Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune  
User currently offlineCO777DAL From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 598 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18605 times:

"FORTUNE -- United Continental Holdings is learning the hard way that it isn't wise to mess with Texas. The recently merged airline's decision to choose Chicago as its corporate headquarters over Continental's hometown of Houston appears to have resulted in a big loss of political capital with the city and its airport authority. "

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...12/04/17/united-southwest-houston/

I have to say I agree with the article. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. COdbaUA shot themselves in the foot when they took the United name and moved the Headquarters from Houston to Chicago. Look no further than the comments on new stories in CLE, EWR, and IAH. CO was like greatly and owned their markets. The last thing any company does is to do anything that can jeopardize that. That is exactly what happened. There are a lot of people not happy with “UA taking over CO” –their words in CO markets.

UA hubs are highly competitive and UA Elite base seems to really not like COdbaUA, so there really isn’t much lost than what they are losing now had they just kept CO name.
CO would have had half an airline to fix…the PMUA side…now the new UA has one big mess of an airline to fix. Just about everyone is not happy PMUA/PMCO.

Being from Texas, I know many in Houston that feel burned by new UA. It doesn’t make sense to leave one of the most pro business States with low taxes to go high tax Chicago. Not to mention the hit to Texas pride which I can see is going to cost the UA dearly.

I believe Southwest would never have tried this if CO was still HQ in Houston. There is a lot of rivalry between Dallas and Houston. If and that’s a big if Southwest would have tired this while CO was HQ in Houston, I have no doubt the City of Houston would have stop them at the door, and told them to take their luggage and whatever they are selling back to Dallas. Look no further than Dallas as to all the trouble Southwest had expanding. The City of Houston would not let anything happen that could damage their hometown airline, especially any special request from a Dallas based airline.

Depending on how the new UA ends up. It will make a great business book on mega mergers. From what I’m seeing so far, it doesn’t appear to be a good one.


Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
104 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32620 posts, RR: 72
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18574 times:

Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me. Just that alone was idiotic, forgetting any potential loyalty issues, which are negligible, IMO.


a.
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18471 times:

The assumption that tax levels is the only consideration for business in locating headquarters is naive.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18440 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me. Just that alone was idiotic, forgetting any potential loyalty issues, which are negligible, IMO.

Because the City of Chicago fought hard for United and offered them concessions.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3722 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18401 times:

I read once in an interview with Glenn Tilton that he made two conditions to Jeff Smisek for the UA/CO merger:

1) The airline had to be called United
2) The headquarters had to stay in Chicago

Everything else was negotiable.

True, Houston may have been (and probably is) the better location from a business climate perspective. But I don't think that Smisek wanted to walk away from a transformative merger deal and much-needed industry consolidation over the location of the HQ.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5359 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18310 times:

Seems to me every time there is a merger, one city wins (and remains the hq) and one city loses. Sorry Houston (and Texas) -- maybe next time...

Maybe time would be better spent worrying about trying to keep Dallas as the hq of whatever entity emerges from AA's Chapter 11.

bb


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17359 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18298 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 4):
I read once in an interview with Glenn Tilton that he made two conditions to Jeff Smisek for the UA/CO merger:

1) The airline had to be called United
2) The headquarters had to stay in Chicago

I find that hard to believe. Glenn was so desperate and focused to sell/merge the carrier he would have done so with an Alpaca farm in Kalamazoo.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 18288 times:

WN's tiny operation at HOU is not even remotely a threat to that gigantic fortress hub down the road at IAH.

On the other hand, UA is still in a true 3-way battle in ORD+MDW with AA and WN, so they need to stay on the city and airport's good side. The last thing UA wants to see to have Chicago end up like LAX that everyone has a piece of the pie but no one has critical mass.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me. Just that alone was idiotic, forgetting any potential loyalty issues, which are negligible, IMO.

You can call Boeing that too.


User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18131 times:

Yea, UA is paying for this. In the end they can reallocate resources to other hubs if they want to - another airline will fill that void. I think Houston and United now have a marriage on the rocks and UA can't get a divorce.

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 3):
Because the City of Chicago fought hard for United and offered them concessions.

