Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8472
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:34 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 147):
I should somehow be less of a critic of CO when they aren't capable of running a profitable UA?

Please, "Continental Airlines", its front line employees, CALTECH, the 737-900 and so on aren't running United.

Jeff Smisek is. Sure he came from Continental, but he pretty much stuffed up there too. Please, please, please stop conflating the two, as if Smisek represents 50,000 employees
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
N505fx
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:25 am

I like how Smisek set this whole thing up - speaking engagements in the last couple of weeks about how the industry is getting healthier because real businessmen are running airlines now, not the personalities of the past....HA...wonder he is going to back that one up now that we an see how he and all of his Houston boys have done.

What I don't get is what costs are higher. Labor costs - about the same as other legacies, borrowing costs - slightly lower than other legacies, soft product costs - have to be lower (the Continental standard of onboard service is pretty low), Hard product costs - probably no different than anyone else buying new planes (sorry DL) so...what is it that is costing them so much? And is revenue management so messed up that they can't generate significant revenues? Maybe they should look at drawing down a few hubs - like CLE, EWR and IAH to start with.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:33 am

Quote:
Tongue in cheek - I think the proof is in the pudding - CO brass have had 2 years to make a go of it...and haven't - it is time for the BOD to look at who promised what in the merger and to see if they are delivering. As far as CO v. UA rank and file - there are lots of good CO people out there, but not nearly at the level the PR machine built them to...I am just over the CO arrogance, once and for all...CO wasn't THAT great and is proving that they still aren't that great at making a profitable business of a truly global airline...btw....lots of world class airlines would argue with you on your assessment on on the A320...I would put a LH Technic guy up against a CO mechanic any day of the week....and they seem to have no problem with them.

Absolutely the proof is in the pudding. As many on the SubCAL side believe, subUAL has dragged subCAL down. I see it too in some ways but try every day to keep the planes flying without any 'games,' this is the new company I work for afterall. There had been 'games' by one group of pilots refusing perfectly good birds. We saw it down here in MCO on a daily basis for a while. Ridiculous. There were awards won by subCAL that subUAL and it's 'elites' could only dream about. You have no answers for all those BILLION dollar quarterly losses the old United lost all by itself, do you ? And much more recently, United filed bankruptcy just over 10 years ago, Continental did it's last one over 23 years ago. Ancient history. Woo hoo, pulling a circuit breaker to repair a Airbus, wow, that fixed it. This time.

I too would put up a Boeing Aluminum salesman over some aluminum selling hack from Redondo Beach anyday too, Boeing seems to have no problem selling the 737.


Quote:
Unbelievable that some are failing to realize that UA is heading in the wrong direction. It's a loss, and as said debt repayment has ZERO to do with profit/loss.

Only the continued broken record of things Continental/United is headed in the wrong direction. United is getting it's house in order, there are some stumbling blocks but United will get through them no matter what one believes. Keep on spouting this misinformation, someday it will come true, such as the CEO leaving. A naysayer will get it right someday. Promise. And last I looked, some special charges that made United lose money were shown to be debt repayments. But then again, the ill informed will come to their conclusions no matter what the figures show.

Quote:
Or perhaps those billion dollar losses for CO under Lorenzo and the Texas Air Corporation? Or the fact that CO went through BK twice? Yet, somehow UA's post 9/11 BK was worse. That's a mystery as to why on this forum UA's early 2000's BK was worse than CO's previous two in the 90s. Perhaps some users have too much pride, short term memory, and/or IAH/EWR pride.

Continental never posted BILLION dolllar quarterly losses. Old United did. Then again, the ill informed spout this kind of garbage.

Quote:
No actually UA was in a pretty darn good shape pre merger mode. As stated, quarters prior to the merger UA was operationally more profitable than CO. They had a sound hub system, relatively young fleet, and arguably the best loyalty network for big spender frequent flyers. They merged with CO for further network advantage and fleet flexibility. None of that has been achieved and CO's Smisek is pulling all the wrong moves. Losses every quarter, operational problems, paying through the nose for new planes, no strategy for ERJ retirements, no apologies for high volume FF's, the worst branding for an airline merger of all time, and toxic employee relations.
Bottom line, the Continentalization of United isn't working and it's finally official in 2013.

That is so clueless it's really laughable. They cut everything, there was nothing left. They should have made money. United was in horrible condition, we saw it first hand. The branding is well liked by far more than a few posters on a.net. You know what, someday it too will change, then the ill informed will be vindicated. Toxic employee relations, can tell about the horrible relations over at pre merger United and some of it afterwards. Never saw such behavior. Pilots not wanting to be addressed to by Techs. Pilots acting all uppity when we enter the cockpit to ask what's wrong with the plane. Yeah, sure, go on believing pre merger United was in good shape, they were a shadow of what they once were.

Quote:
Why do you always bring this up? How can CO be the surviving corporation when they are operating on UA's MX certificate?

To the un or ill informed, there was a SEC filing in March 2013 that will explain it, Google could be a good friend. And there is a thread that has a link to the filing.

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 145):
Dont agree. I heard that this New UA is actually improving bit by bit.

