United Airlines to slash 1,300 jobs

[xUT]

United Airlines to slash 1,300 jobs

(AP) United Airlines (UAL) will cut 1,300 jobs and reduce flying in Houston after it lost a fight to keep Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV) from adding international flights there.
United had warned of the job cuts if the city council voted to let Southwest add international flights at Houston's Hobby Airport. The council voted Wednesday for a plan under which Southwest will pay the $100 million cost of adding international gates and a customs facility at Hobby.

B) xUT

 

[FWAAA]

I understand UA's objection to WN's proposal to fly international flights at Hobby and I understand UA's disappointment in losing its battle to stop WN's plans, but announcements like this are just childish. Somebody call Smisek a Wahhhhhmbulance.

If WN is successful at HOU, then it might cost UA at IAH and UA may have to cancel some flights and downsize some. If that happens, those job losses are likely going to be matched with job gains by WN across town at Hobby.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The real question is what UA thinks they are accomplishing by connecting cost cutting actions that needed to be done anyway with the city of Houston's decision to allow WN to start int'l service. No city wants to be locked into a unique relationship with any private company and arguing that UA should be allowed to maintain its US carrier int'l monopoly on int'l service from Houston only highlights to the people of Houston that they can't be assured they will get the best fares or service. And the notion that WN is only after leisure passengers and won't siphon off decent fare-paying passengers is a myth.
If there are multiple players in the market and UA still is at the top of the heap, then the people of Houston will have left them there by chance.
In the meantime, UA has added one more black mark next to its name in a city that is barely over the loss of CO's HDQ.
DEN shows that WN is a tough competitor and UA best be prepared to compete with them or watch significant market share shift to them, not just in Houston but in many of the markets surrounding Texas.
Further, UA has about a 3 year headstart in figuring out how to compete with WN. If UA can't figure out how to adapt and win, then WN SHOULD.

 

[Art at ISP]

I agree that it is a childish and somewhat vindictive move on UA's part--especially considering that there was some indication these cuts were on the way anyway regardless of the WN decision. Still it is poor brinkmanship on UA's part--kind of they don't like the decision so they choose to take their ball and go home.

Of particular disappointment is their announcement that they do not plan to operate their previously announced inaugural 787 route, IAH-AKL (Aukland if I got the code wrong)...THIS move is in my opinion vindictive to say the least.....

I am afraid that Smisek may be talking to Parker more than we think....

 

[WorldTraveler]

Given that UA has flown to AKL with its own metal before, they know the market. They also have a presence in Australia - again with their own metal - and a big part of the proposal for AKL (you were right) is based on picking off traffic that would have flown over the west coast to Australia from the central and eastern US to Australia and carry it over AKL. That model makes little to no sense and in contrast to the Australia market the NZ market is just too small to cut up and route traffic via an interior hub as QF is doing over DFW.
UA's decision to cancel the AKL-IAH flight was based on economics and anyone who knows the markets knows that UA was looking for a scapegoat.
The concept of accepting responsibility for your own tough decisions seems very hard for some to do - but is exactly what is necessary for UA to finish the work IT has to do with the merger instead of blaming others for what is going wrong with the process.