United, Continental Expected to Announce Merger Monday

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... l?mod=e2tw

Quote:

---

Continental Airlines Inc. and UAL Corp.'s United Airlines are expected to announce Monday that they are merging to form the world's largest airline by traffic, people familiar with the matter said.

The United board is meeting Friday, while Continental's board is meeting Friday and Sunday to discuss the deal, these people said.

These people cautioned that negotiations could fall apart at the last minute as they did in 2008, when Continental backed away. But after a hiccup over pricing the transaction, the talks appear to be on track, they said.

---

Sigh. Another airline lost. Who will be emerging from this? UA or CO? If its UA I need to get some CO shots before they are gone. Back away CO back away.
Edit: Nvm there going to stick with the UA if agreed on. Use rwy 4 LGA so I can have range.

Well even as it is expected I will surely miss Continental and there colors when gone. I truely hope that Tilton is not going to be the remaining manager of the company or another great airline will die. It will be cool to see 767-200's in United NC's though. I spent about a year in the service of Continental down in SRQ and it was a great company. They took care of everyone from the lav truck to the 4 striper's in the left seat. I used to take for granted non reving on Continental into IAH, EWR and seasonally to CLE and seeing all the globe tails. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hiss srq

Well even as it is expected I will surely miss Continental and there colors when gone. I truely hope that Tilton is not going to be the remaining manager of the company or another great airline will die. It will be cool to see 767-200's in United NC's though. I spent about a year in the service of Continental down in SRQ and it was a great company. They took care of everyone from the lav truck to the 4 striper's in the left seat. I used to take for granted non reving on Continental into IAH, EWR and seasonally to CLE and seeing all the globe tails. :(

---

Nice a triple post :borat: Yea continental has a nice scheme that will be missed. I might have an old photo somewhere not sure....

I'm very disappointed to learn that the CO brand would be the one disappearing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36857857/ns ... _business/

I just don't get it. United is the failing brand. I simply don't think they deserve it, regardless of their history.

Well I don't think CO would even consider this move unless they thought it would be beneficial to them long run. As for the CO brand I would hate to see it go it's one of my favorite carriers but the average traveler doesn't care what your name is. They care about can you get them where they need to go on time and for as cheaply as possible. They don't even look at the colors on the plane. We are the only people that do that and we are in the minority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I'm very disappointed to learn that the CO brand would be the one disappearing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36857857/ns ... _business/

I just don't get it. United is the failing brand. I simply don't think they deserve it, regardless of their history.

---

Agreed. United has scalled back alot after 9/11. Many ppl prefer to fly somewhere else then UAL.... including me. I was around them at T7 for almost a year and most of them dont look too good. Those flights are usually delayed. Any which way you put it UAL isnt reliable.

Nick UA ranks above the highest in on time perfromance, in fact they beat CO, AA, DL and US. I know yor eyes must be good but I doubt you can see all their arrivals from T7. It would do you well to research some of your claims before you make them.

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/ ... ilATCR.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Nick UA ranks above the highest in on time perfromance, in fact they beat CO, AA, DL and US. I know yor eyes must be good but I doubt you can see all their arrivals from T7. It would do you well to research some of your claims before you make them.

http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/ ... ilATCR.pdf

---

I saw alot of them and more then half the time they were delayed. Recently I looked up flights on them and I dont think a 37% on time raiting is considered good in the least bit. That was for one specific flight but it gives you a good picture.

Performance or not, the company was/is tanking. It's easy to have on-time performance when you cut so many of your flights nand have only a portion of the operation you once had.

I'm disappointed that I'll continue to see the UA brand flying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Performance or not, the company was/is tanking. It's easy to have on-time performance when you cut so many of your flights nand have only a portion of the operation you once had.

I'm disappointed that I'll continue to see the UA brand flying.

---

UA will get all these a/c and flights and they will cut a good portion of them. The company is tanking and the only thing that will change is that they are taking CO with them, as well as the jobs that CO employees currently have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NLovis

UA will get all these a/c and flights and they will cut a good portion of them. The company is tanking and the only thing that will change is that they are taking CO with them, as well as the jobs that CO employees currently have.

