate entities. I wonder if the Micronesia part is still separate from the US held part?

American is owned by AMR, the holding company which also owns Eagle. Before United Continental Holdings, United was owned by UAL Corporation. Obviously, there is some reason (tax?) that some airlines prefer to be subsidiaries of corporations rather than freestanding.

Wikipedia has a good article on several examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airline_holding_companies

[Edited 2013-01-01 13:20:35]

Quoting xjramper (Reply 2):

Air Mike was folded into the CO operating certificate before UAs was turned in for Single Operating Certification.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 3): Obviously, there is some reason (tax?) that some airlines prefer to be subsidiaries of corporations rather than freestanding.

Many times it is because they have different operating units. For example, AMR Corp owns the two airlines, but they also have real estate companies, Admirals Club as a separate company, Texas Aero Engines among others. Also, airlines have different corporations in other countries. All airlines are set up the same way, even if they don't specifically call it a holding company. As an example, Delta Air Lines, Inc is a holding company for a bunch of subsidiaries including the actual airline itself.

[Edited 2013-01-01 16:47:14]

AirMic is still exists on Paper, so we have no mobility in the CO or US system.. the Airmic ground employees are working on a Joint contract with United, so hopefully we will become United Airlines Emps soon.. but its not done yet..we are still not allowed to transfer to the mainland 15 rampers are being furloughed to the street today {No Unemployment Insurance in Guam like in the USA   } , and there are open positions at CO and UA. These are the worst days here in GUM, but hope for the future...

Interestingly, United Continental Holdings, Inc. is not a new company. It's UAL Corporation's new name. UCH uses UAL Corporation's charter. One would assume that one day when the airline is officially one from an administration standpoint, and they dissolve Continental Airlines, Inc., they would change their name back to UAL Corp or something similar.

As an aside, I think it's a company that has probably one of the most interesting, and checkered, histories in the travel industry. Founded in the 60's by George Keck, UAL Corporation, then known as UAL, Inc., at one time owned and operated Hertz, Hilton, and Westin, in addition to United Air Lines, Inc. I won't get into why that all didn't work out, but really United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a company with a pretty interesting past and really a name in the travel industry that has much more history than it sometimes get credit for.

I'm glad it lives on!

Quoting rising (Reply 7): As an aside, I think it's a company that has probably one of the most interesting, and checkered, histories in the travel industry. Founded in the 60's by George Keck, UAL Corporation, then known as UAL, Inc., at one time owned and operated Hertz, Hilton, and Westin, in addition to United Air Lines, Inc.

The parent company was renamed Allegis Corp. effective May 1, 1987. That only lasted for a year.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/10/bu...lans-to-sell-hertz-and-hotels.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...archive/1987/07/06/69232/index.htm

United Continental Holdings has about 30 subsidiaries, including Continental Airlines and United Air Lines. When subsidiaries of a parent have been operating as separate corporate entities (having been gathered together by M&A activity), it is often easier for the subsidiaries to continue separate operations, because the subsidiaries are the parties to contracts and licenses and it is expensive and inconvenient to transfer contracts and licenses. Also having a holding company makes it easier to structurally subordinate borrowings by the holding company, which facilitates having another discrete layer of debt in the overall corporate group.

This is not uncommon to most companies, not just airlines. Almost every Fortune 500 company has a parent company, and it has many benefits, one of which is the fact that the company you know (in this case United Airlines or Continental airlines) is rarely the only subsidiary. In this case, they own United Cargo, Chelsea Foods, etc.

Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 1): UA and CO are very much still separate airlines. Labor groups are separate, payroll systems are separate, work rules are separate, accounting is separate.

Only for now. Operations have been coordinated and eventually merged. A combined pilot agreement was recently approved by union members:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...ion/la-na-united-airlines-20121216

It has only been over 2 years since the transaction closed, it will be some time until all operations are fully integrated.

Quoting PDPsol (Reply 11): Only for now. Operations have been coordinated and eventually merged. A combined pilot agreement was recently approved by union members: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...ion/la-na-united-airlines-20121216 It has only been over 2 years since the transaction closed, it will be some time until all operations are fully integrated.

Correct. But the poster was referencing the present tense not the future. Right now, they are still separate airlines operating under one brand (in most instances).

Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 1): UA and CO are very much still separate airlines.

It really depends on who you talk to. Most people I have talked to here in DEN says CO is dead.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13): It really depends on who you talk to. Most people I have talked to here in DEN says CO is dead.

That's because that's a s-UA hub. Go to IAH and see how many say UA is dead.

Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 14):

All I'm saying is it really depends on who you talk to.

I just enjoy calling it "Trans Texas Airways."  

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 15): All I'm saying is it really depends on who you talk to.

That may be their feeling, but it is factually inaccurate. There are many organizational elements of both, separate, airlines that remain.

NS

Quoting gigneil (Reply 17): That may be their feeling, but it is factually inaccurate. There are many organizational elements of both, separate, airlines that remain.

Correct. The closer you get to the accounting side and labor side the more separate everything is. The closer to the consumer side the more merged it looks.