I heard the same. When all the dominoes fell UA approached Houston with a "This is what Chicago has done - beat this. as well as pay for us to break the Willis Tower lease (which was an obscene amount)"

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 4):
True, Houston may have been (and probably is) the better location from a business climate perspective. But I don't think that Smisek wanted to walk away from a transformative merger deal and much-needed industry consolidation over the location of the HQ.

I agree.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 7):
WN's tiny operation at HOU is not even remotely a threat to that gigantic fortress hub down the road at IAH.

That's not a tiny operation...

I was a loyal UA and CO flyer; but, having just returned to IAH on UA230 from LGA yesterday I can honestly say this is not the same airline. With every flight I am becoming more and more disenchanted with UA, the level of service has deteriorated in my opinion...on both sides - and by the way...the zone boarding is an absolute clusterf&$k and no one on this board can convince me that it makes more sense than boarding from the rear forward. They also are loosing the precious checked bag revenue by having to gate check so much.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlinestyle From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18027 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 4):
I read once in an interview with Glenn Tilton that he made two conditions to Jeff Smisek for the UA/CO merger:

1) The airline had to be called United
2) The headquarters had to stay in Chicago

I read this as well and believe it to be true. But lets not kid ourselves, EVERYTHING is negotiable in business. I bet if Smisek held his own and said the airline had to be called CO and the HQ had to stay in IAH that he would be the victor in that battle. UA would have never fit in as well with US as it did with CO.

Either way, a well written article and one I totally agree with.


User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18019 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 7):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me. Just that alone was idiotic, forgetting any potential loyalty issues, which are negligible, IMO.

You can call Boeing that too.

Seattle isn't much better than Chicago when it comes to business. At least when compared to Texas.



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17983 times:

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 8):
I heard the same. When all the dominoes fell UA approached Houston with a "This is what Chicago has done - beat this. as well as pay for us to break the Willis Tower lease (which was an obscene amount)"

PMUA got HUGE tax breaks and dollars from the city of Chicago to move the HQ from out by ORD to downtown (the wacker dr office) then they got an even bigger allowance when they were looking to relocate the operations. That ended up going into the Willis Tower (aka Sears Tower). Each of those decisions was not popular with the UA employees as the commute to from the existing office to downtown could be well over an hour in average afternoon/morning traffic. During the Operations move the time that employees would leave (overnight) and the location of Willis was a concern for security.
Both of these contracts were very long and had VERY big penalties in them for termination, so any it was a question during the merger negotiation to take a HUGE real $ hit that would have to be paid for with merger synergies or accept that Chicago is the home of the airline!

(I worked from the willis tower for the time it was announced that UA was moving the ops center there, did not make it to the time they actually moved in as it was well over a year to build out the necessary facilities.)

I can confirm this part 100% but I believe the state also agreed to reduced state tax burden in keeping UA in IL.

While I understand that Texas may be mad, I am not sure that PMCO had much of a real choice to make.


User currently offlinedurangomac From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17966 times:

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 3):

Because the City of Chicago fought hard for United and offered them concessions.

And probably the state also. I do know that there were more HQ employeees in Chicago than in Houston so choosing the larger of two locations probably had something to do with it.


User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17897 times:

Quoting durangomac (Reply 13):
And probably the state also. I do know that there were more HQ employeees in Chicago than in Houston so choosing the larger of two locations probably had something to do with it.

Well, they gave up the political clout they had in Texas. Its funny because I remember when I was young in the 80s we religiously avoided Continental and flew almost exclusively on WN here in Houston (with a little DL in between) due to CO's piss poor reputation. The 90s came and I have been a loyal CO flier with more and more UA in there...then the merger happened - and it looks like WN will be getting more and more of my business...again. Its sad, I was a big proponent of this merger, so I hope alot of my issues with the airline are merger teething issues.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17839 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
It doesn’t make sense to leave one of the most pro business States with low taxes to go high tax Chicago
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me. Just that alone was idiotic, forgetting any potential loyalty issues, which are negligible, IMO.

I assure you're they're not paying Illinois a penny.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 14):
They pulled a bait and switch on me a couple years ago. I purchased an economy ticket; got to the counter to check in and there were only economy plus seats left. They told me I'd have to pay more to board the flight I already had a ticket for.

