Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Will Become United  
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2226 posts, RR: 26
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 days ago) and read 25541 times:

On April 1st, Continental Airlines and United Airlines shall become one legal entity named United Airlines. Some 250 aircraft will need to be re-registered with the FAA.

Slowly it is coming together.


UNITED We Stand
97 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 496 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 25555 times:

That is very exciting news!!!! I am a fully supporter of this merger and each check in the box is a great accomplishment!  

Is this posted on flyingtogether? I can't find it on our employee portal. You on the 27th floor, too?


User currently offlinewarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 25369 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Thread starter):
Some 250 aircraft will need to be re-registered with the FAA.

So, will the sUA aircraft be re-registered? Or are we talking about the sCO aircraft?


User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 25301 times:

Do you mean they will no longer be United-Continental Holdings?

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24667 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Thread starter):
Some 250 aircraft will need to be re-registered with the FAA.

Now that the sequester has kicked in and the FAA has advised of all the cuts in staffing, towers, traffic delays etc. etc. etc. will the timeline of April 1st be met?
Hey its a serious question, I'm simply going by what the President and Head of the various government departments have said, they are the actual managers.


User currently onlinerising From United States of America, joined May 2010, 269 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24613 times:

At last- the sUA and sCO talk is frustrating and somewhat confusing at times.

Bittersweet though as it brings to the end of the line a company with a long, and proud history. But it's for the better. Gordon Bethune likes to talk about how when he joined Continental, the employees would rarely say I work for Continental, but rather I'm from Frontier, People Express, or TI. That was one of the first things he needed to change. He wanted people to say I work for Continental- and be proud of it.

Hopefully with new contracts, and the operations issues mostly behind them, everyone will be on the same page, and employees can say , at last, I'm from United.



If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24504 times:

Quoting rising (Reply 5):
Bittersweet though as it brings to the end of the line a company with a long, and proud history. But it's for the better.

Better for who, the existing workers and shareholders or their kids who are one day looking forward to working for CO the airline that their parents worked for and gave them a good life?
Just once in my lifetime I want to see a large transaction like this where folks say they only want the physical assets and will leave the name alone for another investor who may want to restart the brand and continue its heritage.


User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2160 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 24376 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Better for who, the existing workers and shareholders or their kids who are one day looking forward to working for CO the airline that their parents worked for and gave them a good life?

Better for the existing workers and shareholders as, you know, those are actually the people that matter in the company.. If their kids really want to follow in their parent's legacy they are still more than welcome to work for UA in the future.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Just once in my lifetime I want to see a large transaction like this where folks say they only want the physical assets and will leave the name alone for another investor who may want to restart the brand and continue its heritage.

Since that worked out so well for the Pan Am and Braniff brands. I'm sure that the employees of the original companies loved seeing the trainwrecks that followed helping to further tarnish the brand.

[Edited 2013-03-02 07:09:49]

User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 23876 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Just once in my lifetime I want to see a large transaction like this where folks say they only want the physical assets and will leave the name alone for another investor who may want to restart the brand and continue its heritage.
Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
Since that worked out so well for the Pan Am and Braniff brands. I'm sure that the employees of the original companies loved seeing the trainwrecks that followed helping to further tarnish the brand.

Exactly what Polot said. Sometimes a brand name should just be put to rest. I worked for Midwest/Skyway, and as far as I'm concerned, there will never be another Midwest. Even if someone bought the brand rights and started a new company, it would be very difficult to capture the spirit of the original YX, especially in today's industry. Some legacies are just plain meant to be put to rest.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 496 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 23684 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Better for who, the existing workers and shareholders or their kids who are one day looking forward to working for CO the airline that their parents worked for and gave them a good life?

Better for the existing workers and shareholders as, you know, those are actually the people that matter in the company.. If their kids really want to follow in their parent's legacy they are still more than welcome to work for UA in the future.

Very well said! That was then, this is now. If you want United to be this amazing airline. Drop your personal vendetta's and pride and work together to make it happen. If you want the "friendly Skies" to be the friendly skies... ACT IT. Believe it. Embrace it. If not, get out of the way for those of us who do. I don't care if you're CO or UA. You're my colleague and I will treat you and with the same respect. I love how people act like this merger is the end of the world...


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 926 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 22805 times:

Quoting rising (Reply 5):
Bittersweet though as it brings to the end of the line a company with a long, and proud history. But it's for the better. Gordon Bethune likes to talk about how when he joined Continental, the employees would rarely say I work for Continental, but rather I'm from Frontier, People Express, or TI. That was one of the first things he needed to change. He wanted people to say I work for Continental- and be proud of it.

Hopefully with new contracts, and the operations issues mostly behind them, everyone will be on the same page, and employees can say , at last, I'm from United.

You are correct and I think we are finally starting to get there. It is tuff bringing two completely different companies together and trying to make them one. The easy part was rebranding the aircraft, terminals ECT. The hard part is getting the employes to come together and work together. I think United finally is focusing on that aspect that this merger will never work as long as the employees still identify themselves as sUA and sCO employees. Continental employees took pride in their airline and were sad, upset, even furious to see their name go. United employees took pride in their airline and we felt like the only thing that survived the merger was the United name. A lot of the horrible customer service that many passengers have experience since the start of this merger is because many employees are frustrated because they feel like their individual airline is being destroyed by this merger. But it is now time for all employees to let go of the old United and Continental and embrace the new United. Because if we don't then United will never actually be United. Finally the company is focusing on this problem and I hope all employees moving forward will take pride in the merged United and work our butts off to regain the publics trust and finally thru exceptional customer service remove this black cloud that has been hanging over this airline since the merger began. If we don't then then there may not be a United because customers do have choices and they can choose to move on to our competitors.


User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 22536 times:

Quoting rising (Reply 5):

At last- the sUA and sCO talk is frustrating and somewhat confusing at times.

Unfortunately not going away to fast. This is just a minor detail really. The airline still needs to get all pilots in the right place, the ramp and CS on the same contract (getting close)........and then there is the FA's.

There is a feeling the FA's contract talks will go for a while as they aren't in the same ballpark. So till that happens, your still going to have sub-CO FA's staying on their own metal or at the very least working in a group together and vice versa.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3474 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 22497 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 1):

That is very exciting news!!!! I am a fully supporter of this merger and each check in the box is a great accomplishment!  

It's always so much fun to lose more variety, choices, decrease payrolls, wages and workforces, and to make richer the already wealthy.  

Jeremy


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21660 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 9):
If you want United to be this amazing airline. Drop your personal vendetta's and pride and work together to make it happen.

