FlyMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7046 times:
I do apologize if this has been discussed before, I did a search and did not really come up with anything.
Having just come back from a year end mileage boosting weekend, I flew many UA flights including 4 on Ted. This was not my first time on Ted, but flying Ted did bring up a question in my mind.
What is the purpose of low cost divisions like Ted and Song?. With Ted, it appears as though they use mainline aircraft (just re-painted), mainline crew (presumably still on the same wage scale) and service that is no different than what you get on a mainline flight (i.e. same IFE and same meal service-or lack thereof). As a "new airline" certainly they can't have better fuel hedges than their parent. So how exactly does making certain "vacation" routes Ted or Song flight vs. mainline flights make the parent company money?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, thanks
Fly the friendly skies of life!. Enjoy every minute.
USPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3306 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7015 times:
Quoting FlyMD (Thread starter): What is the purpose of low cost divisions like Ted and Song?. With Ted, it appears as though they use mainline aircraft (just re-painted), mainline crew (presumably still on the same wage scale) and service that is no different than what you get on a mainline flight (i.e. same IFE and same meal service-or lack thereof). As a "new airline" certainly they can't have better fuel hedges than their parent. So how exactly does making certain "vacation" routes Ted or Song flight vs. mainline flights make the parent company money?
Most of the "airline-within-an-airline" operations don't work for most of the reasons you just listed, not to mention that they're operated by mainline people on mainline contracts. So the airline that creates them doesn't generate much, if any, profit. Usually they're set to compete with a LCC that has seriously built up a presence in their network. So it's basically just a massive retaliatory route adjustment.
Song was different. Delta used it initially to compete with jetBlue, but as that turned sour and the company went into an overall different direction, Song was used to experiment with what customers really want in medium and long-haul domestic travel. So they took the ideas they got from Song and put them into their mainline transcontinental flying product. As these are initiated and spread throughout Delta's network, they may end up having the best transcontinental and international product among US carriers.
Srbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6990 times:
Some of the "Big Six" in their infinite wisdom, decided to play the "If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em" Game in response to the increase in marketshare of LCCs during the Mid-90s and again in the post-9/11 days. In the past, most new entrant LCCs were easy to kill off, just undercut them on or match their fares and keep your customers. After the demise of Eastern and Pan Am in the early 1990s coupled with cutbacks at other airlines, several airports became virtual monopolies for airlines like Delta, USAir, and United. It was during this time period that Southwest began the expansion that has made it the dominant LCC in America. Southwest came in and took on USAir @ BWI. TWA tried to take on Delta @ ATL but was thrashed not only by Delta but by several startups @ ATL as well (Valujet, Kiwi International, Air South). United had DEN to itself after CO cut their hub in Denver. You had upstart Western Pacific over in COS, and a reborn Frontier @ DEN, along with Southwest entering the west coast in a major way via the Morris Air buyout.
With Southwest and later a host of other LCCs giving US, UA, CO, and DL fits, those airlines decided to counter it with "airlines within the airline". Continental struck first in 1993 with it's Continental Lite (CALite) concept. It lasted a few years before CO ended it. Then United started it's West Coast LCC concept Shuttle by United/United Shuttle. Delta introduced Delta Express in 1996 and based it out of MCO because it was the most popular destination the majority of the LCC competition flew to. Then in 1998, US Airways launched Metrojet.
After 9/11, things changed. As part of the cutbacks airlines were making, UA axed their United Shuttle and US Airways their Metrojet operation. Delta kept Delta Express around for another few years until it was fully replaced by the more upscale Song and United soon there after launched Ted. Song and Ted were pretty much aimed at Frontier, JetBlue, and to a small extent, AirTran. WN, FL, F9, and B6 were the airlines that were doing better than the competition, and in many cases, were offering superior service to what the Big Six had on many routes.
The one thing about the "airline within an airline" concept is that you end up alienating some of you customer base. This is something CO learned with their ill-fated Continental Lite concept. Imagine flying one leg on regular CO up in first class and the flight you're connecting on is CO Lite service. Same can be said flying UA. There are certain cities where the only UA service is Ted (Like LAS). Some of this is also the same complaints frequently fliers have made in regards to the regional jet operations as well (and is part of the reason why a first class cabin is appearing in more and more a/c flown by regional affliates).
Logos From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 811 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6772 times:
Interesting that this topic just came up as I was browsing some photos of mothballed aircraft and saw some MetroJet 732s among them and realized that Ted is the last of that species. I flew Song several times back and forth to BOS a couple of years ago and found the best feature that the plane was reliably no more than half full, always giving me plenty of room to stretch out.
I would agree that Ted's days are numbered one way or another for all the reasons noted above, not the least of which is the fact that they have no de facto cost savings over a United mainline product. It's not that it's a bad product, it's just that there is no real justification for it.
Like LAS, we're down to almost exclusively Ted flights here in MCO.
Jammin From India, joined Nov 2006, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6659 times:
I flew UA recently ORD-DEN with some ski buddies and one of them told me never to fly TED because they lost/misplaced his bags every time he flew them. I told him UA and TED were the same, but he didn't want to believe it maybe because he wanted our skis to arrive with us on this flight...
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our mind.
SJUboeingGirl From Puerto Rico, joined Nov 2004, 274 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6523 times:
wohoo I'm flying Ted for the first time this Christmas and while I was looking for a ticket online I saw that United stops at St.Thomas and then SJU. That's crazy, why would they fly their 757 for a 20 min flight??