strfyr51
Posts: 4053
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:10 am

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 move the flights elsewhere. This was a condition set out by the Board of Directors, It WASN'T negotiable and it WASN'T up for Speculation. Jeff Smisek Signed on the dotted Line and Chicago KEPT the home town airline,



















1
 
User avatar
SFOA380
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:35 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:13 am

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 being forced there becasue their company has relocated 10,000 jobs. I live in the Bay Area and there has been a ton of discussions lately on talk radio about why certain companies stay based here. If Google or Apple or Virgin America for that matter would leave, nobody would follow. We're not talking about Dell or Texas Instruments or the random home-grown Texas company that doesn't really innovate, we're talking about the true cutting edge businesses that need the intellectual capital that simply does not exist elsewhere en-masse. I lived in Texas for 10 years and I participated heavily in Economic Development in the north Dallas suburbs and the conversation always focused on one thing--"who can we lure here from New York or LA or SF?" You just don't have that mentality in the west or northeast. In the end, Texas is an awesome place full of awesome people and there are things about it that I miss. All things aside, there is a reason why the same house that costs $500 per square foot in the suburbs of SF costs less that $100 in the suburbs of Dallas.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:16 am

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 53):
All things aside, there is a reason why the same house that costs $500 per square foot in the suburbs of SF costs less that $100 in the suburbs of Dallas.

Yea, geography.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17717
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:16 am

Quoting kfitz (Reply 50):
Tilton successfully ran United through the most complex and lengthy Ch.11 filling of any airline in history.

Complex? Yes. Also widely criticized for being mostly ineffectual; of course the multiple ATSB loans that were turned down did not help.

Quoting kfitz (Reply 50):
I know it goes against the CO grain to have to admit that CO needed UA, but that is exactly what happened.

Any airline that only covers half the country was going to have a rough time.

Quoting kfitz (Reply 50):
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 was able to bathe themselves in than a definitive sign of unquestioned superiority.

Of course aaaaall the accolades, awards, polls, surveys, etc are "spin" and "fickle/low yield/populist" except for the lone one that fits your argument. Got it . The reality is none of the legacy carriers in the US were anything to write home about, but whenever they were written about, CO almost always topped the list of legacies

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 53):
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 being forced there becasue their company has relocated 10,000 jobs.

Houston and Texas backfilled those jobs in the blink of an eye. Illinois and Chicago, however, have had to beg, borrow, and steal to keep any number of other companies from leaving.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
MarcoPoloWorld
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:37 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting nycdave (Reply 49):
In a recent survey of what the "Global 1%" most value in choosing to move to a specific location, Education and Culture were in the top 5, while "taxes" didn't even crack that barrier. While Houston is hardly the backwater some coastal elites may like to imagine, it also doesn't have the density of educational and cultural opportunities Chicago has. It has Montrose, but it doesn't have the sort of dense, active downtown that attracts what demographers term the "creative elites" -- the ambitious kids and entrepreneurs who'd rather cram into a 5th floor walkup in NYC than live someplace "less exciting", and has made Chicago the city with the densest concentration of startups in the country. It has awful traffic with no real mass transit to speak of. While Chicago has brutally cold winters with the winds whipping off the lake, Houston has nearly half a year of feeling like an armpit, with an off-chance of hurricanes. Houston has home prices that give you a lot more for your money... but Texas schools also aren't keen on teaching evolution, sex ed, or anything to do with Thomas Jefferson. Texas has looser gun laws and concealed carry, Illinois doesn't (and there's one where which you think is better greatly depends on your point of view on guns!).

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 outlined those reasons nicely.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Chicago_montage.jpg

Quoting nycdave (Reply 49):
Houston has home prices that give you a lot more for your money... but Texas schools also aren't keen on teaching evolution, sex ed, or anything to do with Thomas Jefferson.

Exactly. So how are you supposed to ask an educated person - three hundred years after the Enlightenment - to live in a place like that? I know Houston has alot of things going for it, but I'm just asking....

  
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:54 am

Quoting nycdave (Reply 49):
Low taxes are usually what, in development plans, you offer when you don't have sufficient *quality* to offer...

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 that are offensive to most people.

Not a hard choice for many to make.

NS
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17717
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:00 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 57):
Houston is a cultural wasteland with politics that are offensive to most people.

The most diverse city in the country run by a lesbian democrat? Or are you talking about Houston Missouri?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
kfitz
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:47 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:01 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 55):
Complex? Yes. Also widely criticized for being mostly ineffectual; of course the multiple ATSB loans that were turned down did not help

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 the effects of the economic downturns disproportionately. By 2008 they were profititing disproportionately as business traffic recovered. They were outperforming CO and were poised to going forward as CO was invariably going to face further competition in their two fortress markets. Lorenzo left CO with the costs of an LCC and the structure of a legacy after its two bankruptcies giving Gordon the opportunity to invest heavily in the product. Yet by 2004 the honeymoon was ending and by 2008 it was over.