No personal vendetta, just a personal observation of the way business is today versus yesteryear. Business world today is about holding companies and financial institutions.
The bulk of the past great companies that have gone like the dodo were all founded and run by individuals who had a vision and worked hard to implement that vision, when those individuals passed away or moved on the companies in general loose their identify, most think that there is no correlation between that and making money.

Companies today are run from the top down, if the friendly skies are every going to show again it is going to have to start with management, they set the tone, workers are required to do their jobs.
I'm sure the general consensus is that if UA and CO employees were doing that this merger would have been much smoother and service to customers would be industry leading - some say it already is -.

If the AA / US merger comes off we will have 3 of the same, will be interesting to see how the industry goes in the next few years, legacy consolidation is over, only thing left from a legacy stand point is LCC contraction / elimination.


User currently onlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6018 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21242 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 4):
Now that the sequester has kicked in and the FAA has advised of all the cuts in staffing, towers, traffic delays etc. etc. etc. will the timeline of April 1st be met?

More than likely not needed. I'm sure that UA has already has a broker in OKC ready to strike with a stack of AC8050-2 forms, to be handed over to the aircraft registration branch at a specific time. The trick is that it will take time to process them to permanent registration certificates.

The big issue here, though, is that many countries won't allow an aircraft to enter with a temporary registration (one of the carbon copies from the AC8050-2.)



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4470 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 19237 times:

A very sad day, Continental should have been the surviving name.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 19125 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
A very sad day, Continental should have been the surviving name.

Absolutely not. Continental's brand recognition was very poor worldwide compared to United.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineChicagoflight From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 18893 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
A very sad day, Continental should have been the surviving name.

Outside the U.S. the Continental name was more known as a tire manufacturer


User currently offlineJpax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 18748 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 16):
Absolutely not. Continental's brand recognition was very poor worldwide compared to United.


Yet it was the better airline.

[Edited 2013-03-02 12:40:30]

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2887 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 18338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jpax (Reply 18):

You all seem to have the post in reverse. Call it Continental and give me back my tulip!

The point of this post was for people to FINALLY stop it with comments like "Continental name should have survived" it's going to be a new airline: with an old name and an old livery! But new in terms that neither great legacy is coming back and a new great one will take their place. Hopefully. But I have to admit that the 3 giants we will be left with will be much the same.

I think UNITED should take the opportunity to become the most innovative and premium of the three.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17892 times:

Quoting Jpax (Reply 18):
Yet it was the better airline.

Definitely not by the end. Meals were BOB in Y, IFE was PPV, and the "Jeff McMuffin" was already a first class breakfast staple by 2010.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 17102 times:

Quoting Jpax (Reply 18):

It's been almost three years since the merger announcement. The airlines previously known as Continental and United no longer exist, no matter anyone's opinion. There is a new airline that happens to be called United. It's time to move on instead of bickering like a bunch of 6 year olds at the playground, "yes it is, no it's not, yes it is, no it's not..."

Back to the original post, i am curious how they an legally merge the companies without joint CBAs? I always assumed that was the reason there still WERE two subs.


User currently onlinerising From United States of America, joined May 2010, 269 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16645 times:

Quoting Jpax (Reply 18):

I am not going to take the bait.  

But I will add this- UAL was poorly managed prior to Tilton, with a corporate governance structure that was essentially a joke. The profits from the late 90's were not reinvested in the company, and labor was scapegoated for years of bad route planning, no capacity discipline, and over-leverage. Then you had the failed US Airways takeover, 9/11, and lastly bankruptcy, and the company simply never recovered from those issues and was left with the bitter perception many have of the carrier.

CAL was not always a poster-child of great management either. The company went through bankruptcy, twice, and was a complete disaster prior to 1994. They had time to turn things around though in better days for the industry and with better management.

The Go Forward plan from Continental is in place now at United, and I think they have made adopting CALs culture the biggest goal, thankfully. Jeff made it quite clear in an interview recently, that those who do not want to take care of customers either need to change, or leave. Goes for both ex-UA and ex-CO employees.

You might find this Q and A interesting:

http://www.towerswatson.com/assets/p...ight-Doug-Rose-United-Airlines.pdf



If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
User currently offlinenimool From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16505 times:

i though they already became one...


If its not Boeing im not Going!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5473 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16466 times:

Quoting rising (Reply 22):
They had time to turn things around though in better days for the industry

While I loved Continental for the great carrier that it was, this is a very good point. By doing the whole bankruptcy thing during the 1990s the airline had the golden days of 95-01 to recover from that period whereas UA (and US, NW, DL) had that morale wrenching experience during some of the industry's darkest days. That made it much harder to move on.

At first I was very upset to see CO go, but having now flown the New United I have come around. United can be a truly great carrier, and holding onto the past isn't helping that happen. Both Continental and United are dead, it's time to create something new.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineunited319 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16632 times:

It's very sad actually. Yes I am a former UA Employee, but I have a great deal of fondness for the CO Brand as well. I grew up exclusively on CO and UA airplanes. I have dear friends and family who work for both s-UA and s-CO. Both hate the other side and talk about how one is out to destroy the other. The CO people talk about how when they found UA, it was trash and they did't want to inherit it and were quite fine by themselves and how much better they are than United. The s-UA people talk about how the CO management want nothing to do with the ways of UA's business model and are out to get rid of all s-UA people. They feel as if they are being shoved into a closet to not be heard from again.

Both sides need to bring their best to the table and come together to create the worlds greatest airline. If we could stop time and look at both airlines in their hay day (UA in the 90's and CO in the 00's), they would be a force to be reckoned with.



It's Time To Fly
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6422 posts, RR: 17
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 15932 times:

Will the legal entity that was Trans Texas still exist?


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777ord (Reply 1):

Yeah it was posted Thursday, Except in Tech ops because temp registration has to be installed by March 13th


User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15441 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):

Then thank Jeff the Next time you see him. He was the one who went on the "Chase" to find Tilton wasn't he??
He KNEW what the deal was, and that's probably why Kellner didn't take it. It is what it is now.
Nobody is happy. OH Well And HQ is in Chi-Town and the Houston guys Definitely aren't happy.
It will be interesting to see what happens in May when the retention contracts are over.
With all the caterwauling about "We gotta go home to Houston" I'm just waiting to see how many ACTIUALLY jump ship to get back to Houston. I'll bet 3 in 10 that came will leave. The rest will just say "screw it" and hang in there.
Now if we could just DO something about that LOUSY Coffee?? This merger might Really take off !!
That I DO blame Jeff for . Must be something wrong with his mouth to like that lousy coffee blend.


