03-20-2016, 06:09 PM
numbered wrote:
[quote=max]
It took United two years to screw up its better acquisition.
I had the inverse reaction. The merger left Continental executives, Continental IT (the web site was screwed up for two years), arrogant Continental crews (announcements from the flight deck that they were "Continental" crews flying United), arrogant managers and ground staff (United folks could not believe the "we are holier than thou" attitude from the Continental staff), and so on.
It was a Continental takeover of United.
Has not gone very well. Disgraced CEO. Financial strategy (to pay the investment bankers and the former execs) has caused huge problems.
So, yeah, it is United's fault! Not exactly,
Continental was acquired by UAL Corporation; at the time of closing, it was estimated that United shareholders owned 55% of the merged entity and Continental shareholders owned 45%https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Con...l_Holdings
On the other hand, you are correct as to the operating system, the IT was Continental's, it did result in the system scheduling meltdown once or twice in the first year after merger, but that was not the main problem from passenger's point of view, nor is it a factor the way the airline is run 6 years later. It is the United corporate culture....
“Continental was probably the best airline in my opinion that you could travel on pre-United,” said Mr. Wigdor, a New Jersey resident who flies about twice a month to Houston from Newark on United. “I would say United is one of the lowest.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/busine...climb.html
Among his complaints: poor service, choppy Wi-Fi and — after United cut back on perks and upgrades — little appreciation of frequent fliers, like himself, who log tens of thousands of miles a year.
“l feel like at 100,000 miles, somebody should care and make me feel like a valued customer,” Mr. Wigdor said. “You’re treated as just a commodity, and it’s a race to the bottom. They don’t really appreciate me at all.”