I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't believe you. And if it did happen, then it was just because the gate agent was a douche - which is the case of many employees of any company.

NS


User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5162 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17769 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 16):
I assure you're they're not paying Illinois a penny.

Can't be paying them any money, there is no other customary reason to leave Houston for Chicago. There is a reason why New York is the ONLY other US city with more foreign consulates and Fortune 500 companies than Houston.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9510 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17750 times:

I think that article is making the claim that if United/Continental had chosen Houston instead of Chicago, they'd have enough lobbying power to keep Hobby as a domestic only airport. That is some rather slimy political rhetoric in my opinion. Yes the headquarters move did reduce the political influence, but there is another factor. Before the Southwest/Airtran merger, Southwest had no intention of launching international routes so there was no one pressuring to make Hobby an international airport. I don't know if having the headquarters in Houston or not could have had enough lobbying power to bully Southwest. As we have seen in the past with DAL, Southwest is pretty good at lobbying politicians in its own right.

PMUA did have a history about not caring about employees when deciding corporate locations. They choose everything based on the bottom line. That has resulted in management/salaried employees having to relocate. UA was already in the process of moving everyone from Elk Grove Village, which was a relatively nice campus near the airport to West Wacker or Willis Tower. They were also relocating engineering from San Francisco where it had been since the 1950s to Chicago. Forcing the relocation of people from Houston as well to Chicago meant that basically everyone at the company was forced to relocate. They lost a lot of good people by making such changes.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4240 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17674 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Reply 9):
EVERYTHING is negotiable in business


Still is and always will be, so what's the problem?

With an international airport virtually full of blue tails and gold globes, someone will have to explain to me how Houston is some kind of a loser.


User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7195 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Smisek got the job if Chicago was HQ.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 18):

WN affecting IAH ops on internationals is comical imho. Just sayin'...


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4240 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 18):
I think that article is making the claim that if United/Continental had chosen Houston instead of Chicago, they'd have enough lobbying power to keep Hobby as a domestic only airport.

Yes -- in all other cities with multiple airports, only one of the airports has international service.

Oh wait, that not true. Houston is simply catching up with the rest of the US  


User currently offlineGunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3500 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17576 times:

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 10):
Seattle isn't much better than Chicago when it comes to business. At least when compared to Texas.

Yeah, because no major businesses are making money in the Seattle area, let alone Chicago   

In any case, this article has much less to do with the regulatory climate in Texas than it does with the loyalty CO (rightfully) earned from the city of Houston being squandered by UA. There's nary a mention of lower taxes, less regulation, etc. in Texas v.s. Illinois in the article, so I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing it up.



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6052 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17553 times:

The whole UA-CO merger has actually been a gift to WN and its international plans. If WN plays its cards right and positions itself on the side of the consumer (vs threatening like UA), they just might end up with a very nice profitable international operation in a very quickly growing (and well travelled) International city.

They are well on their it would seem.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17418 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
Not to mention the hit to Texas pride which I can see is going to cost the UA dearly.

IMO, pride in Texas has nothing to do with it. If you talk to anyone in Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc, their opinion of the UA/CO merger seems to be a big "meh." The real issue is that CO had major roots tying themselves to the Houston community, perhaps second only to DL's relationship with ATL. When I lived in Houston, it seemed like everyone knew someone who worked at CO. I can't say the same thing about AA/WN and DFW.

There is a matter of pride at hand, but it's the pride that CO employees took in what they built and what they feel the merger is squandering.


User currently offlineJosh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17706 times:

COUA (whatever it is) will still be paying Texas and Houston a hell of a lot of taxes (Corporate Franchise, Sales, Property) whether their corporate headquarters is there or not. This ego blow is overblown, IMHO.

User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17724 times:

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
It doesn’t make sense to leave one of the most pro business States with low taxes to go high tax Chicago.

The tax situation at the headquarters is irrelevant to the corporation. Like most of the major airlines, United Continental Holdings is incorporated in Delaware. The state tax based upon revenue in that state and since World Headquarters generates little, if any revenue by itself, the location of the headquarters has no significant impact on taxes. The executives may grouse about it since it might raise their personal taxes but only a small number of employees would actually change cities.

