This Long winded editorial surprised me . In the end it implies the "United" brand is ruined and the company should return to being "Continental".


As an ex-COn I find this wildly flattering. But I also totally disagree. Yes the united brand is ruined but frankly something new is needed. I don't think Calling ourselves Continental will fix anything.

http://m.atwonline.com/airlines/editori ... fe-support

Maybe we should buy the rights to Pan Am name? Lol

My first question when I saw the title of this post was "I wonder if they are an "ex-Conn" ...you answered that question for me, lol.

My second question is how credible was this "story", especially considering the link you posted redirects to an article that has been removed.

Pretty much every major corporation in the world has had negative press coverage at some point in time...I hardly think "changing the name" is practical or even needed in most cases.

By this logic such world-known brands including BP, Pepsi, and Tylenol should no longer exit.

And let's not forget when any-and-every negative story about Airbus was in the media for about a year following AF447...sigh.

vanguard737 wrote:

My first question when I saw the title of this post was "I wonder if they are an "ex-Conn" ...you answered that question for me, lol.

My second question is how credible was this "story", especially considering the link you posted redirects to an article that has been removed.

Pretty much every major corporation in the world has had negative press coverage at some point in time...I hardly think "changing the name" is practical or even needed in most cases.

By this logic such world-known brands including BP, Pepsi, and Tylenol should no longer exit.

And let's not forget when any-and-every negative story about Airbus was in the media for about a year following AF447...sigh.

I pretty overtly disagreed with the article, So whatis your point?

I fear this thread will digress into a UA vs CO slugfest (or worse: calls to bring back the tulip), but here we go.. I think calls for things like name changes, or an even more preposterous assertion, an unmerging the two companies, is totally and utterly ridiculous.

Take for example the nightmare MH endured -- not one, but TWO 772s crashed in short succession (the latter of which obviously beyond their control to say the least). While they've had to undergo a major restructuring to become profitable primarily due to issues predating the two disasters, they haven't changed names or even paint schemes. The issues currently at UA pale in comparison, and mostly stem from pent up anger towards the industry as a whole following years of devaluations.

Is this a PR disaster which could cost the company millions, if not billions? Yes. However, people tend to have extremely short-term memories with regards to news cycles. Stories like these fall out of favor extremely quickly, and people will find something else to be outraged with in another two or three weeks. In a couple of months, most people will have forgotten all about this...particularly when it comes to booking a flight and searching for the cheapest fare. People love to get on their high horse when it comes to boycotting companies or entities in these situations. Remember the recent boycotts against Uber or Nordstrom? How about the past boycotts against Chick-fil-A, Jimmy John's, Hobby Lobby, the State of Arizona, etc.? They never stick. People make a statement to their friends on social media to jump on the bandwagon, and then go about their lives unabated. The vast majority of flyers make their decisions based on price, and they won't avoid booking United if they've got the best price.

All of that said, spending potentiality tens of billions to change the airline's name to Continental, not to mention the negative cost to brand recognition since Continental hasn't existed for more than five years, all seems extremely reactionary when the simple passage of time will correct many of their image problems.

I think they definitely have to change their slogan and get to work on a major brand/image overhaul to improve public perception, along with making tangible improvements to customer service, but making rash decisions at this stage will only have negative repercussions.

Yep. Pretty stupid idea to change the name. As vanguard737 stated you don't simply change the company name because you have had bad press. You ride it out and come out the other end wiser and stronger for it. Take Volkswagon for example, they took a hammering, massive fines, totally discredited......but today VW are as strong as ever. Just one case in point. UA has a lot to learn from this mess and it wont be easy but changing the name is a ridiculous idea.

Pointless article and unlikely to happen. United's brand is certainly tarnished by last week's incidents but over time, it will recover. If the incidents do in fact bring about some serious change to involuntary bumping of passengers, then that's the silver lining. As for United's brand, it was never good to begin with. The airline never (pre-merger) had a reputation for being much more than a mediocre airline and was never an industry leader. The company has been known for being at war with its employees for decades. The merger ruined Continental's image as a more focused operation pre merger. In the end, United will be fine but it does need to take a hard look at how it trains its employees and how it treats customers once and for all.

