Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO/UA, Any Connecting Of The Hub Dots?  
User currently offlineCIDflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2286 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8424 times:

My question is regarding the merger of CO/UA and if anyone thinks we could see some service expansion. For example, UA is pretty strong in the upper midwest, places like CID, FSD, PIA, MLI etc UA is one of the top carriers. Could we see some sort of service expansion to UA's new hubs like IAH or EWR from places like these? Or will we see CO/UA pull a Delta (like when they yanked ATL service to a lot of midwestern cities and rerouted traffic through DTW and MSP) and see the combined carrier focus on serving the smaller mid sized airports through the closest hubs (for example pulling DSM-IAH and taking that existing traffic and routing it through the esisting DEN and ORD flights). I am just using the midwest as an example since it is where I am located and have seen that pattern. Im sure in the case of the DL/NW merger we have seen communities in other regions like the Southeast for example lose DTW, MSP or MEM flights to be focused through ATL and so forth. Perhaps CO/UA would pull BHM-DEN in favor of routing that traffic through IAH and so forth.

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 297 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8293 times:

This is all fun speculation. Keep in mind , of course, that anything you see on this board will be fun speculation. The people who actually work in planning at ua and co and make these decisions can't post because they will be fired from their jobs cenjoy the game but most likely for the truth you'll have to wait and see.

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2887 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8162 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They will have two, 2 cabin 747-400's one clockwise the other counterclockwise - why not they will have 10 hubs!!! They may even turn the upper deck into workstations!  


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2757 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8073 times:

I think this will all go down as per the SCOPE that they finally decide to use. If it's CO's and a 50 seat limit, then it will be the nearest hub, and the example of DEN-BHM will go by the wayside. If it is UA's at 70 (I think?) then maybe you could see an expansion of PIA-IAH.
Just my 2 cents....


User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1175 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8001 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With fuel at 75.00/barrel in what is supposedly a weak economy, I think we will continue to see an acceleration in the reduction of RJ flying on long routes, at least in the 50-pax variety, about as fast as their leases expire. Their CASM's are simply to high on the 2 or 3 hour sectors they have been used on in recent years.. I think we are already seeing this with DL NWA as they start positioning some of their 50 pax RJ operators for substantial reductions in their activities. I think that with CO-UA the same thing will happen and the remaining RJ's will be used to connect small and medium towns to closest hubs, instead of trying to overfly their other hubs. It appears certain that US Congress will be raising the required qualifications and minimum hours for pilots which in turn will put upward pressures on their pay scales which will put the economics of most current 50pax RJ flying way under water. I have to agree with the Boyd consulting group on this one.


The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22931 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 4):
With fuel at 75.00/barrel in what is supposedly a weak economy, I think we will continue to see an acceleration in the reduction of RJ flying on long routes, at least in the 50-pax variety, about as fast as their leases expire.

That's probably right, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything about dot connecting (or dot un-connecting, for that matter). If UA gets scope for 70-seaters, you'll see a route like BNAIAH, currently 8x ERJ, go to something like 5x-6x CR7/E70. And for many cities east of Chicago, connecting to more CO or UA hubs doesn't necessarily mean a long flight.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1175 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):
If UA gets scope for 70-seaters, you'll see a route like BNAIAH, currently 8x ERJ, go to something like 5x-6x CR7/E70.

I do totally agree with this. I think that a route like EWR-MSP with 6 or sodaily ERJ145, scheduled at 3 hours + , is likely to be replaced by 4 of the Shuttle America 170s, or perhaps even a UA319 or two, as a combined UA CO hub at ORD will open up some other off peak connecting opportunities. Any type of more pronounced economic recovery will probably push oil back to 85.00 or 90.00/barrel and further accelerate the reduction of the 50pax RJ fleet leaving a much smaller number plying sub 500 mile routes. I have been surprised that in such a weak world wide economy with such high unemployment rates in the US and Europe that oil pricing has been staying up as high as it has been, or actually increasing as much as it did, since it hit bottom in Feb 2009 following the oil speculative bubble collapse.