In 2002 and 2003 Continental was a major actor in lobbying for UAL's rejection of the three ATSB loans. The CO leadership were frothing at the mouth with delusions of grandeur of sending UAL into liquidation and "picking up the assets". This was a popular sentiment peddled on a.net back then by famikiar CO employees and fans who held weekly deathwatch meetings discussing how the assets would be integrated into "their" company. When UA emerged, it then became only a matter of time before they went into immediate ch. 7, apparently giving CO what it was entitled to. When this didn't happen, it was a "virtual merger" as CO entered Star. Then it turned to CO buying out UA with the CO brand being kept due to "awards". Point is, there's a very active and vocal group of CO employees and fans which have arguably brought the CO PR machine to A.net where they shape the status quo.

[Edited 2012-04-17 19:13:37]
 
ord
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:07 am

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 8):
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.

According to this article, boarding back to front takes 50% longer than United's method.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...ns-20110923,0,3864390.photogallery
 
MAV88
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:30 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:17 am

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 really matter? The airline was going to have to choose a city to have the corporate HQ. Would people in the Chicago area be complaining about hometown pride if UA chose Houston instead?

People also need to realize there is more than just taxes in a company choosing to locate jobs in a given area.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3319
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:17 am

Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 56):
Cities like New York and Chicago are competitive world-class cities for a reason - and you outlined those reasons nicely.

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 Apple. Sorry second city.

If you look at the growth rates of Houston, Dallas and Chicago, you should be concerned about how wide a lead Chicago will have in twenty years time.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
MAV88
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 12:30 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:21 am

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62):
Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 56):
Cities like New York and Chicago are competitive world-class cities for a reason - and you outlined those reasons nicely.

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 Apple. Sorry second city.

If you look at the growth rates of Houston, Dallas and Chicago, you should be concerned about how wide a lead Chicago will have in twenty years time.

It's debatable if Houston and Texas as a whole can sustain such massive growth they have experienced over the last decade.
 
ord
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:22 am

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 35):
Quoting kfitz (Reply 32):
Remember, it was Smisek who called up to Chicago asking to start merger dialogue after he saw reports in the WSJ of an impending US deal, not Tilton.

No, I don't remember

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
 
ord
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:28 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
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.

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. Companies threatened boycotts of AA. Other airlines took ads out saying how much they loved New York.

New Yorkers have long forgotten AA's move. The same thing will happen to those in Houston.
 
C010T3
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:48 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:51 am

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 not an easy decision and it brings a lot of consequences with it.

But what the article doesn't explain is if WN was ever interested in offering international services from Hobby before. IIRC, WN did not even fly international some time ago. CO wasn't threatened by WN with international flights, because it was never the case. Now, only because CO became part of UA and moved to Chicago, they were threatened? That's a real stretch!
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17717
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:16 am

Quoting kfitz (Reply 59):
Ineffectual depending on who's talking

Just about any airline analyst

Quoting kfitz (Reply 59):
In 2002 and 2003 Continental was a major actor in lobbying for UAL's rejection of the three ATSB loans

TZ got a loan for cryin' out loud. From wikipedia:
"The ATSB denied applications from nine carriers: Ozark Airlines dba Great Plains Airlines, MEDjet International, Corporate Airlines, Gemini Air Cargo, Frontier Flying Service, Spirit Airlines, National Airlines, and both initial and revised applications from United Airlines and Vanguard Airlines."
Tough crowd to be in...

Quoting kfitz (Reply 59):
The CO leadership were frothing at the mouth with delusions of grandeur of sending UAL into liquidation and "picking up the assets".

You've said this twice, but again, the reality was everyone was looking to pick up bits of a failed UA. Same with US, DL, NW, and now AA bankruptcies--there are probably multiple threads on the topic of dismantling AA going on as we speak.

Quoting C010T3 (Reply 66):
I'm sure they are, they have and they will, but so would United if they left Illinois. It's not an easy decision and it brings a lot of consequences with it.

  
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
tpaewr
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat May 19, 2001 9:01 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:23 am

Quoting kfitz (Reply 50):
CO also went out of their way to broadcast their customer awards (which again, many were paid for outright) to bolster their line of superiority. To be fair, CO did well in populist surveys like JD Power where results come from fickle low yeild low spending travelers, and are heavily influenced from general perception than the actual reality. For example, CO is the only US carrier other than WN.........

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 they are used to.

However lets not talk about garbage low yield crap like domestic Y or F (which is almost all upgrades). CO's J blows UA's C and even it's F out of the water. (till next month when the service levels will be upgraded to CO standards). UA's only saving grace was the room and privacy of the new IPTE in F, but the bare bones service just spoiled it even then. UA created loyalty by giving int'l F away via assorted upgrades.

All in all, the merger was a bad bad idea. All the fruit and cheese carts and ice cream sundaes in the world can't save the mess that we are in now.
 
BCEaglesCO757
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:16 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:26 am

Quoting kfitz (Reply 32):
Without SA)">UA, SA)">CO was on its way to being crushed by SA)">DL in NY




Is that the SAME SA)">CO that carried ( and still does ) more TOTAL passengers through EWR......... than AA,UA-pre-merger, and SA)">DL at all three combined NYC airports right ?

So when do you expect SA)">DL to overtake what SA)">UA carries now in total passengers at EWR, in the whole NYC market ? JFK,EWR,LGA.

Man did SA)">CO send your bags to Anartica one time ? You seem esepcially bitter towards them often. Even considering they're no longer around.......
 
shanderawx
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:34 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:36 am

Houston is a cultural wasteland with politics that are offensive to most people.