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

seahawk wrote:

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

This. And I emphatically say this as a former CO employee as well; the name is United Airlines, and United Airlines it should stay.

Every carrier goes through a rough patch at one point or another, and every airline enjoys a really, really good run at the top as well. Right now, DL is the one having a great run, while UA is going through a rough patch. At some point, those roles may reverse. Or other players will occupy those spots.

But to say the UA brand is irrevocably damaged is just preposterous.

From a professional branding POV, they should NOT change the name to Continental or some other dumb new name like "Avialux" - (which a branding company would love to be paid $350,000 to do). It would be a great way to tell the world "we suck, so we are going to hide behind a new name". Aside from the hundred million of dollars to change everything all over the world and repaint a fleet of almost 800 aircraft.
That being said, the BIG job ahead is to repair and build back the UNITED brand to be in the best place it's ever been, which should be entirely possible should OM and his team manage everything moving forward properly. In fact, I couldn't think of something more fun to do given what I do for a living. I would love to be on that team with the remit of making United great. Mr Munoz strikes me as a "get back on the horse" kind of guy and he will work very hard to put things right and build a powerful enduring brand.

Yeah,... no. All brands have had bad press, and United hasn't had a plane crash. So if that was standard procedure after negative media KAL should've changed names 85 times in the '80's and '90's.

This must be an April Fools joke, eh?

I know people hate airlines, and I know people hate United especially, but United is not Blackwater.

In the long run, last week's mishap is nothing compared to everything else United has been through. It'll take a while, but they will be fine.

I agree that the United brand has been tarnished significantly, but I also agree that it isn't beyond repair. However, there can be a "tipping point" of no return and there are a graveyard of brands to attest to it. These brand are not always wholly responsible either, that's why most companies go to great lengths to protect and preserve the value. And although United dropped the ball big time IMHO, it still has decades of brand equity to draw upon.

In the airline industry, ValueJet became a worthless brand after the events of flight 592 and the subsequent investigation. The same could be said for Pan Am after Lockerbie.

Picarus

A CEO has multiple responsibilities, among them the company’s employees, customers, investors and brand.

Again I say, OM was to concerned about playing cheer leader to his employees who he likes to call team. OM's only concern at the get go and for the first day or two was his own employees. Oh, team, really? Not a great word to use either in the grand scheme of things. OM needs to go, not the United name.

seahawk wrote:

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

If it had blown over quickly, we still wouldn't be discussing it today.

Both are damaged brands, start another New Airline transfer AOP and all good assets, let the old duo rot.

I wonder why US aviation industry is not able to attract young talent. Any teenager would have done a better job negotiating 4 volunteers from 70 people, with or without funny money.

A name is just that. A name change doesn't change the service, attitude and culture.

A great example of this is Polaris name - people see through the new name and branded blanket and see the same poor seat and churlish service.

If united wants to change, they need to change. Calling the CEO Oscar doesn't make the company culture warm and fluffy.

Delta managed to reinvent themselves. There is no reason why United can't.

EA CO AS wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

This. And I emphatically say this as a former CO employee as well; the name is United Airlines, and United Airlines it should stay.

Every carrier goes through a rough patch at one point or another, and every airline enjoys a really, really good run at the top as well. Right now, DL is the one having a great run, while UA is going through a rough patch. At some point, those roles may reverse. Or other players will occupy those spots.

But to say the UA brand is irrevocably damaged is just preposterous.

I wouldn't be so sure. UA's been going through a "rough patch" for almost 7 years since the merger was announced, and was a bit of a basket case before then, too. The reason it is making a profit right now is due to less competition, and the economy. Delta has definitely lead the way, and is rightfully doing so. United limps along, copying bits and pieces of Delta.