The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2178 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6132 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 2):
They will have two, 2 cabin 747-400's one clockwise the other counterclockwise

A bunch of 747s at CID would be a lot of fun for sure. Why not CID-FRA, so that iowans can connect straight on the LH network! And to bring on more German tourists to Iowa as well! After all, there is a German heritage in Iowa, so it should work, right?



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineCIDflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2286 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 7):
A bunch of 747s at CID would be a lot of fun for sure. Why not CID-FRA, so that iowans can connect straight on the LH network! And to bring on more German tourists to Iowa as well! After all, there is a German heritage in Iowa, so it should work, right?

LOL well I would definiteley switch to UA from DL and AA if they did that  


User currently onlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3741 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5197 times:

FWA's currently only served from ORD 3x/day on CR2s.

After the UA/CO merger, I could see:
-FWA-ORD remains as-is, as AmericanConnection/RP is also 3x/day
-FWA-DEN 1x CR7. Not sure if the 7 combined daily DEN flights from IND on UA, F9, and WN would have an impact on such a decision, though.
-FWA-EWR or FWA-IAD 1x or 2x ER4 or Q400. Fills in an important void on the East Coast



Primary Airport: FWA/Alternate Airport: DTW/Not employed by the FWACAA or their partners
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
I think this will all go down as per the SCOPE that they finally decide to use. If it's CO's and a 50 seat limit

That will not happen. United will not accept CO's scope, this would be big enough to stop the merger.
This is also something that we are not at all worried about, no plans are being made for such an event.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 767 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4684 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
United will not accept CO's scope

And who is to say the pilot group will accept giving away more flying?


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5939 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4667 times:

Quoting DualQual (Reply 11):
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
United will not accept CO's scope

And who is to say the pilot group will accept giving away more flying?

I don't think that its likely that the pilots are going to be successful at, for lack of a better term, "putting scope relief back in the bottle." Now its possible that they will be successful in imposing a limit on the number of +50 seaters that UA can operate or setting up some sort of ratio between mainline and +50 seat jets but I don't think anyone really believes that the CRJ700 and E170s are going to be leaving the fleet.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2757 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
That will not happen. United will not accept CO's scope, this would be big enough to stop the merger.

Okay, okay, okay....  
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
This is also something that we are not at all worried about, no plans are being made for such an event.

But then, (and the last thing that I want to do here is to be disagreeable) who (or what) is not allowing anyone to worry about this?


Quoting United1 (Reply 12):
Now its possible that they will be successful in imposing a limit on the number of 50 seaters that UA can operate or setting up some sort of ratio between mainline and 50 seat jets but I don't think anyone really believes that the CRJ700 and E170s are going to be leaving the fleet.

Then if so (IF), wouldn't this type of thing limit the expansion the poster has in mind?


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4517 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 13):
But then, (and the last thing that I want to do here is to be disagreeable) who (or what) is not allowing anyone to worry about this?

This is one of those things that is a go, no go, item. The merger will not go forward with that kind of scope clause in place.

I say that we are not worrying about it because it is known that it is not a possibility at the merged airline. In reality as far as route planning is concerned there is not a whole lot going on at all at this point. There are some IT changes being made and some basic infrastructure being put into place to allow for networks to be combined and ironed out but at this point the details of who what where when are not being combed over in detail.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16862 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

There are a few stations CO has closed over the years that are still part of the UA system, some of them include;

Oakland, Reno, Bakersfield, Boise, Palm Springs.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2757 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4480 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 14):
This is one of those things that is a go, no go, item. The merger will not go forward with that kind of scope clause in place.

So the essence of what you are saying is that this whole deal may fall through because of the pilots? I don't think that the pilots would want to kill this deal, but yet, they probably are looking at some kind of protections. Also, IIRC, one of the first meetings between the new UA/CO management team and the pilot groups (a bit lazy to look for source right now) did not go too well.

As for myself, I really would want all to work out well for both sides, and that places such as CID and PIA can get some additional service and convenience with this merger, at the same time put some extra $$$ into the new merged company.


User currently offlinenuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
That will not happen. United will not accept CO's scope, this would be big enough to stop the merger.
This is also something that we are not at all worried about, no plans are being made for such an event.