Moving out of Houston may have hurt UA's influence at city hall but IAH and UA still have a symbiotic relationship. If UA balked at the IAH master plan, the airport authority would have a difficult time proceeding. WN will undermine them with international routes out of HOU but I find it hard to believe that WN would be shut out even if UA moved WHQ to Houston. ORD on the other hand is clearly contested and maintaining UA's narrow lead there is critical.


25 type-rated : And Frank Lorenzo promised CO workers way back when that he wouldn't move the HQ from LA either...... I'm just sayin.....
27 redzeppelin : I vaguely remember something about Boeing moving their HQ to Chicago in part so that they could try to cozy up with United... Was there any truth to t
28 AirframeAS : At least the state of Texas has AA and WN. But I do agree, the "Don't Mess With Texas" thing has nothing to do with the relocation of the HQ or reloc
29 kgaiflyer : Nothing wrong with the logic in either of these statements.
30 kfitz : First, Tilton did in fact stipulate that the new company would be located in Chicago and named United. These were non negotiable; Houston was never in
31 SonomaFlyer : UA made their bed.... Houston also made their bed in the fact that they didn't want to pay the absurd amount of money in incentives and further breaks
32 max999 : If that kind of binary, black and white attitude about locating businesses were true, then high-tax New York (where I live) would be a barren wastela
33 Post contains images drerx7 : How do you figure? No, I don't remember
34 COflyerBOS : How in the world could you argue that the tax structure in the State of Illinois wont matter? Sure, it might not matter to the corporate pushers who i
35 traindoc : As a Texan and with a million miles on CO I am disappointed with the name change and the HQ change. However, I am more than disappointed with the new
36 cmb320 : Yes, come back to us. We are running a solid operation and would love to have your business!
37 kfitz : Oh you don't ? maybe you should go pull the quotes where smisek himself discusses these realities. The sealed CO PR vacuum is no longer effective at
38 drerx7 : Do you have any links? I'd like to be reminded of these facts.
39 Post contains links kfitz : "CEO says Continental needed a perfect partnership" www.chron.com/business/article/CEO-s...-a-perfect-partnership-1702335.php[Edited 2012-04-17 17:15:
40 boilerla : This has been beat to death. 1. Chicago offered UA $30 million in incentives in 2006 to move to Chicago from Elk Grove. 2. UA had already signed long-
41 Post contains images MaverickM11 : Well, that and just about every survey and data point backed it up as well. Tilton barely knew where he was. All he knew is he had a company that he
42 drerx7 : That'll work.
43 kgaiflyer : This week for the first time since March 3rd, I won an upgrade without trading an electronic certificate for it. So there is hope. It still takes a c
44 caljn : For those fantasizing about Illinois and Chicago as having some anti business environment versus Texas, please cite specific laws, reasons, tax rates
45 ckfred : First, UA got some concessions from Chicago to move corporate from Elk Grove Township back to the Loop. Second, the latest trend in Illinois is threa
46 MaverickM11 : These all make lots of sense; all I'm saying is that the HQ moved/stayed in Chicago for good reasons, not because it was a non negotiable demand from
47 nycdave : Is it just me, or does this: Seem to contradict THIS: That sounds more like a political and business culture more corrupt than even Chicago's has been
48 kfitz : Incorrect; The CO fans love to push this line as a mea culpa for any and all criticism of their airline but it's far more indicitive of the spin CO w
49 nomorerjs : Illinois is one of the most unfriendly business states in the country (raised corporate taxes last year, high state income tax, and just not friendly
50 strfyr51 : sounds like a lot of WAAAAH !! To me! If IAH and Houston don't WANT us there?? then Dobn't FLY UAL and see how long it takes them to cut up he hub and
51 SFOA380 : Texas needs to get over its infatuation with *Headquarters* status and instead focus on creating a place where people actually want to live instead of
52 drerx7 : Yea, geography.
53 Post contains images MaverickM11 : Complex? Yes. Also widely criticized for being mostly ineffectual; of course the multiple ATSB loans that were turned down did not help. Any airline