---

They don't have many overlapping routes so not too much will be cut other than administrative staff in Houston.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

I'm very disappointed to learn that the CO brand would be the one disappearing: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36857857/ns ... _business/

I just don't get it. United is the failing brand. I simply don't think they deserve it, regardless of their history.

---

United Airlines is the name brand in the international market, keeping the United name make business sense,,,

Quote:

---

Performance or not, the company was/is tanking. It's easy to have on-time performance when you cut so many of your flights nand have only a portion of the operation you once had.

---

Phil what do you suggest a company does when business gets cut drastically? Your telling me keep planes, employees etc and just sit around with the same overhead? Of course you cut back. A business' objective it make a profit and to adjust to market conditions. It wasn't UA's fault the dot com era ended, or we got attacked on 9/11, fuel prices spiking. These were all things that hurt everyone. They did what any airline would do and cut back, it sucks people have to be laid off and pensions cut but that's the business world. You seem to be looking at this from a personal thing. It's not personal. It's strictly business. United has come a long way from Bankruptcy and is far from "tanking" which I don't get. I would love to see some examples but from the things I have read, this Star alliance merger will be a success in the long term.

Quote:

---

UA will get all these a/c and flights and they will cut a good portion of them. The company is tanking and the only thing that will change is that they are taking CO with them, as well as the jobs that CO employees currently have.

---

What do you base this on? You sure seem to be just pulling this stuff out of a hat. I don't understand what tanking means. If you could post some examples?

Quote:

---

They don't have many overlapping routes so not too much will be cut other than administrative staff in Houston.

---

Exactly

[quote=Midnight Mike]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.":moemhtjc]I'm very disappointed to learn that the CO brand would be the one disappearing: [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36857857/ns/business-us_business/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36857857/ns ... _business/[/url]

I just don't get it. United is the failing brand. I simply don't think they deserve it, regardless of their history.

---

United Airlines is the name brand in the international market, keeping the United name make business sense,,,[/quote:moemhtjc]

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T-Bird76

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=Midnight Mike]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "T-Bird76":3mn4rg9y

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIKV69

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

The vote passed today, will be announced tommorow

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

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..........

The Continental logo will probably disappear after quite a long period. Since most of my spotting is done at JFK, I will notice no difference but my spotting at LGA would be affected. I also wonder about all the events sponsored by Continental in the NY Metro Area. Will the sponsorship terminate? Continental sponsors the US Open, the NYC Marathon and numerous other local events. What would happen to this sponsorship after the merger? As I have often posted, "another one bites the dust".

http://content.united.com/ual/asset/...ay_575x526.jpg

Alex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex T

http://content.united.com/ual/asset/...ay_575x526.jpg

Alex

---

Alex you beat me to it. I was just about the post a similar picture. That livery just looks and feels all kinds of wrong.

A little confused, it they where planning to keep the UA brand, then why the CO scheme? While I don't hate the current CO scheme, I really like United's, and presumed it would have been the surviving scheme.

http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/

http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/ ... r_logo.jpg

I feel strongly CO has the far better and more respected product and management though personally I am disappointed in the new combined scheme.

Cheers

LGA777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LGA777

A little confused, it they where planning to keep the UA brand, then why the CO scheme? While I don't hate the current CO scheme, I really like United's, and presumed it would have been the surviving scheme.

http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/

http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/ ... r_logo.jpg

I feel strongly CO has the far better and more respected product and management though personally I am disappointed in the new combined scheme.

Cheers

LGA777

---

I didn't think that was real at first...wow talk about ugly and unimaginative... Certainly makes it easier to repairt the CO fleet in no time.

Doesn't make any sense. If they're going to keep the United brand, keep the WHOLE brand. From a strictly aesthetic angle, the United name and colors are far superior to Continental's name and colors.

yeaaaaaa. That scheme doesnt work for united at all. It just seems wrong.

The font doesnt got well with the rest of the paint job. It is a poor photshop job haha. I will be excited to again see 747's with the Continental globe on the tail though. It shall also be intresting to see the Babybus in CO colors. Never thought I would see another Airbus in CO colors after the canned the A340 order.

So Neil Cavuto on Fox News has some airline expert on and is interviewing him and to the right of their discussion are generic airline/aviation stock videos being cycled through.. About 2 minutes into the interview the video was of a KC-135 that looked like it had just taken off! FAIL...

CT had the cleaner planes for the picture.