I am only an fa but i have yet to meet a pilot willing to give up the scope over here at cal. So unless i am flying with every single rebel in the company we are going to have a stale mate. And frankly if that issue would kill the merger then look out shareholders. Pay means nothing without the seats. Also that FAS at cal support the pilots over the scope issue because it also means our jobs.


User currently offlinejoeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 937 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
That will not happen. United will not accept CO's scope, this would be big enough to stop the merger.
This is also something that we are not at all worried about, no plans are being made for such an event.

Amen to that....I avoid the 50 seat barbie jets and CRJ's if at all possible. I hate them both. But the E170's are really nice and actually prefer them. UA/CO needs to dump about 50% of it's fleet of 50 seaters for 70-80 seaters like Delta is in the process of doing now. E-175's and CRJ-900's are nice!


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4262 times:

Quoting nuggetsyl (Reply 17):
I am only an fa but i have yet to meet a pilot willing to give up the scope over here at cal. So unless i am flying with every single rebel in the company we are going to have a stale mate. And frankly if that issue would kill the merger then look out shareholders. Pay means nothing without the seats. Also that FAS at cal support the pilots over the scope issue because it also means our jobs.

I started my airline career as a CO FA and understand exactly where you are coming from. The pilots at CO are very aware of scope and it has always been an important part of their contract which is why we still see CO utilizing the 50 seaters like they do. I am not really sure where the talks are and how all of the contracts work in a legal sense but I would imagine that Smisek is pretty confident that he can make the changes to scope that he needs to make this deal go through.
As I said before it is not an option for the merger to include the current CO scope rules. The 50+ seat regional flying at United is way too big and important to leave behind. United has invested a lot and built a business plan around the utilization of our regional fleet and it has paid off in a big way. With the addition of the CO mainline fleet there will be some shifting of routes and aircraft to right size things and in the end I think we will see a lot of ERJ's being phased out. CO customers are going to welcome the United explus product with open arms and its going to be a nice change for CO FF's to have a First Class option in some of the smaller markets served only by regional jets.

So in the end I really don't know how Smisek plans to work with the CO pilots on scope but I do know that he must have a pretty solid plan. Is there a way for United to go around the CO CBA because their are the acquiring carrier? I know it would be a very bad thing for labor relations but could this be what he is using to fall back on if all else fails? Maybe someone with more legal knowledge of CBA's can comment on this?

I personally would like to see ALL the flying be done by mainline pilots and the regionals to be eliminated. I wish the unions would realize that it would be more beneficial to work with the airlines to come up with competitive rates on the smaller aircraft types so that there could be one pilot group that does all the flying. This would benefit both labor and management in a big way. Management would be able to use aircraft that are better fit to the kind of routes they need them on and labor would benefit from seniority and flow-through for pilots to advance their career without taking a huge hit in the middle of it as they change from regional to mainline. I find it so odd that ALPA represents both mainline pilots and regional pilots but refuses to work with airlines to make a competitive contract that includes flying of all aircraft in one CBA.....! I guess that's a union hard at work!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5174 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 15):
There are a few stations CO has closed over the years that are still part of the UA system, some of them include;

Oakland, Reno, Bakersfield, Boise, Palm Springs.

I could see all of these coming back online from IAH, especially OAK and RNO. I know RNO was a 757 run seasonally at times.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3814 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Gonna try to keep it real here.

Well id like to see jets on CRW-IAD.. but colgans pissed all over and claimed that route (schedules are only suggestions when your aircraft are all broken all the time). Getting CLE back would be great, but CLE is probably going away as a hub so I'm assuming thats out of the question. More capacity on CRW-ORD would be good since AA just added the route and is running a higher LF than UA (I guess customer service matters when theres competition). CRW-DEN would be great once a day on a 170, but I just dont see that happening. Last but not least, I'd like to see us get our 2nd IAH flight back.


User currently offlineKBUF From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

I'm hoping for BUF-IAH and BUF-DEN personally.


"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup."-Terry Pegula, February 22, 2011
User currently offlineCOflyerBOS From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

BUF-IAH and ROC-IAH are my two dreams...