User currently offlineSulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 524 posts, RR: 3
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15232 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 28):
Then thank Jeff the Next time you see him. He was the one who went on the "Chase" to find Tilton wasn't he??
He KNEW what the deal was, and that's probably why Kellner didn't take it. It is what it is now.
Nobody is happy. OH Well And HQ is in Chi-Town and the Houston guys Definitely aren't happy.
It will be interesting to see what happens in May when the retention contracts are over.
With all the caterwauling about "We gotta go home to Houston" I'm just waiting to see how many ACTIUALLY jump ship to get back to Houston. I'll bet 3 in 10 that came will leave. The rest will just say "screw it" and hang in there.
Now if we could just DO something about that LOUSY Coffee?? This merger might Really take off !!
That I DO blame Jeff for . Must be something wrong with his mouth to like that lousy coffee blend.

As a CO guy that lives in Houston, I'd jump at the chance to go to Chicago. Let's see, real city or not...



In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4470 posts, RR: 19
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14636 times:

It's true United was known far better all over the world, as a VERY average Airline.


While Continental was not as well known, our reputation was deservedly far better.


As for Smisek, he is perhaps the worst airline CEO since Lorenzo and a terrible choice to run the largest combined carrier in the world.


His record speaks for itself.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14455 times:

I agree in re the reputation of the airline.

I can see that United's reputation has won through. Another subpar experience with them the last two days.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 31):

right now we're running as 2 airlines and nobody is really talking as far as I can see. they really need to get it together. if one side is in trouble then BOTH sides need to know it and respond in kind to help but right now that's not the case so NOBODY knows what's going on. This is because the Contracts aren't settled so we still have Hatfield's and McCoy's
You would think with Jeff being a Lawyer he might have made contract settlement a PRIORITY! Theyy haven't done JACK with the Dispatchers!! They're stilll not talking to them yet!! This is NOT looking too great for Jeff as I see it.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14109 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 32):
right now we're running as 2 airlines and nobody is really talking as far as I can see. they really need to get it together. if one side is in trouble then BOTH sides need to know it and respond in kind to help but right now that's not the case so NOBODY knows what's going on. This is because the Contracts aren't settled so we still have Hatfield's and McCoy's
You would think with Jeff being a Lawyer he might have made contract settlement a PRIORITY! Theyy haven't done JACK with the Dispatchers!! They're stilll not talking to them yet!! This is NOT looking too great for Jeff as I see it.

Things did seem disjointed. I spent a lot of time the last two days standing at UA customer service desks dealing with my own flight issues as well as overhearing the issues of others at the variety of airports at which I found myself. The the end-result in some situations was satisfactory, but I was displeased with the way the issues were handled and the inflexibility shown.

You're right; they need to get their crap together.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 11495 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So now that there won't be separate sCO and sUA fleet, are we going to go through another round of flight re-numbering?


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12114 posts, RR: 18
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11104 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

What does sUA and sCO mean?

User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 11104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 34):

I doubt it , but we sure might go through a couple of rounds of equipment changes when the pilots work out their seniority.
There are still some IT platform issues to be resolved with the Aircraft Maintenance Information system and the electronic Log book is the biggest. Expect that later this year.


User currently offlineN505FX From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10833 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 16):
Absolutely not. Continental's brand recognition was very poor worldwide compared to United.


On top of that, there is a good portion of us that remember Continental as a cut rate, constantly in bankruptcy airline that everyone wanted to avoid in the 70's and 80's. Plus, with nearly ZERO presence or brand recognition in Asia, why would you keep it?


User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):

Y'know? I hear that sentiment LOT from the "Southern Guys" and I've YET to see any evidence of it !!
Better run? REALLY?!?! I see a LOT of micro management and finger pointing. And a LOT of passing paper with not much effectiveness if any. But I've YET to see "BETTER" .. I do see Different though..
Management Ran a REAL LEAN ship at United. No doubt about it. It wasn't what we wanted or liked.
It was was it was.. Haven't seen anything yet except more people. No evidence YET of "Better",
Certainly no evidence the Jeff and the Big guys have any CLUE as to what they're doing yet.
But there ARE 200 more VP's and Thousands of Directors of "Not Much" ,( which I'm almost Sure we could do WITHOUT.)
Not much in innovation, a LOT of opinions with no basis in FACT. not much experience either in running an operation. And? Not a lot of tolerance for Ideas that might differ from what they THINK they already KNOW.
Other than That?? It's OK.!! Still looking for this Supposed "Culture"
Still doesn't seem like much of one to ME. Unless wearing Jeans to work is a cultural Shift. As far as I can see??Continental Management talks to Continental. Oh, but they finally got us on a common company E-Mail So we'll all see what "Pearls" of wisdom descend upon us. I'm not Bitter because we at LEAST have Some management besides Pete McDonald.. We've taken $700+ MIL IN LOSSES with CO running the ship so far si That can't be good. 2010 Contracts are still open in 2013 so that can't be good either. an IT system that could have been solved by now STILL not fixed, I do NOT see Better YET.. I'm Lookin' for it though!!


User currently offlineN505FX From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10788 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
mpanies today are run from the top down,

You totally contradict yourself...Patterson ran his airline from the top down, Trippe ran his airline from the top down, Smith ran his airline from the top down....all of these companies were great because they ran from the top down.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10509 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 35):
What does sUA and sCO mean?

A way of referring to UA or CO post-merger:

sUA = subsidiary United
sCO = subsidiary Continental

... as in subsidiary of United Continental Holdings.

Pre-merger is referred to with the prefix of either 'PM-' for "pre-merger" or 'L-' for "legacy" before the UA or CO, author's choice.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineN505FX From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10191 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 38):
Not a lot of tolerance for Ideas that might differ from what they THINK they already KNOW.

That seems to be the arrogance that pervades the behavior of Houston....quick to point out how inferior UAL was, but not so quick to point out that UAL ran a much larger, much more complex and much more established company than anyone in Houston could ever figure, and may I add, one that was financially outpacing Continental going in to the merger. It helps to reflect back to a Bethune comment in an interview, when asked what Continental owned, he said "this pencil". I hold nothing against sCO "coworkers" (well maybe little against those who held on too long and tarnished the appearance of the merger by clearing stating Legacy Continental in their announcements), but I do resent traveling public and all of the geeks here on A.net proclaiming that they were gods gift to the industry. Lets get one thing straight - they were a mulit-time bankrupt airline that didn't and hasn't innovated the industry...rather they bought off the shelf and did and superb job of PR and snowballing the world that they were much better than they are....all very Texas of them.


User currently offlineEWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5523 posts, RR: 56
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10096 times:

This thread went downhill fast. Zero do to do with the OP.


You can't cure stupid
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12507 posts, RR: 46
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9922 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
As for Smisek, he is perhaps the worst airline CEO since Lorenzo and a terrible choice to run the largest combined carrier in the world.