The brand is definitely tarnished by recent events, but it was hardly an untarnished brand to begin with. UA really need to focus on improving customer service, both on the ground and in the air. Their 'team' is their Achilles's heel.

jumbojet wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

If it had blown over quickly, we still wouldn't be discussing it today.

It is an aviation forum, in the mainstream media the thing is nearly over and it is surely no longer trending on social media. And to be honest this whole incident was a minor problem blown way out proportion and in the end it might be found that the airport "police" played the biggest part in the whole story.

I agree with the people who say that UA should remain UA. But, if the problem continues, and for some slight chance people actually stop flying UA, then something has to change. It has to be very public, like something everyone would see, and it would have to say "we are a brand new company with new ideals." Now, that doesn't mean change to CO, but a livery change could work (not saying we need the tulip back, I like the UA globe). Again, this would only have to be done if the boycott goes on for a while and seriously affects UA's earnings. A new livery, slogan, and probably something along the lines of "remember those FA's who beat up a passenger? Yeah we fired them cuz we're a good company" would make people absolutely love to fly them again.

VC10er wrote:

From a professional branding POV, they should NOT change the name to Continental or some other dumb new name like "Avialux" - (which a branding company would love to be paid $350,000 to do). It would be a great way to tell the world "we suck, so we are going to hide behind a new name". Aside from the hundred million of dollars to change everything all over the world and repaint a fleet of almost 800 aircraft.
That being said, the BIG job ahead is to repair and build back the UNITED brand to be in the best place it's ever been, which should be entirely possible should OM and his team manage everything moving forward properly. In fact, I couldn't think of something more fun to do given what I do for a living. I would love to be on that team with the remit of making United great. Mr Munoz strikes me as a "get back on the horse" kind of guy and he will work very hard to put things right and build a powerful enduring brand.

So, to use a non-aviation/non-airline example here: Comcast. A brand so horribly reviled that it's been repeatedly named the "Worst Company in America" or the "Most Hated Company in America" several years running. They can paint their trucks with "Xfinity", but until and unless they change the customer service (or lack thereof) that has earned them such "accolades", they will still be the same company.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0515328620100209
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comc ... -At-106778
http://content.time.com/time/business/a ... 53,00.html

UAL finds themselves at a crossroads here. Their brand is definitely damaged, but not irreparably so. The fix won't be overnight, but it is possible. But a new paint scheme and a new name on the side of the airplanes won't be the fix.

The UA brand was damaged long before the recent deboardings. The merger never created a new 'company' in the way that NW DL did.

Part of this was the CO livery and UA name, which just confused things for a while, but mostly the combined culture didn't merge into a bigger one.

BestWestern wrote:

Part of this was the CO livery and UA name, which just confused things for a while, but mostly the combined culture didn't merge into a bigger one.

I agree on this part. And I still contend that choosing the Continental livery over either the existing (at that time) United livery or something entirely new and different was a big mistake - both in terms of external branding and internal signalling.

In any event, this suggestion that United should rebrand - to "Continental," or anything else - is ridiculous. United is one of the most recognizable names in the global airline industry. That name shouldn't be, and isn't, going anywhere.

This too shall pass, and all the social media ding dongs can go rage on another issue. My last ten flights on UA were basically 100% full, with several looking for, and getting, volunteers to take a later flight.

UA will remain UA. I do see in another 5-10 years a complete branding change though from the CO Meatball to something completely different (and not the tulip either).

I wonder if I Domino's like ad campaign would work?

I've never gotten this obsession with either of these brands. I've long been a UA flier and they have always had brand/service issues. I do know that CO had a great turnaround period where they had great service, but the brand itself reminded me of an early 1990s PowerPoint template. And even at the time of the merger the CO brand was somewhat declining. If they're going to get rid of the United brand then do something new. And even then, how many people really love their Comcast tv/internet service more now that it is branded Xfinity?

The real answer is for them to get serious about cleaning up their service. That is the one and only thing that will fix perception.