Yes, United is improving bit by bit. Taking a while, sure, but we have different problems at United than Delta had. Some Delta mechanics might be able to give more insight about this, but some former Delta Techs who now work for United say that Delta just combined everything(?) under Sceptre recently.

Quoting Sulley (Reply 146):
And you, Tommy, need to realize that you don't know as much as you think about either carrier.

He doesn't. Saw the after effects of the first bankruptcy and the trials of getting the airline back flying, lived under the Lorenzo years. Went through the second bankruptcy, lived it. Never thought back then that Continental would make it. Was going to ride Continental as long as she lasted. To the bitter end, then Mr. Bethune came along. We had many CEOs between Lorenzo and Mr. Bethune, but we were still the same Continental workforce. We were there in the bad and good years, the CEOs changed, the workforce didn't. Mr. Bethune made some great changes to Continental, and it worked, no matter what some believe.

Quoting Sulley (Reply 146):
CALTECH (and others) see these planes every day. He works on them. Now, I'm a bit more easy on the Airbii since they're a comfortable ride when non-revving (even in the middle seat as it seems to be the only thing we get these days), but they can be mx pigs.

What he says is spot on about the fleet.

CO wasn't perfect (and I've stated as such before and you've even quoted me in agreement), but neither was pre-merger United.

You are not the Don Quixote of this company. Just as in the novel, there are no ferocious windmills to battle and United is not your Dulcinea. Her honor does not need to be defended.
Quote:
Obviously I'm not a mechanic, but I'm a knowledgeable passenger. I see how planes run from a cabin perspective. And when I say that I was on 2 A320 this year, and almost a dozen sUA 757 flights in the last 2 years with no mechanical issues -- I'm being truthful. I've witnessed no duct tape, which seems to be a fallacy on this forum.
Of course when a 739 gets pulled out of service it gets a pass on the forums. What makes UA aircraft so inefficient from a mechanical perspective? Please, enlighten me.

To the ill informed, it is/was a approved fix on subUnited birds to use duct tape, it was not for years on Continental birds.

The Airbus's are a great ride. And when it is a simple circuit breaker fix and it works, it's a good airplane. Some of the computer interfaces are nice, but my preference is the 737. Could just be because of the experience level.

Those pissed off passengers were there with legacyUnited from a long time ago. As we hear it from our legacyContinental Elites, they too are pissed that some of their flights had been on United since the merger. Lots of pissed off Continental Elites. My significant other who owns a Travel Agency, has stories and failures of the old United that are legendary.

More for the uninformed, the subUAL fleet usually runs about 2-1 over the subContinental fleet in out of service aircraft. Yeah, sure, no 737-900ER ever goes out of service.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 148):
First time I've ever been on a 738 epic fail.

Yes, we've had a few of these too. Had one recently.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 149):
False--maybe a one-off quarter at best.

Yep, they were like Continental was in the l;ate 80s and early 90s. Would make a good quarter show here and there.
You are here.
 
N505fx
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:39 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 152):
Continental never posted BILLION dolllar quarterly losses. Old United did. Then again, the ill informed spout this kind of garbage.

Continental operations were never the size and scope of United's - and United's losses of billions were in BK, and were purposefully taking advantage of the BK code -
 
N505fx
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:45 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 152):
As we hear it from our legacyContinental Elites, they too are pissed that some of their flights had been on United since the merger.

I am a legacyUnited Elite that gets pissed off when I have to fly on Continental - not because of the aircraft - but because I usually find the CO crews just surly and not very gracious about the job they are doing....exceptions sometimes...but experience has shown me that the UA side of the house seem to be more polished and less bothered by doing their job -
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:56 am

Quoting N505FX (Reply 153):
Continental operations were never the size and scope of United's - and United's losses of billions were in BK, and were purposefully taking advantage of the BK code -

No kidding. Really ? Guess you're right. At one point, Continental had more destinations than United dreamed of to the Pacific, and Continental had more destinations to Europe than United and American combined, and had more International destinations than any other airline. You're right, Continental Operations were never limited like United's.

They were still losses for United, and in the most recent bankruptcy. And now the two fleets are at just about the same number of aircraft. My my, how the mighty can fall. Thank goodness the new United is coming together.
You are here.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:37 am

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 18):
They're putting wi-fi on all mainline aircraft and almost finished reconfiguring all the 777's, and have reconfigured all of the 763's that were in domestic configuration to internation standards. Plus additional spend on preventative maintenance to reduce out of service aircraft and increase on-time performance. And even on top of that, retiring older 752's, and 735's and replacing them with 739's, AND replacing the interiors on the PS fleet for the JFK transcons.

Where do you get "failing" to invest out of that?

These are all good things, but... WIFI has been available for years on aircraft. The 777s are STILL not finished, and IPTE was introduced in the late 2000s (2007 was it on the 767?). The 767s should have been reconfigured well before the merger. Preventative maintenance should be a given and not something "new" that UA is investing in... not to mention, look at the 747 fleet: allocated exclusively to SFO (+LAX and HNL) due to dispatch reliability issues. Prior to the merger, UA had no firm plans to replace the older 752s. The point- all of these "investments" are reactive, and not proactive. IPTE being the exception, but the project still isn't complete.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 40):

LAX's points are well taken and reveal a overly simplistic, poorly conceived and poorly executed plan. October will mark three years since the merger of the two airlines. We are already one year post merger of the data systems.