54 Post contains links and images MarcoPoloWorld : And that really cuts to the long-term heart of the matter. Cities like New York and Chicago are competitive world-class cities for a reason - and you
55 gigneil : Correct. Chicago is one of the cultural centers of the United States, and by some measures the world. Houston is a cultural wasteland with politics t
56 MaverickM11 : The most diverse city in the country run by a lesbian democrat? Or are you talking about Houston Missouri?
57 kfitz : Ineffectual depending on who's talking. UA's route netowrk was centered in business markets to a higher degree than their competitors and thus felt t
58 Post contains links ord : According to this article, boarding back to front takes 50% longer than United's method. http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...ns-20110923,0,3864390
59 MAV88 : Does it really matter where the airline has its corporate headquarters? As long as UA maintains their current service levels at IAH, what does it real
60 incitatus : Someone who qualifies New York and Chicago together should as easily qualify Chicago and Houston together too. Chicago is not even close to the Big A
61 MAV88 : It's debatable if Houston and Texas as a whole can sustain such massive growth they have experienced over the last decade.
62 Post contains links ord : Smisek did make the first call, on Tilton's birthday no less... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...inental-merger-in-three-weeks.html
63 ord : American Airlines was ridiculed even more in New York in the late 1970s when they decided to move their HQ to Dallas/Fort Worth. Mayor Koch screamed.
64 C010T3 : All this talk about United paying for leaving Houston... I'm sure they are, they have and they will, but so would United if they left Illinois. It's n
65 Post contains images MaverickM11 : Just about any airline analyst TZ got a loan for cryin' out loud. From wikipedia: "The ATSB denied applications from nine carriers: Ozark Airlines db
66 tpaewr : Blah blah, it is true CO ranked better because it treated the masses like humans, and earns the wrath of certain UA elites for not kowtowing the way
67 BCEaglesCO757 : Is that the SAME CO that carried ( and still does ) more TOTAL passengers through EWR......... than AA,UA-pre-merger, and DL at all three combined NY
68 shanderawx : Houston is a cultural wasteland with politics that are offensive to most people. 5 opera companies, the only Asia Socieity complex outside NY, the sec
69 texan : Forget the tax situation or anything like that, it is the legal liability regime that should concern companies relocating to Cook County. The non-Fed
70 drerx7 : Yeah, my experience yesterday was a complete mess. That article is bull$/65 in my book.
71 kfitz : Like humans? Flying ghost planes with no IFE transcon, hard Y seats, no Economy Plus, insulting Irrops compensation, weeks long complaint followup, n
72 DeltaL1011man : and I'm sure UA has just as many fan boys pissed that the fugly CO livery and logo is replacing the exUA logo/livery. The problem is, IMO, 97-99% of
73 COflyerBOS : LOLing at the folks linking to articles about the Global 1% and what they desire in a city. How many of those Global 1%ers are flight attendants, bagg
74 IndianicWorld : Its all about business. If the deal was better from Chicago, no wonder they chose that option. There were likely many considerations made, but to say
75 apodino : I am convinced in our society that companies tend to look at things like tax breaks and rent costs and the like a little too much in determining where
76 kordcj : I'm not sure what those in Texas have against Chicago. It's a great city to be in and not to mention your other state based carriers hold major ops in
77 boeingfever777 : Do you mean why any company? Eitherway I agree IL is not the best and is in the red... TX is 12 billion in the green.
78 Post contains images CO777DAL : Ugh... You obviously are not flying the new United right now or keeping up with what has been happening. You completely took everything I said wrong.
79 Post contains images AeroWesty : "Miss me yet?"
80 gatechae : The higher property taxes in Texas eliminate that 5% income tax difference. Texas has to pay its books somehow.... We had considered moving from OKC
81 Post contains images DeltaL1011man : Almost every one of those have nothing to do with the HQ. The pilots and F/As don't have to live in CHI. Really the Rampers don't have to "live" in C