The UA brand is damaged. Sure. But renaming to CO is absurd. UA is the better-known name across the globe and that counts for something. But the idea of a brand refresh isn't a bad one. But it takes more than repainting planes or redesigning airport signage. What it will take is to throw out the airline managers who advocate misery for passengers in the name of profits and install managers who understand that higher yields in all cabins can only be achieved by providing service and hard product worth paying for. It will require retraining the employees, and putting in place systems to allow front line employees to help the pax they encounter every day. It will also require remaking the values of UA, and remaking collateral, airports, livery etc to reflect the sea change in attitude.

Anything less is just window-dressing for Wall Street.

tpaewr wrote:

This Long winded editorial surprised me . In the end it implies the "United" brand is ruined and the company should return to being "Continental".


As an ex-COn I find this wildly flattering. But I also totally disagree. Yes the united brand is ruined but frankly something new is needed. I don't think Calling ourselves Continental will fix anything.

http://m.atwonline.com/airlines/editori ... fe-support

Maybe we should buy the rights to Pan Am name? Lol

I would have preferred the name "Continental." However that ship has sailed. My belief is that under Smizek, Continental was moving away from its quality reputation as Smizek was more into deals then making a great product. Second, there was a time that the name "Continental" and excrement, meant pretty much one and the same. However, with the right management, and the Go Forward plan, the company went from the bottom to the near top. United needs to focus on improving the brand, which I believe it is.

While I agree that United needs to probably re-brand, reverting back to Continental is not the way to go. Everyone at the company could use a fresh start. I also believe they need to drop United Continental Holdings, to just United. What's the point of hanging on to the Continental name?

flyguy84 wrote:

While I agree that United needs to probably re-brand, reverting back to Continental is not the way to go. Everyone at the company could use a fresh start. I also believe they need to drop United Continental Holdings, to just United. What's the point of hanging on to the Continental name?

Agree. It's the same point I was making about picking the Continental livery after the merger. It sent the wrong message. There needs to be a clean break with the past, so everyone can rally around a common objective and shared vision for the future. The company is and will remain United. They should call the company United. Similar story to Delta, and AA - both companies, at least to varying degrees, made clear that they were valuing the integration of team members, and tools and processes, and ways of thinking, etc. from Northwest and USAirways, respectively. But both companies were very clear - internally and externally - that the future was one brand.

I think that in United attempting to placate those with strong feelings towards, and sensitivities about, both brands, they may have inadvertently undermined the strength of the singular brand going forward.

SFOtoORD wrote:

I've never gotten this obsession with either of these brands. I've long been a UA flier and they have always had brand/service issues. I do know that CO had a great turnaround period where they had great service, but the brand itself reminded me of an early 1990s PowerPoint template. And even at the time of the merger the CO brand was somewhat declining. If they're going to get rid of the United brand then do something new. And even then, how many people really love their Comcast tv/internet service more now that it is branded Xfinity?

The real answer is for them to get serious about cleaning up their service. That is the one and only thing that will fix perception.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say: Zero. See my post above.

Cointrin330 wrote:

As for United's brand, it was never good to begin with. The airline never (pre-merger) had a reputation for being much more than a mediocre airline and was never an industry leader.

During the mid-to-late 90's, UA actually was doing pretty well from a brand and reputation standpoint. They weren't CO, but they were doing pretty well. Better than NW, better than AA or DL, better than TW. And then it fell apart.

But UA's biggest problem now is that the public sees UA as an airline likely to callously screw you over. Who cares that you've saved up for years to take this vacation? They'll heartlessly ruin it for you. Who cares that you're a physician with patients to see? They don't care about people. They have earned a reputation as a company made up of employees who view their customers with contempt, rather than as the source of their paychecks. They have an additional reputation as a company that will try to cheat you out of the service you purchased.

That's a hard perception from which to recover. Corporate cultures change sluggishly and it's not as if OM or any other CEO has a "corporate culture" slider lever on his desk that can just change these things overnight.