User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 19):
and in the end I think we will see a lot of ERJ's being phased out.

Why the ERJs? Why not the CRJs?



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
25 UAL747DEN : I just say that because CO has a ton of ERJ's. I guess the CRJ's could go too, whatever!
26 Kcrwflyer : I see CR2 getting parked before anything Expressjet owns.
27 AVLAirlineFreq : If CLE is phased out as a hub, wouldn't one of the first priorities (depending upon that timing) be to add ORD capacity to those spokes losing any kin
28 drerx7 : Honestly that would be a mere bump. CLE does not have a lot of markets that are unique to CLE that could not be absorbed very very easily through ORD
29 CALPSAFltSkeds : If the CO pilots won;'t budge, then we'd hope cooler heads prevail. - There could be a phase out of the 50 seat scope over the years or as aircraft a
30 ADent : UA basically replaced 100 737s with CR7s (and E170s). Getting rid of all of those would prune much of the UA network. Over half of my flying on UA is
31 United1 : Not really...at least from what was pieced together on a couple threads about the proposed UA narrow body order UA was planning on placing a growth o
32 point2point : You have some good solutions here. Seriously, you need to be at the negotiating table (this is a compliment to you, not snark) and I think you are of
33 STT757 : I hope so, there are many CO routes from EWR and IAH that have been downgraded to ERJs due to the expedited retirement of the 737-300s and the drawdo
34 sldispatcher : I keep hoping they can come up with a formula that will keep both sides happy. Surely CAL pilots see that we are rapidly moving to a 70+ seat RJ worl
35 MSJYOP28Apilot : Would a no-furlough clause and a no re-furlough clause for those currently on furlough when they are re-called now be a way to bridge the 70 seater sc
36 UAL747DEN : I completely agree with you and that is why I cannot understand why ALPA has not tried to workout a contract that covers this flying mainline in a co
37 MasseyBrown : I don't understand why ALPA can't accept employment guarantees for their members. Scope is nothing more than featherbedding and puts their employer a
38 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : I would be surprised if we don't see ewr-slc added back......UA has a pretty good ff base and flights there something that co never had......the only
39 AADC10 : If and more likely when the CLE hub is dismantled, passengers would simply be shifted to other existing routes at the other hubs. If additional fligh
40 Antoniemey : Technically CO owns/leases and ExpressJet sub-leases. I can't claim to know the situation with all of UA's regional contracts, but in my personal exp
41 United1 : Why Air Wis? Neither UA or CO have a contract with them for RJ operations....UA does use them in a few stations as ground handlers.
42 UAL747DEN : I think that it's pretty much a guarantee XE will be doing the majority of the 50 seat flying until it can be phased out. XE just signed a contract w
43 Cubsrule : Why, indeed? If they dump AX and RP, they will have just two 50-seat providers: XE and OO. That seems like a relatively realistic scenario.
44 Antoniemey : hrm... Not sure what I was thinking there... Skywest would indeed be what I was really thinking of.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Prestwick (PIK): Any Pictures Of The Old Interior? posted Mon Dec 7 2009 10:44:48 by Jamesontheroad
Will CO Bring Back Some Of The CLE Service? posted Sun Dec 14 2008 20:14:56 by Falcon84
CO 811 - Any Chance Of A B739ER? posted Mon Aug 4 2008 05:15:51 by Ushermittwoch
Any Pics Of The First AA Flight ORD-DME? posted Sat Jun 7 2008 08:39:21 by Pylon101
Any News Of The Fate Of Biman A310 S2-ADE? posted Wed Jun 27 2007 16:19:40 by NA
CO: "Any Members Of Your Party Under 13 Y/o? posted Thu Jun 21 2007 15:46:18 by Lincoln
Any Reviews Of The New F Class On DL 757's? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 08:30:58 by Avi8tir
Any Photos Of The Old PVD Terminal? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 07:37:27 by Gift4tbone
Any News Of The A380 Flying To India posted Wed Dec 21 2005 14:44:31 by Deaphen
Any Pics Of The Hp A230 Painted In Us Livery? posted Sat Dec 17 2005 17:51:45 by Etops1