Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 48): There have been a lot of studies at the MBA and beyond level into the operations at hubs. Drives business types nuts. Banked hubs maximize connections but require great amounts of resources and results in massive amounts of down time (gates go empty, staff is not stretched, etc). Rolling hubs obviously seek to flatten out the demand spikes somewhat but the result is some bad connection opportunities for passengers.

Hubs below a certain size and/or those that are highly directional are better run with a banked operation. DEN is small enough to where it needs banks to maximize connections across limited frequencies per market.

IAH may be big enough to be banked, but is highly directional at various periods throughout the day. Plus, IAH also have a high amount of low-frequency markets that need banks to mazimize connecting flows.

I've been curious as to where Delta was at the same point in the process. This is clearly not an exact science and no two post-merger integrations are the same, so at a detailed level, this is an unfair comparison. At a high level, the numbers indicate that the United/Continental merger is not tracking to the DL timeline. As may have speculated in this thread and others, there are a myriad of reasons for that. I"m not smart enough to really be able to diagnose United from my couch.

Key Dates of DL/NWA

29 Oct. 2008: DOJ approves merger
31 Dec. 2009: single operating cert
31 Jan. 2010: Ground Ops and Reservation Systems Merged

2012Q1 (roughly 3 years post DOJ approval) $124m profit
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...elta-quarter-fuel-million.html.csp


Key Dates of UA/CAL

27 Aug 2010: DOJ approves merger
30 Nov. 2011: single operating cert
I can't find the actual date that the ground ops and reservation systems merged - i remember that the reservation system switch failed at least once.

2014Q1 (roughly 3 years post DOJ approval) - $600m loss, this quarter.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 51): IAH may be big enough to be banked, but is highly directional at various periods throughout the day. Plus, IAH also have a high amount of low-frequency markets that need banks to mazimize connecting flows.

DEN and IAH are already banked, so I'm not sure what 'rebanking' would mean other than redoing the banks.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 9): The impact of weather events was a real impact to Q1 - UA is stating $200 M and DL is stating $90 M, which would be expected with the differences in network and hubsite locations that were impacted over the winter. That still doesn't explain or excuse the rest of their Q1 results.

Weather is often blamed for poor management performance. While it is more applicable to transportation, blaming the weather is often a red flag whenever that is an oft cited excuse on the conference call.

However, the quarter was not nearly bad enough for large investors to head for the exit so management will stay in place for the moment. We may see more labor cutbacks and other "enhancements."

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 33):

Quoting tlecam (Reply 32):

Quoting United1 (Reply 39):

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 46):

So here's my thought on banking. It's a cost/revenue trade off. You get shorter connections which get better display on Expedia, etc, but you also get a big cost increase. Aircraft utilization goes down around 10-15% and labor costs go way up as you need more employees (and equipment) to run a banked operation. Basically instead of having x employees working 20 gates with 30 minutes between flights, you have 1.5x employees working 30 gates with 1 hour breaks between flights. Generally if a hub has 250+ flights then banking isn't as necessary.

Bottom line this will cost a lot. Banking is usually more important in recessions when traffic is weak and connectivity needs to be optimized while utilization is not an issue. This is a strange time to do it. AA is doing it in MIA too, but I can rationalize that a little more because of its geography (that's a more complicated explanation).

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 54): However, the quarter was not nearly bad enough for large investors to head for the exit so management will stay in place for the moment. We may see more labor cutbacks and other "enhancements."

Just when they need to be spending more to attract HVC's.

Stock is plummeting, down 11% now...is this the end of Jeff?

Quoting bwwt (Reply 2): Has UA ever made a profit since the merger?

Quoting panamair (Reply 10): Yes, but when they just combined results (where UA and CO were still essentially operating as separate carriers in most areas). For example, in 2011, UACO reported about $1.3 billion of Net Profits excluding specials (3.5% margin) compared to Delta's $1.2 billion (+3.4% margin). Things started going wrong around 2012, where they reported for the full year a $589m Net Profit (excl specials) when DL came in at $1.6 billion.

Um, are you forgetting 2013? It was a very solid year.

Quoting United1 (Reply 21): UA is no where near as much of a mess as is made out on here....way too much hysterics and hype.

