United, Continental Expected to Announce Merger Monday

[NIKV69]

CO has a much better name then UAL in all markets they serve

I wouldn't say all, SFO, South America is good for them but I think the airline post merger would benefit from keeping the CO name and brand.

[Mayi757]

The bigger, the harder they fall. We'll see in 10 years if this merger made any sense and benefited anyone (that is, if the airline is still around by then). It could be a huge mess if things don't go well.

I'm not sure all the reasons why UA hasn't gotten out of the hole, but their market vision hasn't been that great for the past 20 years.

After PanAm and Eastern disappeared, UA threw away the opportunity to build a base in Orlando to exploit the growing Caribbean/South American market to Florida. In Miami they let AA become a monopoly, completely pulling all international routes and by 2004 or so all was left of them at MIA was a few TED flights.

[NLovis]

The bigger, the harder they fall. We'll see in 10 years if this merger made any sense and benefited anyone (that is, if the airline is still around by then). It could be a huge mess if things don't go well.

I'm not sure all the reasons why UA hasn't gotten out of the hole, but their market vision hasn't been that great for the past 20 years.

After PanAm and Eastern disappeared, UA threw away the opportunity to build a base in Orlando to exploit the growing Caribbean/South American market to Florida. In Miami they let AA become a monopoly, completely pulling all international routes and by 2004 or so all was left of them at MIA was a few TED flights.

And let us not forget TED failed in itself. While UA has been receding CO has been expanding. Unless they keep the CO brand this will fail. Although with the CO CEO as UA CEO things will hopefully improve. But that will be hard. If any airlines have market vision its CO, AA, JB, and SWA.

[Midnight Mike]

Mike I'm not sure that's correct... CO has a much better name then UAL in all markets they serve. UAL has a Pacific network that CO doesn't have and that's the only place their name might be better known then CO. UAL does not have a positive name with frequent travelers like myself. CO's name and service is synonymous with good service and their product is just much better.

Tommy

You are looking at it from the point of point o view as a a savy Business traveller, I am at looking at as a person in the aviation industry.

All of those frequent travelers will be fully aware of the Continental/UAL details and know that Continental was the one that bought United.

Always go with the name that people know, in the United States, everybody has heard of United & Continental, oversea, United is the name people know....

If the deal goes through, the new United will do a full-court media press to keep & win back all business travelers....

[T-Bird76]

[quote=Midnight Mike]

Mike I'm not sure that's correct... CO has a much better name then UAL in all markets they serve. UAL has a Pacific network that CO doesn't have and that's the only place their name might be better known then CO. UAL does not have a positive name with frequent travelers like myself. CO's name and service is synonymous with good service and their product is just much better.

Tommy

You are looking at it from the point of point o view as a a savy Business traveller, I am at looking at as a person in the aviation industry.

All of those frequent travelers will be fully aware of the Continental/UAL details and know that Continental was the one that bought United.

Always go with the name that people know, in the United States, everybody has heard of United & Continental, oversea, United is the name people know....

If the deal goes through, the new United will do a full-court media press to keep & win back all business travelers....[/quote:3mn4rg9y]

Mike overseas CO serves more European cities then UAL and in Central and South America they serve more cities. Even on the Pacific Rim CO connects more Pacific Islands then UAL does. UAL is only larger in the Australian and New Zealand markets. The savy business traveller is also where the airlines make their money. Its not a smart move keeping the UAL name.

[T-Bird76]

CO has a much better name then UAL in all markets they serve

I wouldn't say all, SFO, South America is good for them but I think the airline post merger would benefit from keeping the CO name and brand.

Nick CO's serves more destinations in Central and South America then UAL. UAL dropped most of their routes down south.

[NIKV69]

And let us not forget TED failed in itself.

Huh? It didn't fail. UA absorbed it back into the main airline. I would imagine probably because that was the time fuel prices were unbelievable, I was paying almost 5 bucks a gallon. Crude was almost 150 a barrel. Oil prices are a major factor in airline operations. I don't know why you hate UA so much but again if your going to say thinks like "tanking" or "failed" you need to have some facts. I know they have done a lot of unpopular things to survive but they have come a long way since 9/11 and are not nearly as bad as you make them out. I can imagine people that work in the airline industry are sensitive to job losses and mergers but you have to remember that it's an industry that basically sucks to work in. It's an industry dependent on so many factors usually outside of it's control. Fuel prices, terrorism, economy etc.

[T-Bird76]

And let us not forget TED failed in itself.

Huh? It didn't fail. UA absorbed it back into the main airline. I would imagine probably because that was the time fuel prices were unbelievable, I was paying almost 5 bucks a gallon. Crude was almost 150 a barrel. Oil prices are a major factor in airline operations. I don't know why you hate UA so much but again if your going to say thinks like "tanking" or "failed" you need to have some facts. I know they have done a lot of unpopular things to survive but they have come a long way since 9/11 and are not nearly as bad as you make them out. I can imagine people that work in the airline industry are sensitive to job losses and mergers but you have to remember that it's an industry that basically sucks to work in. It's an industry dependent on so many factors usually outside of it's control. Fuel prices, terrorism, economy etc.

Nick Ted was a waste for UAL and yes it did fail much like Song failed as well, and for those who have a differing opinion...tell me why those brands aren't around?? You don't fold a brand if it’s successful. The idea of starting an airline within an airline that requires you to expend for totally different marketing, onboard product, and training is foolish. Song and Ted were setup to attempt to compete with the likes of jetBlue, Airtran, and Southwest...it didn't work. TED didn't offer anything different besides an all coach cabin and a new paint job. At least with Song Delta learned that some of Song's products were enjoyed by consumers and they merged those products into their own brand.

