United plans to cut 1300 jobs. (Houston: prices, move to, friendly)

[madrone2k]

I wonder what Bethune would say now, if he would comment? I have to say, leaders like him did a lot to inspire confidence in their consumers, even during the difficult times Continental went through in the early 90s. Despite having supported United's position in the SW affair, I'm pretty disappointed in the impression United's executive management are giving of themselves.

Just as a though experiment, assume they are childish egotists who, through some quirk, have managed to climb through the corporate ranks to the top. One would think, that given at least that much talent/skill, they would be better at PR. I mean, how can this petulant behavior help them or their company in the short, mid, or long term? Frankly, I hope I'm missing some key benefit ... I hate to think that people can rise in a corporate bureauracy and be so dumb!

[madrone2k]

OTOH, if the game plan is to make some big bucks and retire early, that is something some people might opt for. Destroy other peoples' lives, destroy the value implicit in an organization that serves a popular need, all to feather one's own nest. Very admirable.

[Marv101]

For openers, spending tons of $$$$ on a shiny new 787 aircraft & utilizing it to launch nonstop service to Auckland, New Zealand???????

What brain surgeon came up with that idea? How about nonstop service to London, Tokyo, Hong Kong or a real international destination, Einstein-breath?

United is indeed acting like a constipated three-year old with a major-league case of diaper rash in trying to 'spin' their decision. Somebody should tell their PR person--'You Ain't James Carville!!'

If anybody gets a black eye out of this, United Airlines will; they cannot stand competition, they love monopolies, and the one they've had (alongside American) at O'Horror Airport is no more of a 'benefit' to the residents of Chicagoland than the monopoly which AA has had @ DFW for upwards of FORTY years!!!

Houston is far too large for somebody not to come in and fill the void if United reduces their N/S service from Bush to Europe & the Far East; United will indeed live to regret this.

Southwest's 'Bags Fly Free' is a brilliant strategy, and since United & the other majors will NEVER get rid of it due to the mountains of $$$$$ they get from it, that gives all of us even less of a reason to fly United or any of the other legacy carriers.

Southwest is the #2 carrier here at LAX, and I feel the same way as someone else who posted earlier in this thread--'If Southwest doesn't fly there, I won't either.'

[Vicman]

If you are familiar with the industry and United's alliances, you will understand that Auckland made good sense. United and Air New Zealand are in Star Alliance. Houston and Auckland are major hubs. Connections can go through both airports.

Originally Posted by Marv101

For openers, spending tons of $$$$ on a shiny new 787 aircraft & utilizing it to launch nonstop service to Auckland, New Zealand???????

What brain surgeon came up with that idea? How about nonstop service to London, Tokyo, Hong Kong or a real international destination, Einstein-breath?

United is indeed acting like a constipated three-year old with a major-league case of diaper rash in trying to 'spin' their decision. Somebody should tell their PR person--'You Ain't James Carville!!'

If anybody gets a black eye out of this, United Airlines will; they cannot stand competition, they love monopolies, and the one they've had (alongside American) at O'Horror Airport is no more of a 'benefit' to the residents of Chicagoland than the monopoly which AA has had @ DFW for upwards of FORTY years!!!

Houston is far too large for somebody not to come in and fill the void if United reduces their N/S service from Bush to Europe & the Far East; United will indeed live to regret this.

Southwest's 'Bags Fly Free' is a brilliant strategy, and since United & the other majors will NEVER get rid of it due to the mountains of $$$$$ they get from it, that gives all of us even less of a reason to fly United or any of the other legacy carriers.

Southwest is the #2 carrier here at LAX, and I feel the same way as someone else who posted earlier in this thread--'If Southwest doesn't fly there, I won't either.'

[Vicman]

High end business pax (oil industry folks) demand nonstops. Leisure pax care more about the price

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Hey man, passengers don't want to "connect through DFW or Atlanta", they want nonstop service unless you are willing to accept the kind of airport service that cities like OKC, KC, Omaha, Birmingham, etc are accustomed to living with ?