Yes and no. There is a lot of hysteria and such but the bottom line is that UA isn't running a very good airline right now and leadership is dancing around it.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 28): History doesn't matter, this airline is NOT the old United or Continental. If their peers, who as others have said have nearly equally diversified and geographically centered networks, are posting huge gains, and UA cannot even break even, there is something fundamentally broken in the c-suite, plain and simple. There is really no reason an airline of this size and with these assets should not be printing money in this market, except for poor leadership and planning.

Well said. And you're right. This is what you get with a "merger of equals"...

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 33): It means rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Hardly. What IAH needs is to be built up to ATL size--a true fortress hub that has the frequency to more major cities. The problem isn't the "banking" (it's already banked)...it's that there aren't enough banks or trips to markets that should have them. Time to start letting the biggest capacity hub in the largest growing market in the country. Let the big dog eat!

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 57): Stock is plummeting, down 11% now...is this the end of Jeff?

Let's wait to see where it closes. There will likely be a mid-afternoon rebound... It's already back to -8% from when you posted 8 minuts ago...

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 28):

Quoting avi8 (Reply 38): The airline has so much potential and it is sad to see it slowly going down. I fly UA a lot, and I do agree with what someone said earlier about people bringing UA's flaws out of proportion. Yes, the numbers are red, but I do believe that things will get better at UA. All the mistakes have been made, and hopefully the UA management has learned from them and can now start climbing uphill.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4444

I'll bet if you look at the revenue UCH made as much as anybody ELSE.. However?
if you look at what they what they spent Money ON?? You might find they added to the bank account,
paid down debt and took a BUNCH of charges for upcoming Contract settlements (Dispatches and Mechanics)
(which they pre-charged upfront) and all the upgrades to terminals which I have counted to be over half a Billion Dollars to date.
I leads me to believe they're shining this apple up for SALE rather than running an ongoing concern, Especially since they have so MUCH
MORE to do in the integration that they haven' done YET. Buying new airplanes is nice, and that's true but it Appears that we're doing too much too fast.
IMHO.

Although I agree that there needs to be a major shake up with the current management team - I have two concerns:

1. There have been so many mistakes made during the merger in which we are too deep at this point to change course: for example: SHARES disasters; merger branding disaster...

2. A new management team will likely mean more short term transition and the benefits won't be realized for a while.

I can't believe we are this far into the merger and getting these kinds of results... it is shocking. I feel bad for the employees of UA because they have given and sacrificed and the management team has dropped the ball.

Quoting Slider (Reply 59): Um, are you forgetting 2013? It was a very solid year.

Not compared to DL. UA should have started catching up to DL in 2013 (after the abysmal 2012), but they didn't do so.

Quoting Slider (Reply 59): What IAH needs is to be built up to ATL size

IAH has the O&D, but it doesn't have the geographic location to be ATL. Not to mention that UA doesn't have the metal available to build up IAH, unless you're going to close another hub. However, closing any more hubs (beyond CLE) would start to materially weaken UA's network.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 53): DEN and IAH are already banked, so I'm not sure what 'rebanking' would mean other than redoing the banks.

Agreed. I don't understand what they are talking about here other than redoing the banks. Granted, I don't think this rebanking effort will make much of a difference. UA's banks at IAH/DEN are not the main problem.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 56): Just when they need to be spending more to attract HVC's.

And this is another problem. UA keeps cutting and attacking the business flyers who it should be trying the hardest to attract.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 63): IAH has the O&D, but it doesn't have the geographic location to be ATL. Not to mention that UA doesn't have the metal available to build up IAH, unless you're going to close another hub. However, closing any more hubs (beyond CLE) would start to materially weaken UA's network.

I'm not at all sure it would be effective to build up IAH. Its location is best suited for an east-west hub connecting the Southeast to California and the Midwest which is perfectly acceptable. If for whatever reason UA decided to dig deep for planes at the cost of other operations, there is either 1. pull down LGA and focus almost solely on EWR or 2. Pull down IAD. IAD is not as important in the UA network as it was before EWR, and it was already a bad hub to attempt to serve the Southeast. They could always try to get creative and try to trade LGA slots to someone for more at DCA and dump the IAD hub altogether, keeping their share of the premium local traffic, flowing the majority of Europe flying through EWR and hoping an expansion at IAH can give that hub the critical mass to serve the Southeast without losing their shirts in the process.