5 opera companies, the only Asia Socieity complex outside NY, the second largest number of theater seats downtown outside of NYC, at least 4 major local chamber groups, the Menil complex? GET REAL
Rice, the TMC, an abundance of outstanding private schools. GET DOUBLY REAL
 
texan
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:04 am

Quoting durangomac (Reply 13):
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.

Forget the tax situation or anything like that, it is the legal liability regime that should concern companies relocating to Cook County. The non-Federal courts in Cook County are litigation hell holes. Companies should be doing all they can to avoid being taken to those courts. But even the cost to get the case out of the state courts in Cook County can be prohibitive. Why any business would purposely put themselves in a position where they may have to face the judges and jurors in the state courts in Cook County is beyond my comprehension.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:05 am

Quoting ord (Reply 60):

Yeah, my experience yesterday was a complete mess. That article is bull$/65 in my book.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
kfitz
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:47 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:08 am

Quoting tpaewr (Reply 66):
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 they are used to.

However lets not talk about garbage low yield crap like domestic Y or F (which is almost all upgrades). CO's J blows UA's C and even it's F out of the water. (till next month when the service levels will be upgraded to CO standards). UA's only saving grace was the room and privacy of the new IPTE in F, but the bare bones service just spoiled it even then. UA created loyalty by giving int'l F away via assorted upgrades.

Like humans? Flying ghost planes with no IFE transcon, hard Y seats, no Economy Plus, insulting Irrops compensation, weeks long complaint followup, no domestic F pillows. CO had many customer unfriendly product attributes and policies that they shielded with their bombastic "we are the best" routine.

The whole Texas "take it or leave" attitude/arrogance and contempt for the needs of elites being instilled into the UA FF base is completely short sighted and will come back to haunt future quarters. CO may have gotten away with these antics at their fortress hubs, but they simply won't work in SF/LA/Chicago, where many other options exist at said airports. The CO leadership aren't airline people, they're money guys. They also own all of the failures of this merger. UA's operational performance has been tarnished.

[Edited 2012-04-17 22:12:02]
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:19 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
There are a lot of people not happy with “UA taking over CO” –their words in CO markets.

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 the people that matter, or that will do something about it, really don't give a crap.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):

dhort of naming it Glenn Tilton is worthless Airlines....agreed.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 53):
Any airline that only covers half the country was going to have a rough time.

so wait...what your saying is Every Major had weak spots? No Mav...not right. CO was perfect er no UA was...wait AA..no DL..maybe NW
All of that is covered in sarcasm. Mergers wouldn't be happening if they didn't have a point, grow the network and reduce overlap. Same games thats always played.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 65):

You've said this twice, but again, the reality was everyone was looking to pick up bits of a failed UA. Same with US, DL, NW, and now AA bankruptcies--there are probably multiple threads on the topic of dismantling AA going on as we speak.

This.

Everyone wants SFO from UA
Everyone wants EWR from CO
Everyone wants MIA from AA
Everyone wants ATL from DL
and it goes on and on. Don't think for a minute that United or Delta or America Or NWA or CO or anyone that can get their hands on most airline assists wouldn't do so.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
CO was like greatly and owned their markets.

And UA has "their" markets.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
The last thing any company does is to do anything that can jeopardize that.

So wait, basically your point is, It is ok is the piss off the UA side, but not the CO side? Bias much?

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
Look no further than the comments on new stories in CLE, EWR, and IAH.

And you don't think you would see the same things from SFO/LAX/DEN/ORD and IAD?

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):

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.

wait. So your saying that now that the UA cities have to deal with CO they should just take the CO name and piss on the UA elites/employees? again, bias much? Jessssh You do know that basically every single thing you have typed can be said by a Ua fan boy if they took the CO name? seriously

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

wait, so you know, for a fact, UAL is paying more to have an HQ in CHI vis HOU? Got the facts to back that up?

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):

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.

what makes it not so good? Is it the labor problem? or is it something kinda stupid like "my feelings are hurt because they didn't pick my city, so, regardless of how they actually do as a company, I'm going to stay they stink"?
 
COflyerBOS
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:04 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:35 am

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, baggage handlers, mid-level accountants, route planners, express jet pilots, etc...? Here's a hint; ZERO.

To those people, none of the drivel that coastal and Chicago elitists have posted mattered. Those folks don't give a damn about ballet balls, broadway season tickets, and pretending to read the NY Times while sipping an $8 coffee at some bohemian coffee shop.

What they do care about is the state not taking an extra 5% of their wages like they do in Illinois. What they care about are housing and consumer costs that are 37% lower in Texas. What they care about is being able to afford a house AND to still have money left over to eat out and travel. You can do that in Houston on a mid-level salary.

AND, LOLing at SFOA380. You might want to do a google search on Apple's 3,500 job move to Austin and how folks are clamoring to follow before you start opening your mouth about how cultured folks would never want to live in Texas or how people are only forced to live in Texas because their jobs move there.

People freaking LOVE Texas as a place to live. Sure, there are some things that I hate (believe it or not, I am wildly progressive and the overall politics in the state can be maddening). But, this place is special. People are friendly. Living is affordable. And, if you need to get somewhere else for a change of pace, we're pretty damn centrally located and have some major airports that can connect us to the world.
 