Don't worry, he won't be running the largest combined carrier in the World for much longer.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10008 posts, RR: 96
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 9822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N505FX (Reply 37):
On top of that, there is a good portion of us that remember Continental as a cut rate, constantly in bankruptcy airline that everyone wanted to avoid in the 70's and 80's.

If I can offer the experiences of someone who has no horse in this thread..

I am fortunate enough to be able to compare flying CO in the 80's, 90's and 2000's.
What I remember is the transformation from an airline that, as you say, I wanted to avoid, in the '80's, to one that, in the 2000's I would go out of my way to choose over any other every time on the TATL's which were my primary experience.

They changed. A lot
They changed my perception of US majors. A lot

Quoting N505FX (Reply 41):
they were a mulit-time bankrupt airline that didn't and hasn't innovated the industry...rather they bought off the shelf and did and superb job of PR and snowballing the world that they were much better than they are....

If the new UA really wishes to succeed, then it needs to be open enough to recognise the weaknesses and the strengths that each of the former airlines bring to the table and merge them into the strongest entity.
That requires a measure objectivitiy from everyone involved.

I wish you all luck

Rgds


User currently offlineantoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 9448 times:

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 34):
So now that there won't be separate sCO and sUA fleet, are we going to go through another round of flight re-numbering?

Calling them rounds really doesn't fit. It seems (at least from my perspective) that it's an on-going process of number-changing with anything from one to a dozen local flights having different numbers per week.

Quoting N505FX (Reply 37):
On top of that, there is a good portion of us that remember Continental as a cut rate, constantly in bankruptcy airline that everyone wanted to avoid in the 70's and 80's.

In the 80s, yes, most people wanted to avoid CO... the 70s were CO's golden days prior to the Bethune era.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 44):
That requires a measure objectivitiy from everyone involved.

Sadly, at anything lower than the VP level, that's going to take a LONG time.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4470 posts, RR: 19
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 9045 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 38):


Y'know? I hear that sentiment LOT from the "Southern Guys" and I've YET to see any evidence of it !!
Better run? REALLY?!?! I see a LOT of micro management and finger pointing. And a LOT of passing paper with not much effectiveness if any. But I've YET to see "BETTER" .. I do see Different though..
Management Ran a REAL LEAN ship at United. No doubt about it. It wasn't what we wanted or liked.
It was was it was.. Haven't seen anything yet except more people. No evidence YET of "Better",
Certainly no evidence the Jeff and the Big guys have any CLUE as to what they're doing yet.
But there ARE 200 more VP's and Thousands of Directors of "Not Much" ,( which I'm almost Sure we could do WITHOUT.)
Not much in innovation, a LOT of opinions with no basis in FACT. not much experience either in running an operation. And? Not a lot of tolerance for Ideas that might differ from what they THINK they already KNOW.
Other than That?? It's OK.!! Still looking for this Supposed "Culture"
Still doesn't seem like much of one to ME. Unless wearing Jeans to work is a cultural Shift. As far as I can see??Continental Management talks to Continental. Oh, but they finally got us on a common company E-Mail So we'll all see what "Pearls" of wisdom descend upon us. I'm not Bitter because we at LEAST have Some management besides Pete McDonald.. We've taken $700+ MIL IN LOSSES with CO running the ship so far si That can't be good. 2010 Contracts are still open in 2013 so that can't be good either. an IT system that could have been solved by now STILL not fixed, I do NOT see Better YET.. I'm Lookin' for it though!!

You are right Str.



the last time CO was well run was under Bethune, we were still doing pretty well up until the merger but things were deterirorating.


Smisek has been a disaster.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 43):

Don't worry, he won't be running the largest combined carrier in the World for much longer.

I hope you are right. Just noticed that UAL' s cash position is down to 6 Billion, 3 billion less than when the merger took place and there is an enormous amount of debt.


Time is running out..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5692 posts, RR: 44
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N505FX (Reply 41):
That seems to be the arrogance that pervades the behavior of Houston

Might be a Houston thing.
For some considerable time after the Hewlett-Packard takeover of Compaq(or merger if your company was based in Houston) there were many people, some quite senior that would answer their phone as "xxx of the Compaq team at the new HP" or subtitle their email signatures as "the Red Team at HP"



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 496 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days ago) and read 8464 times:

Regardless of whether you think CO is better than UA. The majority of that feeling is because they prefer Bethune. Although I never worked under him. I do admire his ethics, dedication and loyalty to the brand. Perhaps it is THAT CO they want back.

I do remember flying CO years ago and was like, this is garbage....

Good things take time. Good things take time. just keep telling yourself that!  . Or.. "it's gonna be spectacular!" yea, if you're in F or J! lol


User currently offlineGALLEYSTEW From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8312 times:

IT HAD to BE named UNITED..........Continental had filed bankruptcy 2 times.........you can't file three.


All Posts are my opinions only.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8157 times:

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 49):
Continental had filed bankruptcy 2 times.........you can't file three.

Was that part of the bankruptcy reform laws? TWA certainly filed BK three times.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 42):
This thread went downhill fast. Zero do to do with the OP.


  

Nothing like what the OP had in mind......but there is one post I found completely on the money!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 30):
As for Smisek, he is perhaps the worst airline CEO since Lorenzo and a terrible choice to run the largest combined carrier in the world



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8035 times:

Quoting N505FX (Reply 39):
You totally contradict yourself...Patterson ran his airline from the top down, Trippe ran his airline from the top down, Smith ran his airline from the top down....all of these companies were great because they ran from the top down.

Yes, in most instances their airlines, today most large companies are not owned by individuals but by financial houses looking at number not an individual vision, so still run from the top down but totally different.
So if vision at the top is now the number what exactly do you expect from the staff?


User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2887 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7883 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the future, when new generations of flyers come on board, they won't have any of our baggage (no pun intended) we have. In the abstract United is a better name: shorter, positive meaning and inherently American. If managed well any name can be burnished to bright and shiny.

There will be a "unified" workforce and new fleet, and hopefully have managed to be the best of the behemoths. I do worry about leadership, this one and future leaders.

However, I flew United over 200,000 miles in 2012, and on both sUA metal and sCO metal, through all the computer bumps etc and I have to say they were ALL great flights. From BF TATL in a 757 to Asia in F on a 747 and naturally 777's, 767's on both. Was is it Singapore or Swiss, no, but no complaints other than BAD United clubs (ex President's and ex RCC's) thank goodness they are going to fix them. They both stank!



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2030 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7690 times:

This thread is off track some. I am a CO fan, but am happy with the UA name. Continental is also a tire company that is global, so I think that does matter. United is a shorter name. That makes it better. As far as CO's bankruptcies, it's amazing this is still even talked about. The most recent one was 20 years ago. The one before that was 30. Airline bankruptcies are nothing novel any more, so really get over it. No one remembers except in this forum.