The weather did impact them greatly because of their inept fleet usage. You had routes like MCO-IAH which were getting cancelled left right and center over inbounds coming from EWR or CLE.

Poor planning on the network; mixing aircraft between hubs during the day ; it's NOT rocket science. After I got hosed in both DEC and JAN and flights being cancelled that had NO weather issues in originating and destination 5 times due to inbound aircraft still planned 24 hours before to come from weather prone areas you have to ask yourself does UA have the ability to run an airline. I GET the weather was problematic... yet AA banked DFW flights to stay as much as possible return segments back/forth to/from DFW limiting impact. When UA as a 1K gave me ZERO options one day in Jan from MCO to LAX (no they wouldn't put me on DL, they told me 2 days to get out) - NO WEATHER in MCO - NONE in LAX... I was able to buy a ticket on AA thru DFW and get out 4 hours after UA gave me this bunk. No imagine the non elites, imagine the cancelled flights in regions NOT affected by weather.... Hmmmm wouldn't that affect revenue as flights are severely curtailed even in regions with no weather impact. Then it's compensation, rebooking - perception to never rebook on UA. Again I get this was weather but UA was inept in how they ran their operation when weather was shutting down a great chunk on their flights and affecting inbound aircraft into markets with no issues.

The institutional investors need to demand accountability... AA and DL had issues and worked through them - UA fell apart.

Looks like the following AP article headline sums it up.

"For airlines not named United, it was a great 1Q"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airlin...-named-united-great-145250909.html

A closer look at the numbers tells the whole story.

Q1 RASM for the big three

DL: 14.24 Cents
AA/US: 13.67 Cents
UA: 12.91 Cents

UA is not generating as much Revenue as either DL or AA/US. This is clearly an area they need to adress.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 61): I'll bet if you look at the revenue UCH made as much as anybody ELSE..

Huh? UAL is the 2nd largest airline in the world and it managed to take in less Revenue in Q1 than the third largest (Delta):

Total Operating Revenues: $8.70 billion (vs $8.92 B at DL or $10B at AA)
Total Pax Revenues: $7.38 B (vs $7.68 B at DL or $8.67B at AA)
Mainline Pax Revenues: $5.85 billion (vs $6.22 B at DL or $7.26B at AA)

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 9): The impact of weather events was a real impact to Q1 - UA is stating $200 M and DL is stating $90 M, which would be expected with the differences in network and hubsite locations that were impacted over the winter. That still doesn't explain or excuse the rest of their Q1 results.

All airlines were impacted by the crappy weather in the North East and Central plains. ATL was hugely impacted by the weather this winter.

Quoting United1 (Reply 21): To some extent that is true in any industry but at the end of the day the individual company (in this case UA) is ultimately responsible for their own stock performance

I agree and they fell short of what their owners were expecting and we see the results in the stock price.

Quoting United1 (Reply 40): Quoting 777ord (Reply 36): Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 28): I'm one of the bigger UA supporters on this board, but lets be honest here. It's 3+ years since the merger, and this airline has no direction to speak of. Stagnation and new seat covers does not represent a coherent business strategy, and they have made next to no progress in unifying the remaining labor groups. You can point fingers at the unions all you want, but a strong corporate leadership MAKES THINGS HAPPEN. Stock is already down 6.5%, lets hope it drops more to finally push the BoD to do something about this mess. Agreed. We need change, and we need a leader who can say no in the face of a Union, or NO to an absurd idea etc.... I do actually agree that its time for a management shakeup....simply put I think that the current management team has brought UA as far as they can with the merger.

I think that they can still drive UA down further and unless they get their house in order there will be consequences in the market. You can't run a business and not make a profit especially in light of the profits that DL and AA are making and yet UA is losing money. This summer will be interesting if UA can't start turning things around.