[Flying Tigers]

So is anyone here really surprised by this merger? Most industry experts have been calling for airline consolidation for years. There is just too much capacity and too many airlines for the current market demand in the US. It was only a matter of time before the stronger legacy carriers took over struggling legacies in order to survive and prosper. This happened in the freight rail industry and it's going to happen with the airlines. With DL merging with NW, and the continued success of WN, B6 and FL, it raised the ante for CO and AA (and maybe even US) to step up and make a move to maintain market share and remain competitive. Personally I think this is a good move by CO, provided they're able to succesfully avoid the pitfalls of major airline mergers (i.e. unions). I think what we're going to see eventually in the US are a few big mega-airlines on one tier and a second tier made up of all the LCC's picking up whatever's left.

As far as branding goes, both brands are pretty strong as far as recognition goes. Despite all their problems, UAL is still an industry leader and a globally-recognized brand. CO may currently serve more Int'l destinations (I don't have the number at hand) but they're relative Johnny-come-latelies as far as global airline brands go. CO didn't really start expanding internationally until Bethune was in charge in the late-'90's. UAL was already in the game for years at that point. Having said that, CO has definitely made a name for themselves in terms of quality of service. Whatever they decide to do as far as branding is concerned will work out. I'm not sure what all the negativity regarding UA here is all about.

[NIKV69]

Nick Ted was a waste for UAL and yes it did fail much like Song failed as well, and for those who have a differing opinion...tell me why those brands aren't around??

I would hardly call it a waste. They lasted 4 years and were competitive with Frontier on routes around the country. Everyone new UA was in a bad way finacially and the fuel spike just made it a no brainer to asorb them back into the main brand? Was an airline within an airline a good idea? Probably not but the product was getting decent CS marks and would have been fine on certain routes in and out of Denver if it wasn't for the fact that UA had barely survived the 9/11 slowdown and was struggling with sky high oil prices we may have still seen the LCC brand from both. It hardly means it was a failure. It just means a company with no wiggle room had to make some decisions and long term it seems to have worked out ok. I don't think CO would have done this if they didn't think the UA brand would hurt them.

So is anyone here really surprised by this merger? Most industry experts have been calling for airline consolidation for years. There is just too much capacity and too many airlines for the current market demand in the US. It was only a matter of time before the stronger legacy carriers took over struggling legacies in order to survive and prosper. This happened in the freight rail industry and it's going to happen with the airlines. With DL merging with NW, and the continued success of WN, B6 and FL, it raised the ante for CO and AA (and maybe even US) to step up and make a move to maintain market share and remain competitive. Personally I think this is a good move by CO, provided they're able to succesfully avoid the pitfalls of major airline mergers (i.e. unions). I think what we're going to see eventually in the US are a few big mega-airlines on one tier and a second tier made up of all the LCC's picking up whatever's left.

As far as branding goes, both brands are pretty strong as far as recognition goes. Despite all their problems, UAL is still an industry leader and a globally-recognized brand. CO may currently serve more Int'l destinations (I don't have the number at hand) but they're relative Johnny-come-latelies as far as global airline brands go. CO didn't really start expanding internationally until Bethune was in charge in the late-'90's. UAL was already in the game for years at that point. Having said that, CO has definitely made a name for themselves in terms of quality of service. Whatever they decide to do as far as branding is concerned will work out. I'm not sure what all the negativity regarding UA here is all about.

Excellent Post!

[Tom_Turner]

I would've thought it was better to keep the Continental brand. Its going to be an uphill battle to re-hab the UA brand.

Tom

[hiss srq]

I wanted to add somthing to the whole commentary on UA's ontime performance. The main reason they do that is because they play the slot game with Express and mainline flights. If a mainline flight has a wheels up 2 hours from a given time and one of the express flights has a time at or closer to the mainline scheduled time they will swap those slots or cancel the express slot to take advantage of the earlier time thus screwing the express flights passengers and/or driving down the on time performance numbers of the contract carrier.

As far as Ted goes... The formula makes no sense. They charged LCC rates while using mainline employees and mainline operating costs. That doesnt help yeilds last I checked. It pumps the LF up but kills yeilds.

[megatop412]

I wanted to add somthing to the whole commentary on UA's ontime performance. The main reason they do that is because they play the slot game with Express and mainline flights. If a mainline flight has a wheels up 2 hours from a given time and one of the express flights has a time at or closer to the mainline scheduled time they will swap those slots or cancel the express slot to take advantage of the earlier time thus screwing the express flights passengers and/or driving down the on time performance numbers of the contract carrier.

As far as Ted goes... The formula makes no sense. They charged LCC rates while using mainline employees and mainline operating costs. That doesnt help yeilds last I checked. It pumps the LF up but kills yeilds.

Interesting point about the load factor/yield distinction, it brings operations costs into perspective when wondering where all these airlines went

[njgtr82]

The vote passed today, will be announced tommorow

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/02/news/co ... htm?hpt=T2

[MarkLawrence]

Personally, and this is a totally personal opinion, CO has been our family's airline of choice for the last few years because of the great service, the great product and when it counted and I had to travel overseas on a family emergency, their ability to work to get the best deal. I will be very sad to see the CO product disappear and I think that UA will mess this up totally. I guess AA or DL is going to get the business back..........