I am excited about the future for this new company!


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4270 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I was on two different aircraft last week on which I'd *swear* the FA's were combinations of ones I've flown with formerly on pmCO flights or pmUA flights -- UA1027, an IAD-SFO 739ER with a sCO FA as Purser and UA558, a LAX-IAD 320 with a sUA FA as Purser.

Yet I'm assured that crews do not mix.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7347 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 55):
Yet I'm assured that crews do not mix.



Those would be the correct FA for those airplanes. And no they don't mix crews, yet.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7253 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 50):
Was that part of the bankruptcy reform laws? TWA certainly filed BK three times.

The third time was part of the per-arrangement to be bought by AA. They didn't operate as TWA after the third BK, but rather as an LLC.


User currently offlineSulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 524 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7120 times:

I think it's funny. A few years from now, everything will be merged - work groups, computer systems, processes, etc.

Yet I still think pax will be fighting like cats and dogs in the aisles...  



In thrust we trust!
User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7114 times:

Like many threads of this type of topic, more emotion than facts or logic...

Quoting Max Q (Reply 46):
the last time CO was well run was under Bethune, we were still doing pretty well up until the merger but things were deterirorating.

Smisek has been a disaster.

You're entitled to this subjective opinion; however, if you're going to attempt to pass it off as fact, it may be helpful to provide objective support for your statements.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 46):
I hope you are right. Just noticed that UAL' s cash position is down to 6 Billion, 3 billion less than when the merger took place and there is an enormous amount of debt.

Time is running out..

Complete overreaction. Cash has decreased because you need to hold less cash to run one airline than you do two, so United has invested heavily in its product and repaying debt. The combined airline has a stronger credit position than the two separate airlines prior to the merger - read the reports from the credit rating agencies.

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 49):
IT HAD to BE named UNITED..........Continental had filed bankruptcy 2 times.........you can't file three.

There is no statutory limit on the number of times a company with a certain name can file for bankruptcy.


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7018 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 48):
Regardless of whether you think CO is better than UA. The majority of that feeling is because they prefer Bethune.

Bethune was great for Continental -- that much is true. We need to separate the two stewardship's at CO:

The ignorance of the current CO regime at UA is not Bethune inspired, rather Kellner and Smisek driven. This is not exactly your Bethune era CO running United, it's a blend of penny pinching lawyers that give off smoke and mirrors type tactics. This is all in attempt to shove down the pre merger CO agenda down customers throats. Most people don't care about corporate "culture" yet they insist that CO had a better one which largely involves ignoring customer feedback. Gordon is likely shaking his head right now at all the poor decisions that Jeff has made since he's been CEO.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 60):
The ignorance of the current CO regime at UA is not Bethune inspired, rather Kellner and Smisek driven. This is not exactly your Bethune era CO running United, it's a blend of penny pinching lawyers that give off smoke and mirrors type tactics. This is all in attempt to shove down the pre merger CO agenda down customers throats. Most people don't care about corporate "culture" yet they insist that CO had a better one which largely involves ignoring customer feedback. Gordon is likely shaking his head right now at all the poor decisions that Jeff has made since he's been CEO.

Rant all you like against lawyers (and finance types). We all know how well it's worked when "airline people" ran airlines - about 100% rate of bankruptcy.


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6970 times:

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 61):

Um, yeah OK, because Smisek has really been leading UA into unsung profitability  



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineSulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 524 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6947 times:

...and here are the pax, still fighting in the aisle 


In thrust we trust!
User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6693 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 62):
Um, yeah OK, because Smisek has really been leading UA into unsung profitability  

Can you legitimately claim with a straight face that having another individual as CEO would have changed how well the UA-CO integration worked? It seems like you're trying to support the position that having any pre-merger UA manager as CEO and a tulip on the tail would have made the merger process better.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6633 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Better for who, the existing workers and shareholders or their kids who are one day looking forward to working for CO the airline that their parents worked for and gave them a good life?
Just once in my lifetime I want to see a large transaction like this where folks say they only want the physical assets and will leave the name alone for another investor who may want to restart the brand and continue its heritage.

You are confusing a business with a family. You seem to think that it's a bad thing that the airline is better for "existing workers and shareholders" which is actually exactly what the airline is in business for. Making long family traditions has no place in the decision making process.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
A very sad day, Continental should have been the surviving name.

This has been debated over and over but the fact remains that United is a globally recognized brand, Continental was/is not.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 33):
Things did seem disjointed. I spent a lot of time the last two days standing at UA customer service desks dealing with my own flight issues as well as overhearing the issues of others at the variety of airports at which I found myself. The the end-result in some situations was satisfactory, but I was displeased with the way the issues were handled and the inflexibility shown.

You're right; they need to get their crap together.

All airlines have customers who are at customer service desks dealing with issues! Just because you didn't like the outcome does not mean the airline needs to "get it's crap together"! The fact that you were waiting in line at a customer service center in the first place says a lot.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 38):
Y'know? I hear that sentiment LOT from the "Southern Guys" and I've YET to see any evidence of it !!
Better run? REALLY?!?! I see a LOT of micro management and finger pointing. And a LOT of passing paper with not much effectiveness if any. But I've YET to see "BETTER" .. I do see Different though..
Management Ran a REAL LEAN ship at United. No doubt about it. It wasn't what we wanted or liked.
It was was it was.. Haven't seen anything yet except more people. No evidence YET of "Better",
Certainly no evidence the Jeff and the Big guys have any CLUE as to what they're doing yet.
But there ARE 200 more VP's and Thousands of Directors of "Not Much" ,( which I'm almost Sure we could do WITHOUT.)
Not much in innovation, a LOT of opinions with no basis in FACT. not much experience either in running an operation. And? Not a lot of tolerance for Ideas that might differ from what they THINK they already KNOW.
Other than That?? It's OK.!! Still looking for this Supposed "Culture"
Still doesn't seem like much of one to ME. Unless wearing Jeans to work is a cultural Shift. As far as I can see??Continental Management talks to Continental. Oh, but they finally got us on a common company E-Mail So we'll all see what "Pearls" of wisdom descend upon us. I'm not Bitter because we at LEAST have Some management besides Pete McDonald.. We've taken $700+ MIL IN LOSSES with CO running the ship so far si That can't be good. 2010 Contracts are still open in 2013 so that can't be good either. an IT system that could have been solved by now STILL not fixed, I do NOT see Better YET.. I'm Lookin' for it though!!