I agree. I also think UA took an overly simplistic view towards how its customers (and employees) would be managed during the merger and integration. Even today, from a customer experience, the merger still feels incomplete, in-limbo, temporary. You can still tell when you're flying sUA or sCO. A nice idea, but the "merger of equals" is fundamentally flawed and the company still seems confused. Someone's gotta lead, and someone's gotta follow as they say...
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:09 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 149):
In fact I would bet that US has better IT and data than AA, who probably hasn't been an IT leader in at least a decade.

Based on what I have seen, experienced, and read from US employees, I doubt it very highly.

There are several areas where I believe US brings a lot to the table - again, finance and operations, primarily. But IT does not seem, to me, to be one of them. All indications from statements Parker has made are that they intend to generally keep AA's IT backbone - and I think there's a reason why.

I would argue that AA has been an IT leader in the last few years - the investments AA is making in customer and employee technology (new/better website functionality, mobile apps, employee tablet applications, electronic flight bag, etc) have been quite impressive. AA's backbone is old, but then again, so is US'. The difference is that AA has been layering progressively newer and better customer-/employee-facing technologies on top of that old backbone, where as US doesn't appear to have been doing that, or at least not to anywhere near the same extent.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:57 pm

We can talk about the merger issues that have not worked as well as they should, but in tracking the sUA and sCo fleet for upgrades, I find that most of the work is being done on the sUA fleet.

14 767ER were being miss utilized on short hop domestic services and West Coast -Hawaii - all 14 are now reconfigured for international services with lie flat BF seating plus AVOD/power and all are operating as such today.

300 plus mainline aircraft were painted to reflect the merged company of equals. While many don't like the look, it was more economical the way it was done and the most neglected aircraft in the industry in regards to paint were painted.

300+ sCO planes were outfitted with E+, leaving UA with thre largest number of E+ seats in the industry. there are a few 737NGs to go.

The 752 fleet apparently need numerous maintenance upgrades to bring their tehnologies into the 21st Century. Right now, there are at least 14 sUA 752s in maintenance hubs getting C check, maint upgrades and ps conversions. Many 752s will be removed from service as they are marketable at this time and can be replaced on virtually all segments by equally capable 739ER and 739MAX aircraft. Those that will remain will be in better shape. Just take a look at theright column in the 752 fleet at this page - note the top 41 are done https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aj3TTkYJD3ICdDVrdkZqS3g5R0F2THBJcDRpclZkT2c#gid=7

Meanwhile the 737NG fllet seem to be running with few out of service for maint and upgrades.

I'm not saying that CO's people have all the answers and UA's people are bad, but will say that CO has spent more on newer, more capable aircraft with few subfleets. Whoever is in charge would have moved the 763ERs to international, fixed some of the 752 fleet issues and addressed 744 Y IFE issues. I would hope light is being seen at the end of the tunnel on aircraft upgrades and soon the fleet will not have so many versions of equipment. UA is making an investment that will start paying off soon.

Has the impact of the 787 delivery delays and groundings been addressed in the current financials? One would expect UA to receive something from Boeing for these issues.

[Edited 2013-04-29 07:02:55]
 
Prost
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:08 pm

As an employee for a different airline, I truly hope the conversations that occur at UAL are a lot more civil than what is on this board. I really feel for the average employee who just wants to come to work, do a good job, and they are exposed to this kind of negativity from some colleagues.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6086
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:42 pm

My god, what a read over morning coffee.

I am more concerned about the infighting than the loss.

Seems like a toxic situation...or one that is becoming toxic with the mounting losses.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:01 pm

Look, it is a new day. United is flying. The CEO is still in charge. The Livery is still there on the airplanes. We still have jobs. Passengers are boarding our airplanes and getting upgraded. OMG.


Quoting N505FX (Reply 153):
Continental operations were never the size and scope of United's - and United's losses of billions were in BK, and were purposefully taking advantage of the BK code -

Right, Continental flew to many more International destinations than United ever dreamed of. Ah, they were still BILLION DOLLAR QUARTERLY LOSSES, spin it all one wants to, but they were BILLION DOLLAR PLUS QUARTERLY LOSSES. Hope those days are long gone.

Quoting N505FX (Reply 154):
I am a legacyUnited Elite that gets pissed off when I have to fly on Continental - not because of the aircraft - but because I usually find the CO crews just surly and not very gracious about the job they are doing....exceptions sometimes...but experience has shown me that the UA side of the house seem to be more polished and less bothered by doing their job -

And yet you keep flying Continental/United. That's brilliant.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 159):
These are all good things, but... WIFI has been available for years on aircraft. The 777s are STILL not finished, and IPTE was introduced in the late 2000s (2007 was it on the 767?). The 767s should have been reconfigured well before the merger. Preventative maintenance should be a given and not something "new" that UA is investing in... not to mention, look at the 747 fleet: allocated exclusively to SFO (+LAX and HNL) due to dispatch reliability issues. Prior to the merger, UA had no firm plans to replace the older 752s. The point- all of these "investments" are reactive, and not proactive. IPTE being the exception, but the project still isn't complete.