[MIBS98]

Originally Posted by Vicman

If you are familiar with the industry and United's alliances, you will understand that Auckland made good sense. United and Air New Zealand are in Star Alliance. Houston and Auckland are major hubs. Connections can go through both airports.

Just because you have an alliance does not mean that you establish non-stop service to that country. Houston to Auckland was a questionable route, clearly United has figured that out which is why they canceled service.

I like Auckland, it is a nice little city but the population is only 1.3 mil. New Zealand is a gorgeous country but population of only 4.4 mil total. Tourism and business from the US to New Zealand is pretty small.

That is a really small market, therefore the target for the service wasn't New Zealand but rather Australia. Fly to Auckland then connect through Air New Zealand to various Australian destinations. So, not really non-stop to your final destination in Australia. Therefore, why fly to Auckland on United when you can fly to LAX and have a choice of airlines for non-stop travel directly to Australia? United was going to struggle to route people through Houston, then to Auckland then to Australia versus what other airlines are doing through LAX.

[Texabama]

Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation

I think they're just planning for failure since they know they are unlikely to be able to successfully compete with Southwest once things get going.

Another decade or so and I anticipate United will be thrown in the dustbin of failed majors given their current trajectory. Maybe Virgin or Jetblue or some new airline we've never heard of will come fill their spot.

Jetblue is excellent. Haven't tried Virgin yet.

[Vicman]

It doesn't necessarily mean so, MIBS, but that is the best option for connecting the eastern United States with Oceania. There are destinations from Houston that are not served from Los Angeles or San Francisco.

New Zealand itself is a small market; Australia was indeed the intended target market, but since Ansett died, there is no Star Alliance carrier headquartered in Australia. So that leads to your questions:

"Therefore, why fly to Auckland on United when you can fly to LAX and have a choice of airlines for non-stop travel directly to Australia?" - But are they on Star Alliance? Do they accept MileagePlus? If you are in an eastern U.S. city that has a flight to Houston, but not to LA or SF, then that means you have to double-connect.

Originally Posted by MIBS98

Just because you have an alliance does not mean that you establish non-stop service to that country. Houston to Auckland was a questionable route, clearly United has figured that out which is why they canceled service.

I like Auckland, it is a nice little city but the population is only 1.3 mil. New Zealand is a gorgeous country but population of only 4.4 mil total. Tourism and business from the US to New Zealand is pretty small.

That is a really small market, therefore the target for the service wasn't New Zealand but rather Australia. Fly to Auckland then connect through Air New Zealand to various Australian destinations. So, not really non-stop to your final destination in Australia. Therefore, why fly to Auckland on United when you can fly to LAX and have a choice of airlines for non-stop travel directly to Australia? United was going to struggle to route people through Houston, then to Auckland then to Australia versus what other airlines are doing through LAX.

[madrone2k]

I was looking forward to trying out the IAH-AKL flight, so I'm sorry to see it not happen. IAH to Australia obviously would generate more biz traffic, as well as leisure. However, the distance involved, plus airline partner relationships do make a difference.

Quantas flies nonstop DFW-Brisbane and on to Sydney. I'm told the reason they stop in Brisbane is due to the flight range limitations of the aircraft they have now. I'm sure that flight is helped by having a partner airline (AA) that can funnel passengers to DFW from other places in the US.

For the AKL flight, United would have done a similar funneling into IAH. However, connecting in AKL with Air New Zealand (their only partner in that part of the world) to go to Oz is not as attractive as flying on the same plane from DFW to get to Sydney.

[AlfredB1979]

Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp

Only the young readers may believe this hype, this lame excuse. Any of us who have been working for decades know what the truth is, and it is simple. United "merged" with Continental, they have too many employees, an opportunity came along to give them a very good excuse to free themselves of redundancy/dead-weight. They are using the Southwest situation to their advantage so they can feel righteous about it, and poke at the eyes of Houston at the same time. It does not fool me.

I had been waiting for that hatchet to drop since...the news came down the chute.

How convenient.

For all I know, I'd probably end up living near IAH when Hobby is ready.