Quoting panamair (Reply 68): Total Pax Revenues: $7.38 B (vs $7.68 B at DL or $8.67B at AA) Mainline Pax Revenues: $5.85 billion (vs $6.22 B at DL or $7.26B at AA)

Which means that Express Revenue would be as follows:

United: 1.53 Billion
Delta: 1.46 Billion
American: 1.41 Billion

What I get from this is that too much express flying is a damper on Revenue. Which is exactly what a lot of people on here have been stating for a while.

I think it is taking a little longer to realize some of the cost synergies that were projected by the merger from the get-go. The fact that crews are not exactly 100% interchangeable by now can be a cost driver. Also must be noted, that MX crews are purportedly not interchangeable as well, so that can add to the operational complications in addition to adding cost.

A streamlined, simplified, concrete vision for the organization has not been outlined as well. It looks like a smorgasbord of various "pocket initatives" both on the CS / OPS side that have truly hindered any progress.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 64): I'm not at all sure it would be effective to build up IAH. Its location is best suited for an east-west hub connecting the Southeast to California and the Midwest which is perfectly acceptable. If for whatever reason UA decided to dig deep for planes at the cost of other operations, there is either 1. pull down LGA and focus almost solely on EWR or 2. Pull down IAD. IAD is not as important in the UA network as it was before EWR, and it was already a bad hub to attempt to serve the Southeast. They could always try to get creative and try to trade LGA slots to someone for more at DCA and dump the IAD hub altogether, keeping their share of the premium local traffic, flowing the majority of Europe flying through EWR and hoping an expansion at IAH can give that hub the critical mass to serve the Southeast without losing their shirts in the process.

I thought that IAH and to an extent IAD will have to work together to serve the South East now that US is gone from *. Problem is that everyone prefers DCA. IMHO, pulling down IAD is not an option right now.

And IAH is already a banked hub. How much more optimization does it needs?

LGA is the favored airport for the NYC traveler, and you have to keep whatever slots (albeit small) you have.
JFK of course serves a different purpose with the P.S. operation.
EWR is a work in progress right now with all of the construction going on right now.

Bottom line is the RJ's (145's and 200's) are killing us with cancellations. Now with FAR 117, it will get a lot worse. This summer will get very interesting.

BTW, how bad in shape was the sUA 757's that are right now being replaced with the 739's? From what I'm reading from other posters, UA needs more mainline aircraft, and the fleet will not be growing anytime soon.

First off it is obvious that while Smisek attempts to poorly emulate Anderson/DL it appears he is taking advice from his Houston neighbor Frank Lorenzo...who killed more airlines in 15 years than anyone.

Why United Continental (UAL) Stock Is Down Today
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12681...-today.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

Two lowlights from the report:
◾Net operating cash flow has significantly decreased to -$334.00 million or 471.11% when compared to the same quarter last year. In addition, when comparing to the industry average, the firm's growth rate is much lower.
◾The debt-to-equity ratio is very high at 4.16 and currently higher than the industry average, implying increased risk associated with the management of debt levels within the company. To add to this, UAL has a quick ratio of 0.55, this demonstrates the lack of ability of the company to cover short-term liquidity needs.

Quoting apodino (Reply 67): A closer look at the numbers tells the whole story. Q1 RASM for the big three DL: 14.24 Cents AA/US: 13.67 Cents UA: 12.91 Cents UA is not generating as much Revenue as either DL or AA/US. This is clearly an area they need to adress.

These aren't stage-length adjusted. It's a known fact that UA's network is transcon and long-haul international heavy.

UA can spare a few mainline planes if they stop engaging in the EWR-SFO/LAX pissing match with VX.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 72): BTW, how bad in shape was the sUA 757's that are right now being replaced with the 739's? From what I'm reading from other posters, UA needs more mainline aircraft, and the fleet will not be growing anytime soon.

It was stated on the conference call this morning that each 739 that replaces a 752 saves $2 million in fuel costs per year.

Now what you have to figure out if you're in revenue management is if you could have more revenue from flying around those extra 182 seats for a year with paying passengers than you would by retiring the aircraft and saving the $2mil.

Smisek himself has said they have a revenue problem, and revenues this quarter were down over last year.