Reacting to a lot of things. This merger is huge. Some things will just take some time. Some decisions in hindsight might show a better what if, but with analysts and advisors making recommendations and the amount of money invested, some decisions will just be worked through.Taking a airplane out of service for upgrades is very costly. Do this while the airline is trying to make money. United has about 10%+ of it's fleet out of service due to maintenance work and upgrade activity. United can not take a entire fleet out and upgrade it at the same time. Some of these upgrades take a lot of work and time, it is not easy. Plus they try to schedule a airplane when it is due a check.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 159):
I agree. I also think UA took an overly simplistic view towards how its customers (and employees) would be managed during the merger and integration. Even today, from a customer experience, the merger still feels incomplete, in-limbo, temporary. You can still tell when you're flying sUA or sCO. A nice idea, but the "merger of equals" is fundamentally flawed and the company still seems confused. Someone's gotta lead, and someone's gotta follow as they say...

Seeing some things coming together, but others are still being worked on. There are still 2 different computer systems for aircraft maintenance. Integrating them is taking a lot of time and effort. Can not stop flying airplanes to fix this. But a computer system is needed to keep track of everything going on the airplanes, there is no backup.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 161):
We can talk about the merger issues that have not worked as well as they should, but in tracking the sUA and sCo fleet for upgrades, I find that most of the work is being done on the sUA fleet.

Those merger issues will get worked out. The United fleet needed a lot of TLC, and they are getting it. Interior refreshes, reliability visits, things are happening, it is a big fleet though and United still needs to fly a schedule. Not easy. Continental 757-200s were all ETOPS and winglet equipped, you could substitute any one of them for another. Not so at legacy United, and to this day too.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 161):
I'm not saying that CO's people have all the answers and UA's people are bad, but will say that CO has spent more on newer, more capable aircraft with few subfleets. Whoever is in charge would have moved the 763ERs to international, fixed some of the 752 fleet issues and addressed 744 Y IFE issues. I would hope light is being seen at the end of the tunnel on aircraft upgrades and soon the fleet will not have so many versions of equipment. UA is making an investment that will start paying off soon.

United is old Continental and old United folks. Things do show improvement, customer ratings, on time departures. United is getting there. The hard investments of now will pay dividends later.

Quoting Prost (Reply 162):
As an employee for a different airline, I truly hope the conversations that occur at UAL are a lot more civil than what is on this board. I really feel for the average employee who just wants to come to work, do a good job, and they are exposed to this kind of negativity from some colleagues.

Some of the anger that accompanied the merger announcement has toned way down. Time will heal it for a lot of folks, but some will carry that bitterness around like some sort of badge. Many United flight crews really appreciate the United Techs working on their flights, they are getting used to it. And they are starting to work together instead of acting like seperate companies within a company. There was a culture difference between the two entities. It is a nice change.
You are here.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18256
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:08 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 167):
Time will heal it for a lot of folks, but some will carry that bitterness around like some sort of badge

Airline employees could teach the Middle East a few things about holding grudges . It's not just a UA/CO thing--it's an industry thing. There are still ex Republic employees holding on to history at DL, ex Piedmont at US, ex Canadian at AC. I cringe to imagine what kind of bitter ancient dragons are in the making at US/AA.
I don't take responsibility at all
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:35 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 164):
It sounded like Parker was just going to go for AA's systems because they were the larger of the two, and it'd be easier to convert the minority to the larger system now, and then upgrade everyone later, rather than switch everyone now.

Yes - that sounds like the plan. AA was already well on the way to upgarding their IT systems, anyway. But given the horrible experience UA has had with their cutover, I think consolidating to AA's systems first makes infinite sense.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 164):
There may be some departments where AA is still a leader, but I just don't see it between the latest hiccups and the HP partnership.

I see it, very clearly. Go look at AA's website compared to US'. Look at AA's customer-facing mobile technology compared to US'. Look at AA's onboard systems being rolled out to employees compared to US'. I think it speaks for itself. AA is clearly the leader among the two, and in some of these areas I would argue AA is actually a leader in among major U.S. carriers in general.

And as for the IT backbone, one rare 4-hour IT problem for an otherwise remarkably stable platform speaks volumes compared to the IT challenges US faced - systemically - for months following the SHARES cutover. From everything I've seen, heard and experienced, SABRE is clearly the more capable platform, even if it is old. With respect specifically to the passenger service systems, I think many FFs would attest to the superiority of AA's SABRE backbone over the SHARES backbone UA (and before them US) switched to - and I think that is to a certain extent reflected in the financial numbers we're seeing now from UA.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 164):
They've been on a steady decline while I think US is on the reverse path--whether US has surpassed AA yet I don't know.

Well I guess that's the difference - I don't see AA as having been in decline at all. Stagnation maybe, but not decline.

I think AA's financial performance and product investments of late testify to that. The "core" of AA as an enterprise is still extremely strong. AA has now essentially closed the revenue gap with DL, and by some measures surpassed UA - and that's without the benefit of the larger network AA will soon have with a merger, and without many of the benefits of broader operational, network and fleet flexibility that AA has only just received from its restructured union contracts and that other carriers like UA have in some cases enjoyed for going on a decade.