I don't think the UA name has to go, but something major has to be done with the brand. New paint would be nice, but that won't fix the underlying problem, which is that passengers have lost confidence in UA's ability and --more importantly-- willingness to meet customer expectations.

Lipstick on a pig

seahawk wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

If it had blown over quickly, we still wouldn't be discussing it today.

It is an aviation forum, in the mainstream media the thing is nearly over and it is surely no longer trending on social media. And to be honest this whole incident was a minor problem blown way out proportion and in the end it might be found that the airport "police" played the biggest part in the whole story.

Seahawk, stop being so logical. You are messing it for those whose whole world revolve around what trending on twitter.

Through this "ordeal" tens of thousands of passengers made reservations with, flew on and arrived safely on......................what for it.........................United!

The whole deplaning incident is already old news in this 30 second attention span society and anyone with any common sense knew it was all overblown anyways. As far as rebranding as co, stupidest idea ever but expected from the magical thinking excons out there. United has a lot of work to do fixing the damage done by smisuck and his cheapening every aspect of the airline ways and it's being done but will take time, longer than the fix it now crowd want.

VC10er wrote:

From a professional branding POV, they should NOT change the name to Continental or some other dumb new name like "Avialux" - (which a branding company would love to be paid $350,000 to do). It would be a great way to tell the world "we suck, so we are going to hide behind a new name".

They should just go back to "Allegis."

/scarcasm

I wouldn't be so sure. UA's been going through a "rough patch" for almost 7 years since the merger was announced, and was a bit of a basket case before then, too. The reason it is making a profit right now is due to less competition, and the economy. Delta has definitely lead the way, and is rightfully doing so. United limps along, copying bits and pieces of Delta.

The brand is definitely tarnished by recent events, but it was hardly an untarnished brand to begin with. UA really need to focus on improving customer service, both on the ground and in the air. Their 'team' is their Achilles's heel.[/quote]

Is this post and article serious? The reason why UA has been limping along is because of the CO people that HAVE and ARE running it. Lets face the facts: CO was a small regional carrier who found their niche serving secondary cities and avoiding the big boys. The route system looked great on paper, but the management and their style at CO had no clue how to survive in the 'major leagues.' This is obvious by what has happened over the past 7 years. They adapted the 'CO style' and immediately ran off all the 1K and big dollar flyers to AA and DL. The quality of the product onboard declined and their 'Business Class' was not in the same league as International F-class on UA. At UA the big joke when the merger first happened was, "...none of their passengers wear ties;" that should tell you who their clientele consisted of. Their dependence on small regional jets to serve major markets was straight out of 'hicksville.' UA served major business centers and the feeling was, 'if it ain't concrete and asphalt, they don't fly there.' CO went to places like SHH, BTV, and ACT. Enough said.
UA allowed their employees to be empowered and perform tasks without fear of retribution; CO has reams of paper one has to justify just to get to the question; forget about the decision. I talked to a UA mechanic once, he said if a part of the carpet was coming up and needed to be fixed, at UA HE could make a decision and fix it right there with no loss of downtime for the plane. Under CO, he had to get the log book, call IAH, wait on hold while they got to him, then explain the problem and be put back on hold. Finally they would come back to him and give him a sequential number that he would then place in the log book as the ok to fix or defer. Now he could go take some duct tape and tape down that carpet. Problem is on a quick turn, passengers have now boarded and plane will take a delay while all of this is going on. (I wont even go into the log book thing that UA got rid of decades ago, but CO is only now transitioning out of this antique system.)

To combat the fear of prospective passengers to get restrained and dragged off the plane, the re-branding should use "Untied" as the new name.
The transposition of two letters in the logo is all that's needed minimizing the needed expenditure.

Agreed completely.. the processes that were adopted from Continental are what is killing this airline operationally. Common sense is not allowed. It takes forever and about 10 different people to chime in before a decision can be made.

DocLightning wrote:

They weren't CO, but they were doing pretty well. Better than NW, better than AA or DL, better than TW.

That is highly, highly debatable.

Ugh not again.