Personally, I stick as many mainline seats in the air this summer as I could when the chances of having a load factor north of 85% are high, and charging nicely for those seats. But Jeff hasn't asked me. Looks like that would generate some cash flow too.

Quoting Jamake1 (Thread starter): "Houston, we have a problem."

It ain't our problem anymore.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 53): DEN and IAH are already banked, so I'm not sure what 'rebanking' would mean other than redoing the banks.

When did DEN become banked? Its been a rolling hub for years as far as I knew...

Quoting United1 (Reply 21):

Your views represent what is wrong with UA executives and management. Even when faced with concrete evidence you still find a way to come up with excuses. To say that UA is no where as much of a mess as it's made out to be is completely ridiculous. UA performance was worst this quarter than it was in 2013 and the unfortunate thing is there was no existential reason for it. UA can't blame the harsh winter because AA/US and DL for faced the same conditions. Even if we eliminate DL and just focus on AA, they canceled 33,000 flights UA canceled 35,000 flights but somehow even with that record number of cancelations AA recorded a profit of $480 million while UA recorded a a loss of $489 million. But yet despite all of the evidence you are still defending UA claiming that this is an over reaction.

Have you even read the comments employees have left on Flying Together? Have you taken time today to listen to front line employees, flight attendants, pilots and other coworkers they all are talking about this record loss and I have yet to hear one single employee say this is an over reaction. I am hearing employees ask what is our problem. I'm hearing coworkers say UA is heading in the wrong direction. After reading what was posted on Flying Together what I saw was more of the same excuses and tired rhetoric, but when I read the comments section I saw employees asking for a detailed plan from executives asking how UA will turn things around. And some of the comments look strikingly similar to the comments left back in January when UA posted its 4Q earnings and financials for the 2013. Back in January employees asking for a detailed plan and UA executives still have not provided anything and it is evident that UA executives don't know how to turn UA around when you look at 1Q results for 2014. Why don't you tell us here on a.netters better yet why don't you tell the employees of UA what is working tell us how we are succeeding, please by all mean point out the silver lining in UA's abysmal performance. Because from where I'm sitting all I see is failure and a company without a plan for success and whose leaders are trying to convince employees that everything is ok.

The time for change is now if not now when? When UA enters bankruptcy again because that is where it seems like UA could be headed and who knows perhaps that has been the plan all along.

Quoting United1 (Reply 47): In some ways ahead and in some ways not so much...DL slapped a lot of lipstick onto a pig and made it look good they have only in the past year or so actually started turning their on board product structurally into a good one. UA is skipping the lipstick part...ooops.

UA is skipping a lot of parts and overall UA is missing a viable workable plan for success. Say what you want but the truth is customers must prefer lipstick on a pig because DL is winning in almost every category while UA is loosing.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 8): Analyst 1: Your revenue performance is trailing the industry. Smisek: We've got 787's. Analyst 2: Your cost performance is trailing the industry. Smisek: C'mon guys we've got 787's. Analyst 3: Your merger doesn't seem to be producing any benefits. Smisek: 7-8-7.

You forgot to say "game changer." That's mandatory when referring to a UA 787.  

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 28): I'm one of the bigger UA supporters on this board, but lets be honest here. It's 3+ years since the merger, and this airline has no direction to speak of. Stagnation and new seat covers does not represent a coherent business strategy, and they have made next to no progress in unifying the remaining labor groups. You can point fingers at the unions all you want, but a strong corporate leadership MAKES THINGS HAPPEN.

Which is exactly why Smisek can't go any where. He needs to be a scapegoat. He needs to do the dirty work of joint those groups, so his replacement can be the good guy who takes UA forward. Smisek is a transition CEO and the transition is not complete. However, I'm not in the room, if he is never going to get that done, it changes the equation.

Quoting United1 (Reply 78): When did DEN become banked? Its been a rolling hub for years as far as I knew...

It's probably the most banked hub after IAD, for as long as I can remember, at least the mid 2000s?

Quoting 777ord (Reply 36): Quoting catiii (Reply 35): Quoting 777ord (Reply 27): Have you looked at the internal job postings? yeesh!! What's going on? A lot of people leaving? If not leaving, then moving within the company. But the majority of postings are IT and $$$.

