From "the Motley Fool" Newsletter

[Bear96]

Jamake1,
I was on a hotel van with my crew and had the misfortune of having a United crew grace us with their presence during the merger fiasco. We were told by the flight attendants that we were not welcome on United property and were certainly not welcome to wear the United uniform. Those actions were directed at US-your flying brothers and sisters- not at management. I have yet to see an apology from any United employee and there were many of my coworkers who saw similar actions from other United f/as and pilots. And a heartfelt thanks to the other United crews who refused to get on hotel vans with us. We enjoyed the peace! I wish you well in these tumultuous times as I truly believe in the quote-There, but for the grace of God, go I, but please remember all of the other airline employees who were drowning at one time or another and all we got was a smirk from your airline as it was apparent that our demises were being prayed for.

Oh lordy, here we go...

This was discussed to death back in the times when the merger was being actively contemplated. For every story like that about a UA crew, we had U crews coming over and asking us our seniority and what we were flying and were then told, sneeringly, "You better enjoy it while you can because we're coming to take it."

So what does this prove? There are morons working at both U and UA; and neither work force is 100% made up of angels. That is not in dispute-- so do we have to keep reliving it?

 

[BillLumbergh]

Wow. Go away for a weekend and let the hairpull begin.

OK, for this thread, any further attacks and the attacker is going to take a nice three-day vacation.

One and ONLY warning.

Back on topic now.

 

[SkyLiner]

mergers/acquisitions sure get ugly...ask someone who was "acquired not hired" That's the sticker we used to see. I can't believe people that were hired to be friendly and helpful to other people can get so gutter.

 

[jimntx]

mergers/acquisitions sure get ugly...ask someone who was "acquired not hired" That's the sticker we used to see. I can't believe people that were hired to be friendly and helpful to other people can get so gutter.

Hubris is a dangerous mental attitude for anyone in the airline business. Not only is it a total waste of time, there is a god (lower-case g used deliberately) of justice in the universe that sees to it that what goes around comes around.

Anyone at UAL or U or any other airline who rejoices in the difficulties of another will get their just desserts. And, don't think for a second that anyone buys the "we didn't mean anything against the employees, it was management we were mad at" argument. Puhleeeze! I was born, but not yesterday.

If CAL had gone under during that period, it would NOT have been the management types who would have been hurt. If US Airways fails, it will not be the CCY guys who lose their homes or have to pull up stakes and move to find work or have to take a "paper hat" job in order to feed their kids. If UAL collapses, I doubt Glenn Tilton will have to cancel a single country club membership (and I think Glenn Tilton is one of the good guys).

With all the sniping back and forth and the "you-eat-boogers-well-you-eat-bigger-boogers" level of discourse--it cannot be dignified by the terms, discussion or adult conversation, have any of you noticed that you almost never see anyone from the LCCs on here crowing about how they are taking market share, stealing customers, etc.? They all seem to respond to attacks with unspun facts, then go about doing what they do very well--flying satisfied passengers from Point A to Point B for a low price.

Well, that and doing the "little things" that make a difference (see the thread about JB buying pizza for passengers whose flight was delayed due to weather, and sharing that pizza with the U passengers at the next gate whose flight was also delayed). Those of us at the "legacy" carriers need to start doing what we do well, or it won't matter whose fault our demise is--we'll still be gone. It's like the old joke that if you as a pedestrian step out in front of a car that runs the red light, it doesn't really matter that you had the right of way.

 

[latreal]

Hubris is a dangerous mental attitude for anyone in the airline business. Not only is it a total waste of time, there is a god (lower-case g used deliberately) of justice in the universe that sees to it that what goes around comes around.

POST TRIMMED BY MODERATOR

:huh: :blink:

 

[The Ronin]

Thanks for your feedback, and I appreciate your effort to restrain your comments. I know that this is a difficult topic that is close to home for many, and I also realize that I could very well be wrong about my view of the industry. I don't pretend to be able to see the future, but I have an opinion about the way it will play out which I try to reflect in the pieces that I write.
I also am a frequent traveller on United and a Premier Executive member of Mileage Plus. When I travel, I receive nothing but outstanding service from you and your colleagues. I particularly appreciate that given the huge sacrifices that you have all made in recent years. Unfortunately, my view of the company as an investor is quite different than the view I have as a passenger, and for the Motley Fool, my role is to write only as an investor, and for my pieces to reflect my opinions -- right or wrong.
Kind regards,
Salim
Salim Haji
Permanent email: [email protected]

----Original Message Follows---- To: [email protected]
Subject: Irony
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:05:02 –0700
Salim, don't you find it ironic that at least 2 of the airlines you quoted in your article for lobbying against UAL received ATSB loans? And they didn't even lose one aircraft, passengers or crew. Though I personally have my reservations on UAL business and management practices, I find a plethora of your types who have never worked one day in this industry, but completely understand all the issues and problems and are quick to judge and dismiss the lives of thousands of people. The terrorist targeted these airlines specifically (UAL, AMR) regardless of what politically charged Sept 11 report implies. To have the 2nd largest US airline pass into history because of these individuals would truly be a national shame. I have restrained my comments to the best of my abilities, if you had any concept of what I and millions of other Americans are feeling these days, it would scare the sh*t out of you. May you continue to enjoy the prosperity you have in this country, while wishing the worst for so many others.

My letter in regards to the article and Salim's response

 

[Fly]

WTG Ronin. Great letter....you wrote what we feel.


As far as being treated like garbage by other airline crews....lets just say, I was based in Philly at the time of the supposed merger. So much fun using the employee bus!...NOT. They had so much fun talking about what their seniority could hold of the United trips, what my seniority was, how close I was to NOT being able to hold a decent trip, etc,etc,etc. I transfered, the merger didn't happen, 9/11 did happen, airline industry is in shambles, sniff. That merger was a two way street on treating each other like crap.

 

[avek00]

One point should be made crystal clear: United was NOT seeking an ATSB guarantee for the sole purpose of receiving a lower interest rate on a loan -- rather, the company tried to obtain the guarantee because, as the company is finding out as we speak, a market-based solution for the company will involve substantial changes to the business. The changes might involve the operation itself (i.e., hub closures/reductions, fleet realignments), or they could focus on the "human" elements of the airline (i.e., compensation reform, new efficiency standards), but they ARE coming.

Unfortunately, Tilton fell into the same trap as Goodwin and Creighton -- specifically, by hoping that an external event (be it a merger with US, or an ATSB guarantee) would fix United's financial/structural problems for the near term, allowing the company to dodge the painful reforms necessary for long-term survival until some random point in the future. That said, United will have one final chance (with or without the ATSB guarantee) to transform itself into a viable enterprise - hope that management and labor alike take full advantage of it.

 

[ual777fan]

What exactly are United's structural problems?
-Best Route Network in the Industry
-Great/young fleet
-Great staff
-Damn Good product

What is the problem with that? I think the only thing holding UAL back is the price of oil.

 

[mweiss]

I think the only thing holding UAL back is the price of oil.

How about falling yields?

 

[SVQLBA]

What exactly are United's structural problems?
-Best Route Network in the Industry
-Great/young fleet
-Great staff
-Damn Good product

What is the problem with that? I think the only thing holding UAL back is the price of oil.

Well -- where to begin

Route Network: locked into 747 and 777 fleet, unlikely to be able to aquire new aircraft for years. Therefore unable to participate in the further fragmentation of long haul routes that everyone is expecting from Boeing to Lufthansa. Look at the number of points UA serves in Europe vs AA or CO? LHR and Narita are great assets but the game is shifting. Who needs Narita when you can fly direct to SIN, HKG or China from West or East coast? And domestically, with AWA and B6 on your prime transcons, the gravy train routes are disappearing.

Great/Young Fleet -- Age is not too bad (7 years is it?), but no fleet replacement/addition likely for several years so expect that average age to go up. No 777-200LRs or A340-500s etc to expand the long haul network in interesting ways. 737 and A320 families offer very different "product" to customers domestically, confusing the value proposition.

Great Staff -- Frontline staff is much better than it was, but there's still lots of room for improvement. I'll let others comment on mgt.

Product -- coach product inferior to B6 and SW (especially when SW makes a profit at 65% l.f. -- the load factor makes a huge difference to comfort in coach.) UA does have audio on all domestic routes, some TVs (A320) but no marketing -- it's a pleasant suprise when you fly, but no-one knows about it so it doesn't drive consumer choice. As for econ-plus -- just compare and contrast how BA and Virgin market "Premium economy" and then compare that to how UA markets E-plus. Go to the web site and you're hard pressed to even find mention of it. The market, pricing, and selling of E-plus is neutering any competitive advantage it should bring.

Other structural problems: LCCs have pricing power and compete (even on a 1-stop basis) across most of UA's domestic network, undermining the economics of the business. Apart from the (so far) successful experiment with Ted, UA still has not fundamentally changed its operating or business model (pricing, marketing, distribution, network, scheduling).

IMHO, the biggest single structural problem UA has is still the belief that the network is everything and that "UA is better." The culture is way better than in 2000/2001 (and the customer service has greatly benefitted) but UA will remain in trouble until everyone realizes that (1) UA is not entitled to survive, (2) SW,B6 etc are very serious competitors (3) the UA product is not competitive (4) UA's service, while better, is stil not at B6, SW, or BA or VS levels, and (5) UA needs to change further.

Once everyone buys into the need to create something better, not just tweak what exists, then I'm sure UA and its emplyees will be up to the challenge.