Can we just let this DIE. Its been almost a decade. Lets move on from this crap.

commavia wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

While I agree that United needs to probably re-brand, reverting back to Continental is not the way to go. Everyone at the company could use a fresh start. I also believe they need to drop United Continental Holdings, to just United. What's the point of hanging on to the Continental name?

Agree. It's the same point I was making about picking the Continental livery after the merger. It sent the wrong message. There needs to be a clean break with the past, so everyone can rally around a common objective and shared vision for the future. The company is and will remain United. They should call the company United. Similar story to Delta, and AA - both companies, at least to varying degrees, made clear that they were valuing the integration of team members, and tools and processes, and ways of thinking, etc. from Northwest and USAirways, respectively. But both companies were very clear - internally and externally - that the future was one brand.

I think that in United attempting to placate those with strong feelings towards, and sensitivities about, both brands, they may have inadvertently undermined the strength of the singular brand going forward.

All of this! UA handled the merger in a half-assed way, and continued to do a lot of things half-assed well past the merger. One could argue they're still doing certain things half-assed. The whole idea of a "merger of equals" and trying to placate both sides was idiotic. Both AA and DL executed their mergers far better, and were able to get all employee groups (mostly) in line, because they realized the power of a unifying brand. Calling the airline United, but holding onto the Continental livery just confused things and sent a terrible message. DL has never been one for heritage liveries (I think they've only done one), but they honor their past in other ways including info on NW on their website and in the DL museum. AA has the heritage jets honoring US (and HP). UA could've done something simliar by paining an aircraft in a "heritage" CO livery, but the airline should've used the legacy United branding, not this mish mash they went with. That said, I don't believe they're going to change the airline's name. It's UA and will remain UA, but hopefully they can learn from the mistakes of the past and come up with a new unifying brand to put all this behind them.

tpaewr wrote:

Yes the united brand is ruined

That seems quite premature to claim. What evidence do you have of that?

seahawk wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I doubt the brand is really damaged. this is a social media storm that will blow over quickly.

If it had blown over quickly, we still wouldn't be discussing it today.

It is an aviation forum, in the mainstream media the thing is nearly over and it is surely no longer trending on social media. And to be honest this whole incident was a minor problem blown way out proportion and in the end it might be found that the airport "police" played the biggest part in the whole story.

I just googled United Airlines and came up with lots of negative press that is relatively new, all within 24 hours, its absolutely still alive in the mainstream press. Here you go, I even took the liberty of copy and pasting some interesting ones for you...

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/201 ... damon-feud

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-a ... 411-2017-4

http://www.inquisitr.com/4156269/passen ... -airlines/

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia ... what.htmls

There are plenty, plenty more but I am sure you get the point, or do you?

The United brand was damaged long before this round. Consumers would see right through changing the name but not refocusing the airline--the customer-facing people who work there--as one company that is focused on its customers, all its customers, not just 1ks. Xfinity was already pointed out as an example of people seeing right through a meaningless re-branding and hating the "new" company (that still sucks) just as much as the original name.

jumbojet wrote:

seahawk wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

If it had blown over quickly, we still wouldn't be discussing it today.

It is an aviation forum, in the mainstream media the thing is nearly over and it is surely no longer trending on social media. And to be honest this whole incident was a minor problem blown way out proportion and in the end it might be found that the airport "police" played the biggest part in the whole story.

I just googled United Airlines and came up with lots of negative press that is relatively new, all within 24 hours, its absolutely still alive in the mainstream press. Here you go, I even took the liberty of copy and pasting some interesting ones for you...

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/201 ... damon-feud

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-a ... 411-2017-4

http://www.inquisitr.com/4156269/passen ... -airlines/

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia ... what.htmls

There are plenty, plenty more but I am sure you get the point, or do you?

None of that brand damage will be fixed with a new brand name.

jumbojet wrote:

seahawk wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

If it had blown over quickly, we still wouldn't be discussing it today.