More than anything else, AA needed to be restructured, as happened at every other legacy competitor, including US. Now that AA has been able to do so, the future looks much brighter.

[Edited 2013-04-29 08:40:51]
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:44 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 155):
Quoting N505FX (Reply 154):
I am a legacyUnited Elite that gets pissed off when I have to fly on Continental - not because of the aircraft - but because I usually find the CO crews just surly and not very gracious about the job they are doing....exceptions sometimes...but experience has shown me that the UA side of the house seem to be more polished and less bothered by doing their job -

Really , I have not felt that way as I am on UA to fly home mostly and have never had that kind of experience. I have only had one bad experience with UA but for the most part find their offering to be comparable to the other US legacy airlines save for US who just doesn't measure up IMO.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:35 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 144):
no strategy for ERJ retirements

Keep bangin' that drum!

So it begins...
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:41 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 165):
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 144):
no strategy for ERJ retirements

Keep bangin' that drum!

So it begins...

LoL! This is what happens when folks who aren't the actual decision makers start making broad statements about where a company is headed. In this case, a big a/c order makes said person look a bit silly.

DL set the bar with their scope contract and UA will be following along with that program.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:07 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 165):
Keep bangin' that drum!

So it begins...

  

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 166):
LoL! This is what happens when folks who aren't the actual decision makers start making broad statements about where a company is headed. In this case, a big a/c order makes said person look a bit silly.

DL set the bar with their scope contract and UA will be following along with that program.

  

OMG United, fire the CEO, change the livery, sell all the Boeings, shut the doors, this can not be true, can not be happening, heading in the right direction and all.

The kind of thing that will keep on happening as time goes on. Can not wait to see the new aircraft along with the others in the fleet.
You are here.
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:12 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 91):
NY-area

NOW you've got it right...New York AREA

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 96):
Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 86):
Maybe at EWR, but 'coitanly' not 'in' NYC.

Really? Can't we just drop this punchline for once?

I did drop it once before, really!! You must have missed it.

My argument is that EWR is a New York AREA airport, not a New York CITY airport. It's called Newark Airport for a reason...it's in NEWARK.

Therefore, when someone said that UA was biggest in NYC, they're wrong. UA may be biggest in the NY 'area', perhaps, but not biggest in NYC. When someone refers to EWR as a NYC airport, I simply remind them that it's really just a NY 'area' airport. Nothing more than that.

If that's more than you can handle, keep calm and proceed to the next post. It's very easy to do.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
United1
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:30 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 141):
But where are the orders from UA's regional affiliates?

https://hub.united.com/en-us/News/Company-Operations/Pages/united-express-to-get-new-embraer-jets.aspx

Sorry was a day ahead of myself.... 

30 EMB-175s....to start replacing the 50 seat RJs.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
N505fx
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:59 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 155):
No kidding. Really ? Guess you're right. At one point, Continental had more destinations than United dreamed of to the Pacific, and Continental had more destinations to Europe than United and American combined, and had more International destinations than any other airline. You're right, Continental Operations were never limited like United's.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen...the hubris of sCO employees...to even insinuate that CO was as big as UA by cherry picking a few key details.....classic.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18256
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:02 am

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 168):
I simply remind them that it's really just a NY 'area' airport. Nothing more than that.

*Well* I hope you feel better about this useless piece of information, seeing as it's meaningful to no one. So what does that make IAD? Or CVG?

Quoting commavia (Reply 163):
AA was already well on the way to upgarding their IT systems, anyway.

I thought the whole thing got tabled?

Quoting commavia (Reply 163):
Stagnation maybe, but not decline.

Decline was probably the wrong word; what I'm getting at is I don't think anyone at US is going to be blown away by AA's IT prowess, res and otherwise, the way they may have been 10-20 years ago.

Quoting N505FX (Reply 170):
to even insinuate that CO was as big as UA by cherry picking a few key details.....

They were certainly converging, quickly:

http://www.airlinefinancials.com/Airline_Analysis_pre_911.html
I don't take responsibility at all
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:18 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 171):
I thought the whole thing got tabled?

The original (stupid and arrogant) IT backbone modernization plan - was tabled - but new plans are afoot (see here and here).

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 171):
what I'm getting at is I don't think anyone at US is going to be blown away by AA's IT prowess, res and otherwise, the way they may have been 10-20 years ago.

I think AA has vastly superior "IT prowess" compared to US and it shows - big time. Again - look at US' website or mobile app (look/feel and functionality), or US' (lack of) employee mobile/CRM technology. I think the vast difference speaks for itself. When you look across the industry, and compare AA to its major competitors, it's hard to find many who are doing appreciably more than AA in the area of technology. United certainly doesn't seem to be.

The recent (and rare) 4-hour IT hickup notwithstanding, AA's IT systems are generally very stable, predictable, and efficient. Customers - and in particular top-tier FF customers - value the general reliability of AA's IT systems to manage reservations, upgrades, standby lists, flight changes, complex routings, interline connections, etc. That, in and of itself, has substantial value. Just ask the US East employees who still today complain about how much simpler and more powerful/useful SABRE was compared to SHARES, and just ask the United FFs who left United after the horrible IT cutover there last year.