82 boilerla : Actually I am LOLing at your ignorance. APPL, which I happen to know a LOT about, is not moving jobs to Texas. All Apple does in Texas is their Web s
83 Post contains images EA CO AS : Actually, this all sounds much more like a certain Texas-based carrier that flies nothing but B737s...
84 kfitz : Good post CO777DAL. I give you a lot of respect and think it's commendable you've made an effort to observe the situation objectively without slogane
85 Post contains images IrishAyes : This article, while an entertaining read, is more bull and chest-beating than factual and relevant. Another checkbox on the CNN bias list Actually, ki
86 Post contains images N1120A : They would have gotten creamed if they took the Continental name. I would have defected immediately, and I fly over 130,000 miles a year. The HQ thin
87 ual777uk : If one state Illinois offers massive incentives to stay and the other doesn't its a no-brainer isn't it?? Theres no point in crying over spilt milk af
88 Max Q : I could not agree more, this merger trashed the Continental name.
89 kfitz : Merger which has been led and executed by CO leadership. CO's policies and procedures, along with its rhetoric filled "culture", is being shown as wo
90 Post contains images Byrdluvs747 : So true. So true
91 idlewildchild : The CO brand, which was great and why UA chose to stay with their livery, has taken a huge hit through this merger. At least subjectively through my e
92 bobloblaw : United receives a huge tax break to be located in IL. Meanwhile to make up the revenue shortfall, the state raises taxes on other businesses. Thoses b
93 AAIL86 : We're still way too close to the merger to say anything concrete. This article is a tempest in a teapot. People in Houston may not like the fact that
94 drerx7 : Not when the overall cost of living is lower, especially when compared to expensive ass Chicago. Not only that - it was actually a good airline and c
95 cschleic : When there is a merger like this of two large companies, one city and state are going to win out, the others lose. Had the HQ stayed in Houston, there
96 Post contains links MaverickM11 : It's not a question of popularity, but rather a lack of strategy other than sell sell sell. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ouston-most-divers
97 ual777uk : Lack of strategy?? He turned the airline around, it was on its knees when he was parachuted in. He had strategy in droves. People may not of liked it
98 TOMMY767 : The biggest mistake Tilton did was offer the two golden rules to the merger: HQ in Chicago, and had to keep the UA name. Smisek went gangbusters on ev
99 tpaewr : You seem to be living in the past. That is a bit of myth I have seen implied by other UA fans. The sad truth is that UA has been in a long decline si
100 01pewterz28 : Good god stop the wining when will the CO fans just let it go it’s OVER it’s Called UNITED and we are located in Chicago “GET OVER IT” employe
101 aa777223 : Firstly, the Dallas/Houston rivalry is much bigger in Houston than in Dallas. I have lived in both for many years, and trust me, it's true. Secondly,
102 drerx7 : They didn't really get invited to the fight is the truth of the matter. It was gonna be a losing battle coupled with the ineptitude of city hall on t
103 Post contains images MountainFlyer : Gee, I just made that story up for the fun of it. It is absolutely true. It wasn't a gate agent, it was at the check-in counter. I had an economy tic
104 SA7700 : This thread will be locked as it has veered into an off-topic flame fest between pre-Continental-and United supporters. Rather than gutting it, it wil
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...
RAF Planes May Be Used For Holiday Flights posted Thu Sep 17 2009 02:08:43 by OA260
Mechanics May Be Charged For Spanair Crash posted Thu Oct 16 2008 08:05:44 by AustrianZRH
EL AL May Be Sued For Breaking Shabbat posted Thu May 19 2005 21:41:18 by Planenutz
AA's Loss May Be A Gain For WN posted Tue Apr 8 2003 22:11:29 by LoneStarMike
TAP Air Portugal May Be Up For Sale! posted Wed Jul 19 2000 21:20:37 by Reno_air
United May Be Getting A New Livery posted Tue Oct 12 1999 20:28:31 by ORD
A United A380 May Be On The Way posted Fri Dec 2 2011 08:38:32 by snn2003
Emirates May Be Behind A Bid For Air Comet Rights posted Thu Apr 8 2010 00:35:59 by IberiaA319
10 A320s For Spring Air (may Be Up To 20) posted Fri Dec 22 2006 06:38:01 by Jimyvr
Fuel Prices May Be Final Straw For Legacy Carriers posted Wed May 26 2004 21:07:36 by CanadaEH