It is an aviation forum, in the mainstream media the thing is nearly over and it is surely no longer trending on social media. And to be honest this whole incident was a minor problem blown way out proportion and in the end it might be found that the airport "police" played the biggest part in the whole story.

I just googled United Airlines and came up with lots of negative press that is relatively new, all within 24 hours, its absolutely still alive in the mainstream press. Here you go, I even took the liberty of copy and pasting some interesting ones for you...

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/201 ... damon-feud

http://www.businessinsider.com/united-a ... 411-2017-4

http://www.inquisitr.com/4156269/passen ... -airlines/

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia ... what.htmls

There are plenty, plenty more but I am sure you get the point, or do you?

The jokes will stay with the brand for a long time but the whole thing is so minor that it does not warrant a rebrand. In fact UA now needs to improve their customer service and if they succeed and customers agree on the improvement, they can even promote some "knock-out prices in 18-24 months". The public is not so stupid that a new name would change anything and if you really strive to improve the service, you can keep the old brand which would only come out stronger in the end.

727200 wrote:

Is this post and article serious? The reason why UA has been limping along is because of the CO people that HAVE and ARE running it. Lets face the facts: CO was a small regional carrier who found their niche serving secondary cities and avoiding the big boys. The route system looked great on paper, but the management and their style at CO had no clue how to survive in the 'major leagues.' This is obvious by what has happened over the past 7 years. They adapted the 'CO style' and immediately ran off all the 1K and big dollar flyers to AA and DL. The quality of the product onboard declined and their 'Business Class' was not in the same league as International F-class on UA. At UA the big joke when the merger first happened was, "...none of their passengers wear ties;" that should tell you who their clientele consisted of. Their dependence on small regional jets to serve major markets was straight out of 'hicksville.' UA served major business centers and the feeling was, 'if it ain't concrete and asphalt, they don't fly there.' CO went to places like SHH, BTV, and ACT. Enough said.
UA allowed their employees to be empowered and perform tasks without fear of retribution; CO has reams of paper one has to justify just to get to the question; forget about the decision. I talked to a UA mechanic once, he said if a part of the carpet was coming up and needed to be fixed, at UA HE could make a decision and fix it right there with no loss of downtime for the plane. Under CO, he had to get the log book, call IAH, wait on hold while they got to him, then explain the problem and be put back on hold. Finally they would come back to him and give him a sequential number that he would then place in the log book as the ok to fix or defer. Now he could go take some duct tape and tape down that carpet. Problem is on a quick turn, passengers have now boarded and plane will take a delay while all of this is going on. (I wont even go into the log book thing that UA got rid of decades ago, but CO is only now transitioning out of this antique system.)

You realize CO was larger than UA both TATL and to Latin America and had been for years.


I will agree you with the need for employee empowerment. Better training would also help. It is hard to learn CO system when your material use legacy UA terms, but that is another story.

As a 1K, a pilot, business owner, and a physician there are some things that are glaringly apparent
that could improve the situation and the brand. United should not physical re-brand their aircraft until
the problems have been addressed.

1) Publicly admit that there is a problem first. (Personally I think the core cultural problem at United stems from lack of focus on customer service.
Employees are rewarded on tenure and not customer satisfaction. It should be at least a combination of employee loyalty to United and
performance.) The disappointing thing to me is I have seen positive changes over the past 2 years.

2) Publicly announce what corrections will be done.... i.e. things like: No idb"s after boarding / Police are never called unless there is a passenger
causing a threat to safety or criminal activity / Create some flexibility to deal with unforeseen situations at the gate. / Raise compensation limits
so that all unboarding is voluntary. I am sure there many other things that could be announced to improve the perception that United does care
about their customers.

3) Continue to try to improve the customer experience. I think Polaris is great step in that direction but why does it take so many years to
implement? Once Zodiac figures out their issues can it be done sooner? I'd rather see money spent here than painting the fleet in a new
color scheme, at least for the short term.

And in the end I definitely agree with OA412 above, a completely new unifying Brand change would be great to see.