Quoting 777ord (Reply 36): Quoting catiii (Reply 35): Quoting 777ord (Reply 27): Have you looked at the internal job postings? yeesh!! What's going on? A lot of people leaving? If not leaving, then moving within the company. But the majority of postings are IT and $$$.

Everything else is being farmed out ...

Quoting Jamake1 (Thread starter): "Houston, we have a problem."

What Houston? Chicago.

Quoting United1 (Reply 13): ...if you invested in UA at the time of the merger you will have doubled your money as of today....

if you invested in AA last year you could have easily quintupled your money and DL would have returned more than twice as much as UA as well.

Quoting NickLAX (Reply 65): The weather did impact them greatly because of their inept fleet usage. You had routes like MCO-IAH which were getting cancelled left right and center over inbounds coming from EWR or CLE. Poor planning on the network; mixing aircraft between hubs during the day ; it's NOT rocket science. After I got hosed in both DEC and JAN and flights being cancelled that had NO weather issues in originating and destination 5 times due to inbound aircraft still planned 24 hours before to come from weather prone areas you have to ask yourself does UA have the ability to run an airline. I GET the weather was problematic... yet AA banked DFW flights to stay as much as possible return segments back/forth to/from DFW limiting impact. When UA as a 1K gave me ZERO options one day in Jan from MCO to LAX (no they wouldn't put me on DL, they told me 2 days to get out) - NO WEATHER in MCO - NONE in LAX... I was able to buy a ticket on AA thru DFW and get out 4 hours after UA gave me this bunk. Now imagine the non elites, imagine the cancelled flights in regions NOT affected by weather.... Hmmmm wouldn't that affect revenue as flights are severely curtailed even in regions with no weather impact. Then it's compensation, rebooking - perception to never rebook on UA. Again I get this was weather but UA was inept in how they ran their operation when weather was shutting down a great chunk on their flights and affecting inbound aircraft into markets with no issues. The institutional investors need to demand accountability... AA and DL had issues and worked through them - UA fell apart.

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Quoting Triple7Lr (Reply 20): Let's be honest UAL's stock is being carried by its industry peers.

Seems like it is.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 72): I thought that IAH and to an extent IAD will have to work together to serve the South East now that US is gone from *. Problem is that everyone prefers DCA. IMHO, pulling down IAD is not an option right now. And IAH is already a banked hub. How much more optimization does it needs? LGA is the favored airport for the NYC traveler, and you have to keep whatever slots (albeit small) you have. JFK of course serves a different purpose with the P.S. operation. EWR is a work in progress right now with all of the construction going on right now. Bottom line is the RJ's (145's and 200's) are killing us with cancellations. Now with FAR 117, it will get a lot worse. This summer will get very interesting.

IAH seems efficient when compared to EWR. Of course EWR will never be LGA or JFK, same story as with IAD vs DCA. Agree with you that the 145s and the CRJ2s need to go and that new rules will cut into regional's business models.

Not sure what's so bad about the sUA 752s, sure the interior is outdated but the 752 is a very capable aircraft. Fuel economy might be better on the 739 but look at all the complaints it has drawn on silly things like 'new plane but no IFE' and all that. It's not the 787 you see in the commercial, but because it's brand new people think it should be light years better than the 739.

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 73): First off it is obvious that while Smisek attempts to poorly emulate Anderson/DL it appears he is taking advice from his Houston neighbor Frank Lorenzo...who killed more airlines in 15 years than anyone.

Yeah, that's perhaps the most damming thing for Jeff in the long run, poor copy of DL and potentially taking poor advice from god knows where.

Quoting IAHWorldflyer (Reply 76): Now what you have to figure out if you're in revenue management is if you could have more revenue from flying around those extra 182 seats for a year with paying passengers than you would by retiring the aircraft and saving the $2mil.

The 739s being delivered have 179 seats, only 3 fewer than the 752. But then the question becomes, if the 739 takes over the 752 missions are there enough markets that want the 752 or not.

Quoting United1 (Reply 78): When did DEN become banked? Its been a rolling hub for years as far as I knew...

All of UA's hubs except EWR are banked.

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 31): What does re-banking mean?