IndianicWorld
Posts: 3290
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:32 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:48 am

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 that this move has hurt their interests seems slightly misguided. It may have lessened their power in TX, but as it is still so important to the state, it still holds importance to decision making.

In saying this, it's position in Chicago has likely been strengthened, so it all evens itself out in this game of politics.
 
apodino
Posts: 3602
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:52 am

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 to locate. Regardless of where you locate your HQ, you still need people to work in it. And any good business would want to attract the very best people to work for the company. For a lot of higher end salaries at the VP and above level, cost of living is not really a consideration since at that level of income, you can probably afford to live just about anywhere. But for a lot of the other types of jobs that come with a company HQ, cost of living means a lot. The Operational personnel is among the most important HQ jobs at an airline, because these are the people who actually running the operational aspect of the airline and making all the decisions that affect the flights, and this is one area where attracting good people can really help. But as people said, the cost of living in Chicagoland is more than the cost of living in the Houston area. The problem with operation type positions (noteably dispatcher) is that there is an industry standard which doesn't take into account cost of living. So a United dispatcher for example may be paid more than an American Airlines dispatcher (This may or may not be true, I am just using this to make a point), but because the cost of living is higher in Chicago than it is in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, it may provide a better lifestyle working at the lower wage for AA than in Chicago for UA. Better employees tend to be more productive, which only helps the bottom line. So this factor has to be taken into account when choosing between Chicago and Houston, and also when you pick where your HQ is, you have to make sure that cost of living is taken into account when you pay your employees. If UA and DL dispatchers make the same, then I think that is wrong because ATL has a lower cost of living than ORD.

One other factor needs to be taken into account when you locate an operations center, and that is access to flights. There is a need for OCC personnel to have easy access to flights for a few reasons including the annual route qualification, which often requires international travel. In the case of UA, this isn't an issue at either place. But it is an issue at a number of airlines. USAirways had to get a positive space provision in their dispatchers contract due to the difficulties of traveling in and out of PIT. Air Wisconsin's SOC is in ATW yet the closest station with any Air Wisconsin flights is MKE, a 2 hour drive from ATW. Skywest used to have a problem before the new airport was built with weight restrictions in SGU which made an already long process (Skywest dispatchers have to do 10 hours due to both props and jets), even worse. If DL dehubs MEM, the pinnacle dispatchers are going to have a hard time as well.

That being said though, it does seem like cost of living seems to be forgotten by a lot of people who run these companies. B6 for example has long been HQed in Forest Hills, part of Queens, and will be relocating to Long Island City in the near future despite the ridiculous cost of living in New York City. (I have heard they have a problem with attracting good dispatchers from a number of sources for this reason, and there was talk that even though they may keep HQ in NYC, they may relocate the dispatch office to MCO ), and Virgin America has HQ near SFO despite it being a very expensive city to live in (Not to mention way too liberal for most of the people I know in the industry).

So is United better off in Houston or Chicago? I don't even think Smisek knows the answer to that question. My only concern is with locating an OCC in the Willis Tower. As much of a terrorist target as that is, it will only take one incident to bring the whole airline to a halt. I don't think this was a wise idea, and I think UA would have been wise to take a look at what US just built in PIT for how an OCC should be.

Lastly I will say this. I don't agree with politicians being able to offer all sorts of tax incentives and deals to sway companies to locate in one place or another. This sort of thing invites a lot of corruption and cronyism in the process. (I was opposed to GA giving DL sweet tax deals for the same reason) Rather, they should just make laws to encourage investment and let the market work itself out. Because...if you have to offer incentives to attract business...maybe the problem is with the laws in place.
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:55 am

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 the city. Surely there must be a reason... The economy of Chicago is one of the most diverse in the US. Chicago ranks as an alpha+ city according to GaWC putting it amongst major world capitals like Paris, Dubai, and Sydney. I do wonder though when the contracts with the city expire if ole Jeffy will pack up and high tail United to Houston. I also wonder why WN never opted to fly international out of MDW. When they inherited ATA's assets weren't there international gates that came along with them?
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
 
boeingfever777
Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:35 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:58 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me. Just that alone was idiotic,

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.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
 
CO777DAL
Topic Author
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:01 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:59 am

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 72):

  

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. Head over to United FlyerTalk forum and read threads and you will see what I'm talking about.

The new UA is cluster ____ right now. The PMUA elite are blaming CO for everything and calling the new UA COdbaUA. Most everything is the CO way thou a lot of things are worst than both PMUA and PMCO policy. They PMUA elites are mad right now. No one could know when the merger was announced it turn out this way. I totally understand how the PMUA elites feel. The airline is called UA, but there is very little UA about it. Almost all the PMUA employees have to learn to CO way, pilots, F/A, gate agents, reservations, website, MP, etc. Had they called it CO, they be more honest with things. PMUA side of the house is not happy is right now. It wouldn't be any worst had they kept the CO name. I can't imagine it getting any worst that the total cluster since March 3. Not only that the CO side is also not happy.

I'm not talking about fan boys. I'm talking about general public in CO Core markets. Read comments section in their papers. The public is not happy with UA, even thou it is pretty much still CO. (Goes to shows ppl going off hear say) For example read comments on Dallas Morning news on AA, its the exact opposite than Houston. Houston public defended and like CO. Dallas public loves to hAATe AA. Like nothing good said about them. Some UA ppl also site CO PR machine for good perception among the kettles. UA, AA don't have that. WN also has good perception with Kettles.