After attempting to read through this mess of a statement I wonder what exactly you do at United and how you got the job without knowing how to put a few paragraphs together. While it may not seem like management is doing much of anything to you I can assure you that running the worlds largest airline with over 5,400 flights a day to over 380 different destinations and managing more than 85,000 employees is a pretty big task. The airline business is unlike any other in the level of complexity and flexibility needed by every employee from the CEO down. We have do deal with not only what happens internally but also what is happening externally in every area imaginable around the entire globe and do it on a minute to minute basis. I can't think of many other types of business' that can be as affected as an airline by events that are completely out of our control and an airline like United can make it all come together each day without the passenger having any idea whats happening behind the scenes. You might be upset that your flight from ORD to DEN is running a few hours late but what you don't understand is that the weather or politics in Moscow is what delayed that flight and the airline has worked hard to make sure that you don't understand that. So before you question management that is sitting around doing nothing you should first figure out exactly what you are talking about and if that is still your opinion maybe you can provide specific details of exactly who isn't doing their job.

Quoting par13del (Reply 52):
Yes, in most instances their airlines, today most large companies are not owned by individuals but by financial houses looking at number not an individual vision, so still run from the top down but totally different.
So if vision at the top is now the number what exactly do you expect from the staff?

Airlines like most other large corporations are owned by the shareholders and numbers are the only thing that matters. The "individual vision" should be based on doing whatever is possible to make those numbers as good as possible for the shareholder. A lot of people forget about that simple fact especially when you start to become too emotionally invested in a company or industry. An airline is not in business for the sole purpose of flying people around the globe, it is flying people around the globe because there is the potential to make a profit doing so.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 926 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6475 times:

This entire merger has been approached from a position of arrogance from the beginning by both sides. Both airlines thought they were better than the other, Glenn Tilton and United senior managemant had two major demands that Continental had to agree to before the talks became serious and those demands were the name had to remain United and WHQ had to remain in Chicago. Continental counter by saying that their globe had to remain and the tulip had to go. That sort of set the stage for how this merger would play out once Jeff and his team took over because there was no respect for either airlines brand from either side from the beginning.The only thing both negotiating teams knew is that this merger would be great for both airlines because where one airlines was weak the other was strong from a route perspective. Once Jeff took over the merged United he and his team proceeded to try and turn the entire company into Continental with out looking at all the good things United had done in recent years following bankruptcy. That mentality of superiority was not just displayed at WHO it was funneled down to front line employees because each employee group felt like the way their airline conducted business was the right way and the only way the new United was supposed to move forward.

However what everyone from Jeff on down failed to realize was the way each individual airline conducted its business was not necessarily the way the new United needed to be ran and instead of coming up with new ideas for United both sides just seemed to dig in and kept rehashing old ideas.

I think all employees need to take the pride that they feel for either the old United or Continental and put that pride into the new United to make this company a success and make sure our customers have a wonderful experience. Also I think that Jeff needs to go and a fresh non-bias CEO needs to be brought in.


User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 496 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6425 times:

give it a couple years... It'll be better. Im in it for the long haul. I just hope all my colleauges are, too.

User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6424 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 66):
two major demands that Continental had to agree to before the talks became serious and those demands were the name had to remain United and WHQ had to remain in Chicago.

That is a little revisionist history, but I will only comment on the supposed 2nd demand.

If the new airline moved the WHQ then they would have owed the city of Chicago and a state of IL a lot of money. I would argue the reason for this one is actually a completely sound business decision. Why would anyone agree to a merger knowing a HUGE cost (like a few hundred million) for zero value to the new business.
Hence, I would not call that a demand but prudent business decision.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 926 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6323 times:

Quoting ORDBOSEWR (Reply 68):
If the new airline moved the WHQ then they would have owed the city of Chicago and a state of IL a lot of money. I would argue the reason for this one is actually a completely sound business decision. Why would anyone agree to a merger knowing a HUGE cost (like a few hundred million) for zero value to the new business.
Hence, I would not call that a demand but prudent business decision.

They would not have owed the City or the state any money. The executive offices of United were and still are located at 77 W. Wacker however when merger talks first started WHQ was still located in Elk Grove Village ( a building which now sits virtually empty) which is about 10 minutes from O'Hare International but United was looking for a new home. United did not sign the agreement to move to the Willis Tower until after it was settle in those early talks that WHQ would be remaining in Chicago. WHQ could have went to Houston but Tilton and the United team did not want to see "Chicago's Home town airline" (as they like to call it) WHQ based in Houston. It was not a business decision at all.


User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6209 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 69):
They would not have owed the City or the state any money. The executive offices of United were and still are located at 77 W. Wacker however when merger talks first started WHQ was still located in Elk Grove Village ( a building which now sits virtually empty) which is about 10 minutes from O'Hare International but United was looking for a new home. United did not sign the agreement to move to the Willis Tower until after it was settle in those early talks that WHQ would be remaining in Chicago. WHQ could have went to Houston but Tilton and the United team did not want to see "Chicago's Home town airline" (as they like to call it) WHQ based in Houston. It was not a business decision at all.

There were tax incentives related operations in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois - not specific office buildings. Failing to maintain the corporate presence would have resulted in financial penalties.

Very few of the merger decisions were made based on emotion or personal preference. Call it what you want, but the WHQ, livery, name, etc. were all business decisions.


User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6006 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 65):
All airlines have customers who are at customer service desks dealing with issues! Just because you didn't like the outcome does not mean the airline needs to "get it's crap together"! The fact that you were waiting in line at a customer service center in the first place says a lot.

I don't see how it "says a lot" that I was at a service desk in the first place. Are you implying that it was my fault...?

Yes, all airlines have issues. But, I have had my fair share of issues with UA over the years. I have had issues with other airlines, as well, but UA has not ever been particularly high on my list of preferred airlines given their issues.

I am a self-admitted DL fan, so I am sure there is some bias in me, but I would like to think that UA has "earned" its reputation in my mind.



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 64):

Can you legitimately claim with a straight face that having another individual as CEO would have changed how well the UA-CO integration worked? It seems like you're trying to support the position that having any pre-merger UA manager as CEO and a tulip on the tail would have made the merger process better.

Not at all. I'm sure there are several senior managers from both airlines that could have done a better job. Smisek (in all likelyhood, not a bad guy) just has no business running UA anymore



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineN505FX From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5841 times:

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 59):
Complete overreaction. Cash has decreased because you need to hold less cash to run one airline than you do two, so United has invested heavily in its product and repaying debt.

Additionally, cash held in the bank isn't earning a return as revenue generating asset - sitting on too much cash can be viewed by investors and the board as irresponsible. The magic is to forecast how much to keep on hand for crisis vs. how much to invest in revenue generating activities...I don't have too much faith in Smisek - but hopefully, I am wrong.


User currently offlineN505FX From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 66):
I think all employees need to take the pride that they feel for either the old United or Continental and put that pride into the new United to make this company a success and make sure our customers have a wonderful experience. Also I think that Jeff needs to go and a fresh non-bias CEO needs to be brought in.