Cashiering.  

The expected bad results are in...

Quoting United1 (Reply 21): UA is no where near as much of a mess as is made out on here....way too much hysterics and hype.

Agreed. Obviously changes are needed, but it's not dire, and it's likely fixable. The revenue side needs work, and the UA employees could do their part on the cost side too by moving forward towards consolidation.

Quoting PMUA787 (Reply 23): The over reliance on RJ lift domestically can't be helping the bottom line either.

Let's be honest here. Fleet type has much less impact on the bottom line that we make it out to be here. DL, AA, and US have all been making nice profits with oodles of 50-seaters on the roster.

Quoting United1 (Reply 30): Listing to the conference call now sounds like UA is planning on re-banking DEN and IAH....

That would be very nice. I'm surprised DEN isn't banked. To me, rolling hubs are only useful if it's a huge hub. DEN isn't that. They need to take advantage of the excellent connecting opportunities DEN offers.

Quoting catiii (Reply 35): Ok, but AA is in ORD too, and DL is in MSP and DTW, in the same region.

The winter MSP had wasn't nearly as bad as ORD. And remember, ORD is already a congested airport. It can't handle weather events like DTW or MSP. I can definitely see how UA was hit the hardest by the winter we had. Still not THE reason they lost big money, but it could be A reason.

Quoting catiii (Reply 35): I tend to agree flying them as much as I do, but I fly DL on an equal basis (both out of NYC) and DL's operation is just head and shoulders above UA's, from mainline through to the regionals. And the DL earnings reflect that.

And from my experiences, UA is clearly above DL's offering. The opposite of the earnings. Does it prove anything? No.

Quoting DTW.SCE" class="quote" target="_blank">PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 49): There is far greater concerns that onboard product that drive revenue. Operational disipline, pricing/revenue management, and capacity deployment are far greater drivers that on-board product differentiators.

Absolutely. Onboard product is a minor factor. That's why UA's problems can be more easily fixed than some believe.

Does UAL still have a worse reputation than the other big carriers among potential customers? If so, I'm curious what role that might be playing in this. Are UAL's planes relatively emptier than the other big carriers? I still avoid UAL at all costs even though SFO is my home airport.

Quoting 777ord (Reply 36): We need change, and we need a leader who can say no in the face of a Union, or NO to an absurd idea etc.

How about one who can put butts in seats? That would help much more.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 79): Your views represent what is wrong with UA executives and management. Even when faced with concrete evidence you still find a way to come up with excuses.

I'm not a UA executive or even employee...I'm one of your customers one who flies about 150K a year on you. I happen to believe that UA is salvageable and isn't quite the basket case that its made out to be on here. In fact in the other thread regarding UAs financial performance I posted a few suggestions...one of which was a management shakeup.

I've been flying UA since I was in-utero (my dad spent 30+ years working at United in Chicago) and for about the last 10-12 years 100K plus every year...I've been flying you guys through BK, summer of hell and pretty much everything in between. All in all UA does a very good job by me...I get from point A to point B generally with a minimum off fuss and when problems happen I don't let myself become a victim (too many people on flyertalk and even on here allow themselves to be victims.) I'm proactive and have a good idea on how to get myself out of whatever situation that I find myself in...

What I have told people time and time again is the following....don't PANIC. UA needs to make some changes no one argues with that, including upper management, but UA was profitable in 2013 and is projected to be profitable in 2014...don't be shortsighted and simply look at one quarter. The ship is not sinking it's just not climbing as fast as we want it to be. God forbid someone on here actually is a bit optimistic and doesn't jump on the I hate UA or we are doomed bandwagon....

In my opinion, after listening to the conference call I noticed how "soft" the questioning was from the analysis. No one had gotten good questions in. Also only one member of the media got a question in. Then the conference call ended abruptly.

I don't understand stocks, so maybe someone can explain how a company's stock price can go up when the competition like AA and DL are outperforming UA financially and performance-wise? How does this happen?

The net profit comparison after excluding special charges:

AA/US - $402 million profit
DL- $213 million profit
UA- $489 LOSS

What a stunning comparison.



[Edited 2014-04-24 12:17:42]