The new UA is not making anyone happy right now, but maybe the shareholders, but it remains to be seen how much business the new UA might lose over all this mess. It is mess.

The new UA made their bed and now they are going to have to lie in it. I feel sorry for the people that have to fix this. Just go start reading the UA form at FlyerTalk and you will soon see what is going on. That is not a happy place right now.
Worked Hard. Flew Right. Farewell, Continental. Thanks for the memories.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 5:59 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
Glenn was so desperate and focused to sell/merge the carrier he would have done so with an Alpaca farm in Kalamazoo.


"Miss me yet?"  
International Homo of Mystery
 
gatechae
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:22 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:13 am

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 34):
The cost of living index is 37.0% higher in Chicago than Houston and that's without factoring in the 5% state income tax in Illinois.
Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 73):

What they do care about is the state not taking an extra 5% of their wages like they do in Illinois. What they care about are housing and consumer costs that are 37% lower in Texas.

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 to DFW (OK having a 5.5% income tax) and Dallas turned out being more expensive per year due to the property taxes.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:21 am

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 73):

How many of those Global 1%ers are flight attendants, baggage handlers, mid-level accountants, route planners, express jet pilots, etc...? Here's a hint; ZERO.

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 CHI....

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
Head over to United FlyerTalk forum and read threads and you will see what I'm talking about.

and then should i go to the airline pilot forum and see what they are b**ching about? Sorry but I don't listen to people who act like 5 year olds when they don't get their way.
I get what your saying(kinda) though.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
The new UA is cluster ____ right now.

but the name has nothing to do with the problems at either airline.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
Read comments section in their papers

About as bad as reading FT. lol

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
The PMUA elite are blaming CO for everything and calling the new UA COdbaUA.

Same thing happens with Delta. Almost 90% of them are wrong. It is AMAZING to me that people at STILL crying about going to DeltaMatic v PARS. What most of them don't get is the move to PARS would have cost 3x what it did to go to Matic and would have had to wait till 2012. Yes 2012. I'm pretty sure the UA integration would be done first. FFs are terrible about not listening and just making crap up.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
WN also has good perception with Kettles.

tell me about it. smh

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):

The new UA is not making anyone happy right now, but maybe the shareholders, but it remains to be seen how much business the new UA might lose over all this mess. It is mess.

but thats the way mergers work sometimes. I mean this kind of thing isn't easy. It takes a ton of time, money and people.

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
Just go start reading the UA form at FlyerTalk and you will soon see what is going on.

I'll just believe you and keep the brain cells.  
 
boilerla
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:30 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:31 am

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 73):
AND, LOLing at SFOA380. You might want to do a google search on Apple's 3,500 job move to Austin and how folks are clamoring to follow before you start opening your mouth about how cultured folks would never want to live in Texas or how people are only forced to live in Texas because their jobs move there.

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 store, which they are growing to handle their massive success as of late--and in fact, I happen to know that some of those 1500 jobs are actually part time, since Apple is not so secrelty in the midst of a massive overhaul of its Web presence. These are new jobs, not being moved as you state. And they are lower paying jobs than those being created in California; and not because of the lower cost of living touted, but because they are call enter jobs. Basically, the people that answer the phone when you try to buy an iPhone from Apple, or fulfill your online order. The people that design the iPhone are still in California.

But your ignorance goes further; Apple has hired MORE than 1500 people in California every year for the past 4 years; their job growth in California has been so large they are building a second, 13,000 person (or for the math disabled, 2.6x the number being hired in Texas) campus. They have been so successful, they are in the beginning stages of a 3rd campus in California, before the 2nd one has even started construction.

All told Apple is spending over $3 billion on California real estate and construction. Their offices in Texas: rented.

I have nothing against Texas, although I personally loathe Houston and wouldn't live there if paid (aside from other problems, the weather). But please don't pretend that companies like Apple are moving in droves to Texas. Companies liek Carl's Jr? Yes. Apple and Facebook? Nope.

[Edited 2012-04-17 23:32:16]
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15486
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:44 am

Quoting kfitz (Reply 37):
They would shamelessly tell their workforce how superior they were to everybody else, they would buy awards and speak to the world about how magnificent they were

Actually, this all sounds much more like a certain Texas-based carrier that flies nothing but B737s...  
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
kfitz
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:47 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:52 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Reply 78):
The new UA is not making anyone happy right now, but maybe the shareholders, but it remains to be seen how much business the new UA might lose over all this mess. It is mess.

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 sloganeering and emotions. Listening to my PMCO friends, it appears moral on the CO side has been deteriorating ever since Smisek took the helm in 2008. His allegiance seems to be sided more towards JPMC than it is to the combined workforce or the customer. The management team has been trying to pull the integration off as quickly and cost effectively as they can while paying lip service to employees/customers (using repeated buzz words and slogan phrases). I don't believe, however, that the Houston gang calculated the blowback that would come from the UA employees/customers. To them, there is nothing wrong with SHARES or their policies. What worked for CO and their two hubs doesn't copy over to UA and it's network.
 