Again - bringing this back to the topic of this thread - I believe this is at least part of what we're witnessing at United today. Respectfully, I don't think you're giving AA enough credit for the investments they have been and are making in technology. AA's IT backbone may be old, but it's in the process of being replaced. But in many ways, AA is today among the leaders in the U.S. industry in a lot of important technology areas (FA tablets, pilot EFGs, customer mobile interfaces, etc.). I suspect this is a not-inconsequential reason why AA has been able to benefit, at a time when it needed it the most, from United's troubles.

[Edited 2013-04-29 17:26:10]
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:09 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 171):
*Well* I hope you feel better about this useless piece of information, seeing as it's meaningful to no one.

I do indeed, thank you. It only needs to be important to me.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 171):
So what does that make IAD? Or CVG?

Personally, I couldn't care less.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
Valcory
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:56 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:21 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 147):
What makes UA aircraft so inefficient from a mechanical perspective? Please, enlighten me.

How about the lack of availability of parts to fix the Sua airplanes escpecially the airbus. Airplanes are put out of service because no parts are avaiable to fix the problem. From my experience I normally have to wait a long time for a part for the Airbus airplanes.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7700
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:23 am

Wow. Very interesting and heated discussion of the numerous woes surrounding United. My favorite argument is the one about how a hub operation in the largest economic regions are not always going to be the most profitable. That is true to a degree. Each market will have some limit as to how many seats city pairs from each can sustain and post profits for the airline(s) serving them. The more airlines you have serving any one market, the more likely you are to have your yields diluted, cutting into your profits. Yet, in the CLE discussion board, the tone there seems to indicate UA may pull the plug on the hub there. Would that be wise?

The other argument I tend to favor is the one regarding the 50-seater cost-heavy flying tuna cans, and someone referenced Delta. Didn't DL sell off cost-heavy Comair, and aren't they continuing to phase out the remaining CR2s from existing regional service providers?
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
Valcory
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:56 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:34 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 152):
Woo hoo, pulling a circuit breaker to repair a Airbus, wow, that fixed it

Don't forget down powering the A/C to reset the computers.
I have seen a few LG and brake issue on the Airbus , Do you experience that as well?
 
Valcory
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:56 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:43 am

Quoting N505FX (Reply 154):
...but experience has shown me that the UA side of the house seem to be more polished and less bothered by doing their job -

How many pilots on CO side of the house do you see refusing perfectly good airplane or refusing an airplane because the APU is Inop?
 
N505fx
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:53 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 171):
http://www.airlinefinancials.com/Airline_Analysis_pre_911.html

Thanks for that link...been looking for that info, consolidated, for a long time.

Still doesn't make a case for CALTECH...but that is just data interpretation...I guess.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3895
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:08 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 172):
I think AA has vastly superior "IT prowess" compared to US and it shows - big time. Again - look at US' website or mobile app (look/feel and functionality), or US' (lack of) employee mobile/CRM technology. I think the vast difference speaks for itself. When you look across the industry, and compare AA to its major competitors, it's hard to find many who are doing appreciably more than AA in the area of technology. United certainly doesn't seem to be.

The recent (and rare) 4-hour IT hickup notwithstanding, AA's IT systems are generally very stable, predictable, and efficient. Customers - and in particular top-tier FF customers - value the general reliability of AA's IT systems to manage reservations, upgrades, standby lists, flight changes, complex routings, interline connections, etc. That, in and of itself, has substantial value. Just ask the US East employees who still today complain about how much simpler and more powerful/useful SABRE was compared to SHARES, and just ask the United FFs who left United after the horrible IT cutover there last year.

I don't think it is a matter of IT prowess; I think it is a matter differing IT philosophies.

US is notoriously cheap and does almost all of its IT in-house and and it shows in their finished products. Mobile Apps are nice, but don't effect the bottom line much, so they are not really priorities for US' limited IT staff. Other in-house developed products (like the QIK GUI overlay) actually work pretty well since they effect the efficiency of the carrier's operations. From what I understand, the QIK overlay is probably going to stick around after the merger because it is easier to train agents on compared to native SABRE and US already has a version of it developed for SABRE that was used during the US/HP merger.

AA has a sweetheart deal with SABRE (since they used to own it) and outsources many of their IT needs to them. SABRE has many more resources to develop secondary products like Mobile Apps and CRM products compared to US' in-house staff, so they should be superior....
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:31 am

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 179):
Mobile Apps are nice, but don't effect the bottom line much

I disagree.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 179):
From what I understand, the QIK overlay is probably going to stick around after the merger because it is easier to train agents on compared to native SABRE and US already has a version of it developed for SABRE that was used during the US/HP merger.

Fine, as long as they don't make the same stupid mistake they made with the last merger, and force everyone to use the overlay. Most AA agents I ever come in contact with are insanely fast and proficient with native SABRE - by virtue of seniority (both the agent, and the system). I imagine it was much the same at UA, although I'm not sure what GUI and/or overlays they gave UA agents access to after the cutover.