Probably the smartest thing ever said on a.net


User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5714 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 72):
Not at all. I'm sure there are several senior managers from both airlines that could have done a better job. Smisek (in all likelyhood, not a bad guy) just has no business running UA anymore

Whom? It is time to either provide some specifics names and facts, or end this line of discussion.


User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777ord (Reply 48):

Gordon Bethune came to power when Continental was on the BOTTOM. He made it better no doubt, But ! having said that ?? It Couldn't have gotten much WORSE and remain in business. Frankly I remember him as a Loudmouth,
He was so good at Running Continental because he had David Bonderman's Money to turn it around. It probably is good that He's not here because there's no WAY the merger might have taken place with HIM at the Helm..
Even I would have voted my shares against HIM !! I don't know if Jeff is any good or Not. I hear He's pretty sharp, All I can say is?? We'll SEE!! We've been "LIED TO" by smarter People than JEFF already. i.e. Stephen Wolfe, and Gerry Greenwald.
I'll give Jeff a fighting Chance for now. Other than his taste in coffee?
He might ACTUALLY know something.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Thread starter):
On April 1st, Continental Airlines and United Airlines shall become one legal entity named United Airlines. Some 250 aircraft will need to be re-registered with the FAA.

I believe the change on April Fools Day will be mostly symbolic. Bigger integrations such as the switch to SHARES have already happened and other more significant events are upcoming such as the unification of the flight crews.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 55):
I was on two different aircraft last week on which I'd *swear* the FA's were combinations of ones I've flown with formerly on pmCO flights or pmUA flights -- UA1027, an IAD-SFO 739ER with a sCO FA as Purser and UA558, a LAX-IAD 320 with a sUA FA as Purser.

Yet I'm assured that crews do not mix.

Yes, sUA and sCO crews are still separate and will remain so for some time. However, it is possible that some furloughed sUA flight attendant were re-hired by sCO and "switched sides." A vast majority of the FAs need cross training on the fleets and that process alone will take time, not to mention merging the seniority lists. The pilots have an even greater tendency to stick with their rate types although there are still some sUA pilots that have flown 737s and could probably get qualified to fly them without too much difficulty. The sCO 772 pilots could probably get rated on a sUA 772 in fairly short order. It will probably be the A320/A350 pilots that will be the oddballs, with their sidesticks.


User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 22 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 77):
However, it is possible that some furloughed sUA flight attendant were re-hired by sCO and "switched sides."

There was a TA agreed to between the sUA and sCO FA groups that allowed a one-way transfer for any flight attended from sUA to sCO. There were a number of provisions that made it a difficult decision, but it did get a few to move over. One of the provisions was that once the sUA FA went to sCO they could not go back to sUA until after the work groups where merged. It also provided that the sUA FA's would be at the bottom of the sCO seniority list no matter the seniority they had at sUA. This meant that no senior FA from sUA would transfer only those at the bottom.

This solved one of the problems that sCO needed more FA's due to the addition of new planes, which if they hired new FA's and then forced to lay them off during the integration because it was known that sUA had too many FAs and the merged group would prioritize furloughed sUA FA's over new hires, so who would actually want that job! It was considered a win-win from both sides when announced.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 14 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 71):
I don't see how it "says a lot" that I was at a service desk in the first place. Are you implying that it was my fault...?

United's best customers do not stand in line anywhere for service. We proactively take care of those customers before they even know of a disruption.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 71):
I am a self-admitted DL fan, so I am sure there is some bias in me, but I would like to think that UA has "earned" its reputation in my mind.

I agree that the reputation has been earned and since we transport more high value customers than any other airline in the US its been earned.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 818 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 79):
United's best customers do not stand in line anywhere for service. We proactively take care of those customers before they even know of a disruption.

This is what we call a "non-response."

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 79):
I agree that the reputation has been earned and since we transport more high value customers than any other airline in the US its been earned.

If you don't mind me asking, what functional area are you in...?



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 11 hours ago) and read 4362 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 65):
The "individual vision" should be based on doing whatever is possible to make those numbers as good as possible for the shareholder. A lot of people forget about that simple fact especially when you start to become too emotionally invested in a company or industry.

They forget because they are still trained to have a vested interestor "buy in" to the company versus getting the best salary.
A CEO cutting losses versus making a profit is still making money for his shareholders if the share price becomes stable and even increases, that warrants a bonus and even a salary increase.
The training of the general workers is different, so as expected they wonder why their loss of benefits and the company still loosing money equates to qualification for a bonus, that mindset is not really their fault.

If you look at some of the integration issues most mergers have generated and gone through no one has been able to
quantify the issues into a number that can be factored in the cost of the merger or the benefits to be achieved, so the result is an initial struggle which ultimately gets written off to the "integration" fund. So far the DL / NW merger seems to have been the least trouble in terms of staff integration. Hopefull UA / CO have gotten the worst of their behind them and can focus on achieving the hoped for benefits.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1659 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 38):
Oh, but they finally got us on a common company E-Mail

Not quite yet! Next week I believe is the final transition.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 46):
Quoting scbriml (Reply 43):

Don't worry, he won't be running the largest combined carrier in the World for much longer.

I hope you are right. Just noticed that UAL' s cash position is down to 6 Billion, 3 billion less than when the merger took place and there is an enormous amount of debt.


Time is running out..

Nonsense. Wall Street loves him, he's doing just fine. Especially so now that some of the labor agreements are done. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think there is any pressure on the board to get rid of him right now.

Quoting sxf24 (Reply 61):
Rant all you like against lawyers (and finance types). We all know how well it's worked when "airline people" ran airlines - about 100% rate of bankruptcy.

  

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 65):

     

Quoting 777ord (Reply 67):
give it a couple years... It'll be better. Im in it for the long haul. I just hope all my colleauges are, too.

x2! Get with it or get out.

Quoting ORDBOSEWR (Reply 68):
for zero value to the new business

Well, there would have been lower overall Salary costs for management, but other than that yeah, no value.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 79):
United's best customers do not stand in line anywhere for service. We proactively take care of those customers before they even know of a disruption.



I will have to agree with the above statemet as we've had it happen a couple of times.

The latest was a trip from IAH-NAP late last summer we made connections in EWR and MUC. When we arrived in EWR to change planes we found out out our flight from EWR-MUC was going to be 1+50 late which would cause us to miss our connection in MUC. Oh what fun now! Went to the UA Club counter in EWR and asked the attendant if she could help me and tell me what our options were. She told me they had already listed us on two other flights, one was on another airline other than LH which was our connection and the other was the next LH flight....awesome customer service that time.