User avatar
IrishAyes
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:04 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:21 am

This article, while an entertaining read, is more bull and chest-beating than factual and relevant. Another checkbox on the CNN bias list  

Actually, kind of brings back memories of reactions from AA and DFW when WN sought to appeal the Wright Amendment at DAL back in 2004. In fact, I'm surprised no one (especially those who grew up in DFW) has mentioned similar thoughts this far along in the discussion.

Long story short, this is all this disgruntled people b*tching about the future for UA's (or PMCO) ops at IAH and are painting the picture with doom-and-gloom.

If everyone set aside the emotional baggage associated with CO moving its HQ away from IAH, and instead concentrated on the implications of WN launching a few international routes from HOU, then the discussion points are entirely different, and frankly, not all that earth-shaking.

1. Southwest needs to evolve. Their intentions to expand their fleet size and their network (cross-border) likely would have happened independently of the CO-UA merger, much less the HQ move to CHI. The article appears to suggest that the two separate incidences are related, which I don't believe they are for a split second.

2. Emanating from the above point, the article's mentioning of Gordo/CO having a "gentlemen's agreement" with the mayor of Houston to keep all international flights out of intercontinental sounds like complete fabrication to me. Gordo and Continental had absolutely 0 control over what WN and other carriers wanted to do at HOU. Whatever said "gentlemen's agreement" is code for a monopoly that CO enjoyed at IAH because no other carrier was in a position to launch international routes from HOU. But, times have changed and WN needs to send their shiny new 738's to markets where they can hopefully earn a revenue premium and provide more options to their customers.

Furthermore, why would the politicians at Houston want to limit the travel options for citizens? Who in their right mind would see any economic benefit in such a practice?

3. "It [Southwest] has brazenly asked Houston's airport authority to pay nearly $100 million to upgrade Hobby to receive international flights. The upgrade would allow Southwest to use Hobby to launch truly competitive international air service to the same locations where Continental has held an almost near-monopoly in non-stop service for years."

For one, Southwest will be paying for said upgrades.

4. "Southwest could target 85% of United's international routes out of Houston if the city signs off on the expansion at Hobby."

Good grief.

The proposal says Southwest will be starting with FIVE gates. Likely, if the plan is approved, those will be to a select handful of token markets such as CUN, MEX, MTY, SJD and SJO, maybe give or take a few high O&D VFR cities like SAL as well.

At the end of the day, UA will STILL retain much larger market share of the IAH-Latin America traffic over WN and arguably the much higher yielding components as well. UA has the smaller fleet type to reach the secondary and tertiary Mexican markets, as well as the high-volume Caribbean and Central American destinations, and the longer-range Northern South America and Deep South America destinations.

WN will not be able to provide anything that remotely resembles that type of network breath, and it will hardly impose a dent to ANY of this establishment. And, if a WN doesn't enter the Houston-Latin American market to stimulate the low-fare environment, another LCC will. Just wait and see - you will soon the growth of Volaris, Interjet, VivaAerobus....heck even NK is going after DFWTLC now, they could do something similar at IAH/HOU!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26509
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:08 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
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.

    

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 thing, discussed ad nauseum, was a better deal in Chicago.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1):
Why any state would choose business unfriendly Illinois is beyond me.

There are myriad reasons UA, rightly, picked Chicago.

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


Yeah, right. Texas is not the be all, end all. There are plenty of downsides.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 14):
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.

This could never have happened, because UA's policy is quite clear that you are seated in E+ if no E- seats are available. Not to mention that they would have had to pay you IDB compensation.

Quoting Gunsontheroof (Reply 20):
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.

And the loyalty UA (rightfully) earned from the City of Chicago?

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 22):
The real issue is that CO had major roots tying themselves to the Houston community, perhaps second only to DL's relationship with ATL.

CO's "roots" were from operating a fortress hub. Big deal.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 27):

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 that?

No. They moved it because they got insane tax benefits and wanted to scare their labor force in Seattle.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 27):
Either way, would Boeing have any reason to feel snubbed if UA went to Houston?

No.

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 34):
but it will certainly matter to the thousand or so folks who have been asked to leave Houston for Chicago!

Hey, one group was always going to have to move.

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 34):
The cost of living index is 37.0% higher in Chicago than Houston and that's without factoring in the 5% state income tax in Illinois.

Most cost of living indices count income tax. Also, Chicago is hardly an expensive city to live in. Perhaps compared to Houston, but there is a reason for that - people are unwilling to pay a premium to live in Houston.

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 34):
Funniest part of all is that Smisek's own wife refuses to move to Chicago. She loves it in Houston as did the many thousands of loyal CO employees who proudly called this city home.

And the thousands of loyal UA employees who proudly call Chicago home? Or all the people who can't fathom ever living anywhere in Texas?

Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 34):
Houston is an incredible city to live in on a modest salary.

There is nothing incredible about Houston...except for the humidity.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 40):
1. Chicago offered UA $30 million in incentives in 2006 to move to Chicago from Elk Grove.
2. UA had already signed long-term, cheap leases in downtown Chicago.
3. UA had already built a very expensive, very up to date operations center in downtown Chicago.
4. Houston did not offer any incentives to stay in Houston.
5. UA would have to pay significant penalties if they renigged on their deal with Chicago to keep HQ in Chicago. Houston did not offer to pay for those penalties.