As long as SABRE is still being used as AA's PSS system, and therefore as long as native access exists, AA agents should be given the choice as to whether to use the native system or GUI overlay.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 179):
SABRE has many more resources to develop secondary products like Mobile Apps and CRM products compared to US' in-house staff

I could be wrong, but I doubt SABRE has been developing AA's mobile technologies (customer- or employee-facing). SABRE may have been involved in supporting middleware or backbone connectivity/integration, but I doubt SABRE has been designing the user-facing functionality and look/feel. In either event, again - AA has far more "prowess" or competency in this area than US, and it shows.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:37 am

Thirtysomething E175? They need more like 100 of these suckers to replace the heavy ERJ network.

So many new aircraft orders. How do they pay for these planes when they are losing money?
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
apodino
Posts: 4005
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:49 am

I was just thinking...is UA hurt by their hub structure? If you look at other legacies...they all have hubs where they are the top dog and there is very little other competition. UA arguably has this with IAH but there is WN competition from HOU that probably has some effect. Looking at other legacies.

AA - Since wright is in Place they have the ultimate fortress hub in DFW...which will be affected when Wright goes away in 2014, but for now AA has all the control here. MIA is another AA fortress with little competition unless you consider FLL to be in the same area.

DL - They have ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC....enough said.

US - PHL and CLT are true fortresses, and they do have a lot of control at DCA even though there is plenty of competition there.


And if you look at UA IAD is a victim of too many RJs and DCA, ORD is a bloodbath with AA plus WN at MDW, EWR is a fortress but competes with JFK and LGA for traffic, CLE is UAs version of CVG, PIT, or STL, DEN is a good hub but has little international plus a big WN presence, LAX is a bloodbath, and SFO has a strong presence but geography limits what a good hub can do.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:53 am

Quoting apodino (Reply 182):
I was just thinking...is UA hurt by their hub structure? If you look at other legacies...they all have hubs where they are the top dog and there is very little other competition. UA arguably has this with IAH but there is WN competition from HOU that probably has some effect. Looking at other legacies.

Good question. Some hubs like EWR and SFO (as sucky as they are for delays) seem to print money. IAD is another golden egg because of gov't traffic and could be utilized better, IMHO. ORD routes keep getting downsized and frequencies cut so that's never a good sign. LAX and DEN have heavy competition so they likely break even. CLE is RJ heavy so while loyalty is strong there long term it could be unsustainable with only 29 mainline flights this summer. I'm sure IAH makes money but for a fortress type hub with lots of RJs it can't be doing as well as say DL at ATL or AA at DFW.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
sulley
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:55 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:04 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 181):

Thirtysomething E175? They need more like 100 of these suckers to replace the heavy ERJ network.

So many new aircraft orders. How do they pay for these planes when they are losing money?


It is never enough, is it? Sigh.

There are also options for 40 additional frames.
In thrust we trust!
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:33 am

Quoting N505FX (Reply 170):
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen...the hubris of sCO employees...to even insinuate that CO was as big as UA by cherry picking a few key details.....classic.

More from ill and uninformed posters who panhandle aluminum but think they know the ins and outs of airlines. Read the post, more destinations, nowhere does it insinuate that Continental was as big as United, some can not comprehend the information in front of them. Epic.


Quoting Valcory (Reply 176):
Don't forget down powering the A/C to reset the computers.I have seen a few LG and brake issue on the Airbus , Do you experience that as well?

Yes. One day it was grounded for hours till a part was flown in, next day different Scarebus, it reset itself after a global reset.

Quoting Valcory (Reply 177):
How many pilots on CO side of the house do you see refusing perfectly good airplane or refusing an airplane because the APU is Inop?

Very few. Had a Airbus refused when the APU refused to start. Didn't want to fly over the Rockies with a inop APU. But always defer to the Captain's decision. He has to deal with it. The incidents have dropped dramatically, especially since the contract was signed.

Quoting N505FX (Reply 178):
Thanks for that link...been looking for that info, consolidated, for a long time. Still doesn't make a case for CALTECH...but that is just data interpretation...I guess.

The hubris of those that are proven wrong over and over again. Stick to panhandling aluminum.

Quoting Sulley (Reply 184):
It is never enough, is it? Sigh.There are also options for 40 additional frames.

It will never be enough, but does that matter what a naysayer thinks, especially when proven wrong ? Some of us can see the improvements going on. 2012 was rough, we will see how 2013 goes.
You are here.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:48 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 185):
2012 was rough, we will see how 2013 goes.

So far, not too good.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
quiet1
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:39 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:04 am

When UA bought the PA Pacific routes the grousing about who was better seemed to settle down in a couple years. Any wagers on how long it will take (or if) the grousing between sUA and sCO factions is given a (final) rest? I realize an acquisition/purchase is different from a merger, but from the interactions between employees and fanbois it's really the same p*ssing match, no?
 
N505fx
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:02 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:01 am

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 185):
Stick to panhandling aluminum.

I am not even sure what this means, other than you might have some issues that need to be dealt with, I'll stick to selling the things, you stick to turning wrenches...ok?

[Edited 2013-04-29 23:08:16]
 
sulley
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:55 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:10 am

Quoting N505FX (Reply 188):
I am not even sure what this means, other than you might have some issues that need to be dealt with.