Still don't much care for Smizek!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2226 posts, RR: 26
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Looks like the first improvement to SHARES is coming out tomorrow. Much better interface for the Customer Service Folks, It is going to be called AERO.

Co-workers were heavily involved in the developement of AERO, and it has been tested at select cities such as GRR, IAD, CLE, SAT (San Antonio), SEA (Seattle) and BOS. Would like to hear from iahcsr and others how good the new improvement is.

Getting better the merger is.

[Edited 2013-03-05 16:18:03]


UNITED We Stand
User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 84):

Looks like the first improvement to SHARES is coming out tomorrow. Much better interface for the Customer Service Folks, It is going to be called AERO.

I am sure that they did not plan a major storm to hit when rolling this out to 3 hubs (ORD, EWR & IAD).

Would they delay the rollout so they do not do that to the CSR's at all of these stations?

I am all for better capabilities, but rolling it out when everyone is operating under stress is not the best plan.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2226 posts, RR: 26
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting ORDBOSEWR (Reply 85):
I am sure that they did not plan a major storm to hit when rolling this out to 3 hubs (ORD, EWR & IAD).

Would they delay the rollout so they do not do that to the CSR's at all of these stations?

I am all for better capabilities, but rolling it out when everyone is operating under stress is not the best plan.

If it is a better system, it will make things easier when the stuff hits the fan. And that's what is being said about it. It makes a CSR's job much easier. It will probably ease the stress. It will be used at Gates system wide.



UNITED We Stand
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3149 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 1):



Congratulations! I hope all is well with employees from both companies as they officially become one. However I was hoping y'all would go with Unental I assume the livery will stay the same, UA on the fuselage, the CO globe on the tail?



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineStratacruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

Quoting CALTECH (Thread starter):
Some 250 aircraft will need to be re-registered with the FAA.

Does re-registration require new numbers? Will ex-CO aircraft get the "UA" suffix found on ex-UA aircraft?

Dave


User currently offlinesmi0006 From Australia, joined Jan 2008, 1531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Are all United staff wearing the same uniform yet? Must look messy for the gate staff if they are not.

Are all gate staff crossed trained? Do they work together yet?


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1871 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 89):
Are all United staff wearing the same uniform yet? Must look messy for the gate staff if they are not.

Are all gate staff crossed trained? Do they work together yet?

The new uniforms are to be debuted sometime this month, gate staff have been crosstrained since the deployment of SHARES systemwide last year.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineantoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 89):
Are all United staff wearing the same uniform yet?

Not yet.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 89):
Must look messy for the gate staff if they are not.

Depends. A LOT of the uniform items look close enough that you wouldn't know if you didn't know they were two different uniforms.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 89):
Are all gate staff crossed trained?

Yes.

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 89):
Do they work together yet?


That probably depends on location.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4270 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting smi0006 (Reply 89):
Must look messy for the gate staff if they are not.

Not really.

Probably only the red-coat supervisors at IAH stand out right now.

But I'm seeing fewer and fewer of them -- don't know if red blazers are being replaced as they wear out.


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 93, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 15):
A very sad day, Continental should have been the surviving name.

FWIW, I think they should have gone with "United Continental" and kept a small UA logo next to the name.

Of course, let's be glad they didn't call it "Allegis."


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5473 posts, RR: 5
Reply 94, posted (1 year 5 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

Quoting antoniemey (Reply 91):
A LOT of the uniform items look close enough that you wouldn't know if you didn't know they were two different uniforms

I agree. If the two airlines had one, distinct uniform each - say BA and LH - then it would be very obvious. But both carriers had multiple uniform pieces that didn't look very "uniform" when they were separate airlines, so it isn't that bad.

The noticeable one is the sCO employees that arrange their scarves in such a way that the words "Continental Airlines" on the hem are front and center. I don't necessarily object to the CO employees being slightly nationalistic, but I'm surprised the airline didn't issue a directive that scarves were no longer to be worn so that they could get rid of the CO brand.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineStratacruiser From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 94):
The noticeable one is the sCO employees that arrange their scarves in such a way that the words "Continental Airlines" on the hem are front and center. I don't necessarily object to the CO employees being slightly nationalistic, but I'm surprised the airline didn't issue a directive that scarves were no longer to be worn so that they could get rid of the CO brand.

I flew CDG - EWR last Friday on UA57, which had a 767-200 subbing for the usual -400. The prerecorded welcome and safety announcements were pre-merger, refering constantly to Continental Airlines. Doesn't seem like that would be hard to update - probably quicker and cheaper than repainting an aircraft.

Dave


User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2406 posts, RR: 6
Reply 96, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Quoting Stratacruiser (Reply 95):
I flew CDG - EWR last Friday on UA57, which had a 767-200 subbing for the usual -400. The prerecorded welcome and safety announcements were pre-merger, refering constantly to Continental Airlines. Doesn't seem like that would be hard to update - probably quicker and cheaper than repainting an aircraft.

The IFE and automated announcements for the 5 762s and 3 remaining 76H ships are old Continental and will not be changed. The 5 762s will be retired this year provided the 787 grounding is resolved, so investing in a dated system to bring it to United standards for a few months of service before retirement is not an effective use of resources or manpower. As for the 76H, the IFE will be all-new following the reconfiguration, in fact, one of the four is already in the shop receiving the mods.


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 97, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Quoting Stratacruiser (Reply 95):

I flew CDG - EWR last Friday on UA57, which had a 767-200 subbing for the usual -400. The prerecorded welcome and safety announcements were pre-merger, refering constantly to Continental Airlines. Doesn't seem like that would be hard to update - probably quicker and cheaper than repainting an aircraft.

Odd. That seems easy to change.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
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...
What Will Become Of American Eagle? posted Mon Dec 12 2011 15:35:05 by GEN2STEW
What Will Become Of UA's Red Carpet Club At EWR? posted Fri Sep 24 2010 11:01:24 by TOMMY767
AYs HEL-HKG Will Become Non-stop Year Around posted Fri May 12 2006 17:14:46 by LordHowe
What Will Become Of JFK AA After New Terminal? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 10:12:04 by AEroc
The A350 Will Become The Airbus Flagship posted Sun Jan 1 2006 20:12:58 by Moparman
What Will Become Of All The 767's Belonging To NH? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 09:07:55 by Ktachiya
What Will Become Of Nashville's D Concourse? posted Sat Jan 29 2005 00:12:14 by JetSOUTHEAST
What Will Become Of South African Airways posted Tue Jan 6 2004 20:11:30 by AirJamPanAm
Aero Lloyd Will Become Low Cost Airline... posted Fri Nov 7 2003 14:53:31 by Setjet
Seems That STR Will Become Second Germanwings Hub posted Fri Jul 25 2003 20:03:52 by Sabena332