6. UA would have had to pay massive money to move Unimatic to Houston, as CO's dispatch system was even less capable of handling the combined airline than SHARES has been.

Quoting caljn (Reply 44):
For those fantasizing about Illinois and Chicago as having some anti business environment versus Texas, please cite specific laws, reasons, tax rates to support your argument.

Exactly. Especially for businesses they target.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 49):
Look at all of the businesses leaving CA, IL, NY, etc. to TX and FL!

"All?" Name some real ones.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 49):
There is a reason to this, no state income tax and a right to work state.

Guess what. California is a "right to work" state.

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 52):
Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 53):
All things aside, there is a reason why the same house that costs $500 per square foot in the suburbs of SF costs less that $100 in the suburbs of Dallas.

Yea, geography.

Add in culture and a few more things and you are getting closer.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 55):
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 that are offensive to most people.

Not a hard choice for many to make.

Yup.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56):
The most diverse city in the country run by a lesbian democrat?

Most diverse? I don't think so. Also, there is much more to Houston than just the city limits. There is Texas as a whole, which has backwards politics, culture, criminal laws, etc.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 83):
Actually, this all sounds much more like a certain Texas-based carrier that flies nothing but B737s...  

Yeah, but they are actually right  
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:22 am

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 after the event. Texas perhaps should have fought harder and maybe things might have been different but either way Houston still has a massive hub there and thats not going anywhere.

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 33):
No, I don't remember

Dont you remember the ugly bride comment that Smisek made and had to apologise for. I do.]

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 41):
Tilton barely knew where he was. All he knew is he had a company that he may or may not have known was an airline, and he wanted to offload it. Nothing was going to get in the way of that

I cannot argue that he wanted to get a merger done but to say Tilton barely knew where he was is at best rediculous. Some will hate him for the cuts he made but if he had not played hard ball we would now be talking about UA in the same sentence as Pan Am, Eastern etc. Do you think the top dog at AA is going to be Mr popular with all and sundry by the time they come out of CH11. I dont think so. He has some tough decisions to make.

We must all remember that there are huge teething problems with the merger and hopefully they will be sorted out sooner rather than later and that UA and all its employees are proud to go to work in the morning.
 
Max Q
Posts: 7849
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:06 am

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
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.

I could not agree more, this merger trashed the Continental name.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


Guns are a malignant cancer that are destroying our society
 
kfitz
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:47 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:47 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 88):
I could not agree more, this merger trashed the Continental name.

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 woefully ineffective at a carrier that operates in competitive markets and on a truly global scale. This was the sort of Texas "we know best" arrogance that is also revealing itself at WN, and it's the same sort of arrogance that doesn't sell itself well to the rest of the country.

The latest shameless attack from the camp-CO is that the SHARES mess is actually to blame on the PMUA workforce who are purposely causing chaos. Absolutely zero shreds of evidence to support this sleazy, slanderous assertion/delusion.
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2500
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:54 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
There is nothing incredible about Houston.


So true. So true   
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
idlewildchild
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:13 am

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 eyes. I travelled March 3rd and March 6th and then again later in the month and was amazed at how poorly things went in such a short time.

Until the computer 'mis-integration,' things seemed to be going somewhat smoothly but the cluster*f*ck that has resulted is doing amazing damage to the "new" United. And what's really amazing to me is beyond a pithy sentence or two recognizing the issue on the website, United is acting like it's not happening and it will all blow over without ramification.

Not true, I've already began planning my migration to DL. I live in Manhattan and can go either way to EWR or JFK. LGA is better domestically but because I was a huge CO fan I'd go out of my way (and pay more for ticket and ground transportation) to go to EWR. That's over. Now with DL expanding at LGA and covering cities I need, eg Miami and O'Hare (more frequently) and expanding their international cities, even though I'm not a huge SkyTeam guy, I'm switching.

It's a shame because in the last year I bought the Presidential credit card and went full tilt but after the last couple of months the writing is on the wall. I'm one small customer with maybe 100k worth of miles a year between credit card usage and travel but can't believe I'm the only one thinking this way.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:43 am

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 businesses leave the state and ultimately revenue is lower not higher. No thanks I'll take Reagan's trickle down over IL crony capitalism any day.
 
AAIL86
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:00 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:44 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 88):
I could not agree more, this merger trashed the Continental name.

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 UA choose to the move the headquarters- but I don't think anyone but Houston fanboys are losing sleep over it.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 85):
4. "Southwest could target 85% of United's international routes out of Houston if the city signs off on the expansion at Hobby."

Good grief.

United's ridiculous profit margin at IAH might be brought down by WN expansion at HOU, yes- but this won't destroy IAH. Neither will not having the headquarters in Houston. The jury may still be out on the new UA - but people in Houston won't be flying DL or AA in droves - I can promise you that.
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamim Franklin
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:59 pm

Quoting gatechae (Reply 80):
The higher property taxes in Texas eliminate that 5% income tax difference. Texas has to pay its books somehow....

Not when the overall cost of living is lower, especially when compared to expensive ass Chicago.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
CO's "roots" were from operating a fortress hub. Big deal.