Look at the occupation listed in your profile for a hint  

[Edited 2013-04-29 23:12:15]
In thrust we trust!
 
Valcory
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:56 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:22 am

Quoting N505FX (Reply 188):
I'll stick to selling the things, you stick to turning wrenches...ok?

There is a lot more involve than just turning wrenches, trouble shooting, avionics, sheet metal, taxing airplanes, paperwork, keepin up with the FAR etc.
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:52 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 181):
How do they pay for these planes when they are losing money?

The same way every single airline pays for new aircraft. Hint... fleet renewal is not an operating expense.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 183):
IAD is another golden egg because of gov't traffic

Which has been dramatically curtailed, the effect of which was even noted during the earnings call.

Of course, the 'sequester' and its impact on United is probably Jeff's fault too.
 
EricR
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:15 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:02 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 191):
fleet renewal is not an operating expense.



Well, the depreciation of those assets (fleet), does show up as an expense. The debt itself resides on the balance sheet until fully depreciated.
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:39 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 192):
Well, the depreciation of those assets (fleet), does show up as an expense. The debt itself resides on the balance sheet until fully depreciated.

Correct, but an airline posting an operating loss does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of obtaining financing to order new aircraft (or make any other capital expenditure).
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Wed May 01, 2013 4:39 pm

Quoting Sulley (Reply 146):
CALTECH (and others) see these planes every day. He works on them. Now, I'm a bit more easy on the Airbii since they're a comfortable ride

Fact is UA flies the Airbus' about 20% harder than anyone else. DL does about 9 hours utilization, UA is over 11 in summer periods. That is going to lead to more problems.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 152):
United filed bankruptcy just over 10 years ago

BK induced largely by 9/11 is different than driving yourself there in the boom of the 90's.

Either way everyone needs to just calmly remove their hands from the keyboards and realize that neither UA or CO survived this merger and we now have a Frankenstein that must be salvaged, and we need to get to it ASAP.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Wed May 01, 2013 4:55 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 191):

Of course, the 'sequester' and its impact on United is probably Jeff's fault too.

There have been stories published on flyertalk of gov't employees taking their business elsewhere because they are fed up with UA at IAD. However Jeff wants to spin that is beyond me.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14636
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Wed May 01, 2013 5:01 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 195):
There have been stories published on flyertalk of gov't employees taking their business elsewhere because they are fed up with UA at IAD. However Jeff wants to spin that is beyond me.

Unless the particular city in question has different City Pair carriers for DCA and IAD, how does that work?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
BCEaglesCO757
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:16 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Wed May 01, 2013 5:08 pm

For someone who has never worked at Pre or Post merger CO /UA ( or the new UA ) Tommy767 -especially in operations- you sure talk with an air of certainty and know it all.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Wed May 01, 2013 5:09 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 195):
There have been stories published on flyertalk of gov't employees taking their business elsewhere because they are fed up with UA at IAD. However Jeff wants to spin that is beyond me.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 196):
Unless the particular city in question has different City Pair carriers for DCA and IAD, how does that work?

Not sure if you guys listened to all the earnings calls, but US reported 30% decline in Gov traffic, UA only reported 25% decline.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3428
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: UAL Post Q1 Loss - $417mil Net

Wed May 01, 2013 5:38 pm

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 194):
Fact is UA flies the Airbus' about 20% harder than anyone else. DL does about 9 hours utilization, UA is over 11 in summer periods. That is going to lead to more problems.

Still a Scarebus. If it wasn't for the A-320, our serious MX callouts would probably drop about 60%-70% at MCO. We hear the same from other exContinental hubs. Could be the parts situation though, most A-320 parts have to be shipped in. Though the A-320 cushions do have more padding in the buttock area than the 737s.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 194):
BK induced largely by 9/11 is different than driving yourself there in the boom of the 90's.

Continental did not file after 9/11, though it came close. United's BK filing was more from the fallout of ESOP and the boon of the 90s, 9/11 just hastened the filing. Continental last BK filing was in Dec '90, the start of the first Gulf War, the boon of the '90s had nothing to do with it. During the boon of the '90s, Bethune took over and Continental went from near or at the bottom to the top. Just more misconceptions of what happened.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 194):
Either way everyone needs to just calmly remove their hands from the keyboards and realize that neither UA or CO survived this merger and we now have a Frankenstein that must be salvaged, and we need to get to it ASAP.

Naw, they both survived under new management. The Merger brought 2 Varney siblings that never liked each other forcibly together. Our aircraft, engines, cultures, procedures, software, hardware, etc., were and are different. Everything seems to be coming together though, the new aircraft deliveries should be all the same, such as subCAL and subUAL 787 orders. 2012 was rough, see how 2013 turns out. Tech Ops contract is in negotiations. United employees did get profit sharing for 2012.
You are here.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A350OZ, AC4500, adtall, alexwm, Baidu [Spider], cylw, ERJ170, Ishrion, Jamake1, martlet76, Ndebele, ORDFlyer99, OzarkD9S, pasodenick, qexonial, Rock3tman, solro, ZKSUJ and 212 guests

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