Michael Boyd: Say Goodbye to Ted

Jan 14, 2004
235
0
At Least An Edsel Still Has Some Collector Value.

The Year 2007 apparently marks the end of one of the airline industry's most stunning lead balloons in marketing.

We're referring, of course, to Ted, where United got the brilliant idea to simply re-paint some A-320s, make 'em all economy class, put them right back in service, and, poof!, try to convince the public that it was now a "low cost" and "low fare" airline. The assumption, apparently, was that the entire naive flying public had fallen off a turnip truck.

Fares were no different than before, and the costs were (are) actually higher, as the whiz-kids who talked United into the scheme didn't know that going over 150 seats (to 156) required an additional flight attendant. So, unless the load factor was over 97% on every flight, it was a very expensive extra 6 seats, not including the hit from losing first class seats on some key hub-connect routes.

As a further indication that Ted was the product of folks who didn't know a flight coupon from a speeding ticket, United management got talked into spending millions installing dual jetways at Denver, just for Ted-designated flights. Fast turns, don't ya know, are critical to a low cost carrier, notwithstanding the fact that at Denver, Ted flights had to be timed with the hub banks of which they were an integral part.

The entire Ted concept landed like a baby grand piano off the 43rd floor, simply because it was an inside joke, one without a punchline, and one nobody outside of United understood. As being a differentiated product, it represented nothing except perhaps some incremental revenue for Sherwin-Williams. The public only saw that some United flights now had no first class section, and that the inflight safety video made strange references to somebody, or some creature, named "Ted". They didn't get the joke.

Sometime in 2007 all the hoopla about Ted ended. Advertising went dead. Silly marketing stunts were no more. Even gate announcements and signage stopped referring to "Ted.". Presumably, in 2008, United will quietly move to eliminate this side show.

Unless, that is, another memo comes under the door from whatever advisors United has on payroll. No telling what they might dream up. But they'll really have to work to out do the Ted fiasco.
 
Nice to see that even the head-in-the-sand incompetents running UA know a mistake when they see one. I'd like to see the tab for the Ted fiasco when all is said and done. I'm sure Glenn and The Boys will be richly rewarded for that mis-adventure.
 
Actually, Mr. Dona-hoe (who was in charge of TEDDY at its inception) got a promotion out of the deal...At United, failure breeds success!
 
The airline within an airline strategy never works but why is it taking so long for UA to figure that out. (DL)Song, (AC)Tango and Zip (which I think was had it's own staff), (US)Metrojet and (CO)Continental Lite.....am I leaving anyone out? What I don't understand is how was Ted any different that Shuttle by United, (U-2) or the United Shuttle, that didn't fare any better (no pun inteneded) and why did they think it would work the second time around?
 
Ted, MetroJet, Song, CAL Lite, etc etc etc

It NEVER EVER WORKS!

Why do airlines continue to try airlines within airlines?

Madness is doing the same failed thing again and again and expecting it to work.


So long Turd!
 
Ted, MetroJet, Song, CAL Lite, etc etc etc

It NEVER EVER WORKS!

Why do airlines continue to try airlines within airlines?

Madness is doing the same failed thing again and again and expecting it to work.


So long Turd!

Union pacification, it's not really rocket science if you think about it…….:p
 
Actually, Shuttle By United did work initially as it was designed to do. Crews were paid lower rates, turns were generally no greater than 25 minutes, unless in LAX or SFO. It was designed to thwart Southwest's expansion in traditional UA markets. Unfortunately, as time went on, Shuttle lost its cost advantage. The differential pay rates went away, the dedicated ground employees went away, etc. It got to the point where it was only Shuttle by name. Everything else was basically the same as mainline United.

But I do agree that the "airline within an airline" concept does not work. True successful low-cost carriers succeed because it goes deeper than simply a low cost airline. Much of that success is owed to the culture of those companies. Southwest has had a unique culture built from the first days of the company, where they had to fight and scratch for their very survival. You can't just carve out a fleet of aircraft, slap on some new paint, and create a lower cost airline. There's more to it than that. For airlines like United to think they can do it differently is arrogantly naive. So when they finally write it off and pull the plug for good, it would be interesting to get a final tally for how much was spent on it.