Not only that - it was actually a good airline and company to work for.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
Most cost of living indices count income tax. Also, Chicago is hardly an expensive city to live in. Perhaps compared to Houston, but there is a reason for that - people are unwilling to pay a premium to live in Houston.

You are the farthest thing from correct. Houston - and all of Texas has geography on its side, that is the reason that there is no need for this alleged premium...Chicago is a very expensive city and the salaries don't compensate well for that premium. I have a nice time when I come to Chicago - but get real its not exactly paradise...and thats being nice.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
There is nothing incredible about Houston...except for the humidity.

I could post up this article and that article refuting your biased statements and then you try and put up measly arguments to refuse my biased statements and we can have a good ole fashion internet fanboy bash, but at the end of the day opinions are like a$$holes...and judging by this thread we have a lot of both.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
6. UA would have had to pay massive money to move Unimatic to Houston, as CO's dispatch system was even less capable of handling the combined airline than SHARES has been.

The one correct thing you have said.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 87):
Dont you remember the ugly bride comment that Smisek made and had to apologise for. I do.]

Yep.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 90):
So true. So true

See my a$$hole comment.

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 93):
but I don't think anyone but Houston fanboys are losing sleep over it.

We aren't, we in Houston are either flying someone else are bending over at the UA ticket counter.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
cschleic
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:04 pm

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 would have been similar grousing from Chicago. Unfortunately, that's how corporate America works. Texas still has the HQ of two huge airlines, more than any other state. No state is the be all end all place for corporate HQ's. Delta still does well in MSP, too.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17717
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:11 pm

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 87):

I cannot argue that he wanted to get a merger done but to say Tilton barely knew where he was is at best rediculous.

It's not a question of popularity, but rather a lack of strategy other than sell sell sell.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
Most diverse? I don't think so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ouston-most-diverse_n_1321089.html

Quoting N1120A (Reply 86):
"All?" Name some real ones.

Every week there's another company knocking on Chicago's door for handouts to stay, most recently Sears, CBOE, Catepillar...
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:37 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 96):
It's not a question of popularity, but rather a lack of strategy other than sell sell sell.

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 but he had it.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:43 pm

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 everything else and made everything else vehemently CO it terms of policy. People are pissed, elites are jumping ship, and the customer service factor is abysmal at best. No more "great" CO customer service at the new United (even though I find it to be clearly the reverse. CO failed miserably in IRROPS).

I feel bad to IAH because I know that everything was in ORD's favor at least politically. Had Kellner grew a pair and merged the airline in 2008 we would probably see a much *better* outcome as a merger result for both airlines. Kellner had a big opportunity, and he blew it. If UA merged in 2008 I'll bet on my life that the airline would have had their HQ in IAH.

Quoting kfitz (Reply 30):
CO came in and immediately started enacting their policies and procedures, which are rightfully angering and driving away UA's most valuable GS/1K customers. The downgrades are too long to list here.

They are blowing it big time. Watch their profits go down as a result.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
tpaewr
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat May 19, 2001 9:01 am

RE: United May Be Paying For Leaving Houston - Fortune

Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:06 pm

Quoting kfitz (Reply 89):
woefully ineffective at a carrier that operates in competitive markets and on a truly global scale

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 since those heady days in the late 90s.

Rather than living in the past, lets talk about the FACTS on the eve of the merger last year. Who was really a global carrier??

In 1994 UA was almost 3X CO size TATL, however but the middle of the last decade CO carried almost 25% more pax than UA. Who by now had declined to 4th place for US based carriers across the Pond.

In LatAm in the mid-90s UA was 2nd only to mighty AA to Latin America. This time the decline was even faster! By 1998 CO had already knocked UA out of that spot, almost 15 yrs ago! By the time of the merger UA Latins ops was closer to the scale of US rather than the 'big boys' AA,CO,and DL. 4th place again? That doesn't sound like a "World Class Carrier" to me.

Even in Africa, including the delay of CAI, when LOS started CO passed up UA in ASMs to Africa. Also worth noting UA had left the Indian market completely. (Where CO happens to be the largest US carrier BTW) Had all but collapsed in Central America, the Carb, and N South America. Last but not least UA had completely pulled out of long haul from the BIGGEST aviation market in the world, NYC.


Only in Asia did UA cling by the skin of it's teeth to a spot of prestige. Again UA was a greatly downsized from her glory days in the 90s. But just edged out DL for the top spot. But lets not get too excited, UA Pacific ops have been shrinking for the past 7 years. It was only a matter of time. The decay was EVERYWHERE. As a counter point, CO had built 100% organically what was in 2009 the 3rd largest Pacific network after the legacy systems of NW and UA. And this all since 1998. The same years UA has been busy imploding in slow motion.


Lastly, lets look at the big picture. System wide ASMs. In the mid-90s UA really was the airline you still pretend she was. A global carrier almost 3X the size of CO. Fast forward to today? UA has been shrinking in absolute terms for over half a decade. In the mean time CO was still growing. In relative size UA was barely a 1/3 bigger, and shrinking!! It is a shame this merger could have been maybe 10 years later. At its current rate of decline UA would have just gone away.


The conclusion is UA was a failed and declining operation. What ever you want say the number don't lie. UA was slowly dying.....and IMO should have been left to do such on their own






all data can be vrfd at web.mit.edu/airlinedata

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos