Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

United's service at core of its problems

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

canyonblue

Everyone loves Southwest
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,314
Scott McCartney
Wall Street Journal

Published Dec. 16, 2002

In a business where the size of your network is supposed to be a big advantage, few airlines have as many advantages as United Airlines.

United has more hubs than any other carrier, located in large, well-traveled cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. United has highly desirable landing rights at London's Heathrow Airport, and even more-coveted rights in Tokyo. It is an anchor of the biggest international alliance, and it has Pan American's legendary South American network.

Why then, has the airline filed for bankruptcy? The answer is simple: Because size isn't everything. Service is.

One often-overlooked reason for the carrier's downfall may be that, for years, United hasn't been a particularly good airline.

Since the U.S. Department of Transportation began publishing on-time statistics in 1987, United has cumulatively ranked ninth among the nine major airlines. For the past five years, United has been either last or next-to-last in baggage handling. For 2000 and 2001, United led the industry in customer complaints.

Travelers vote with their feet when they have a choice, and United has lost ground sharply in competitive markets. On the West Coast, for example, Southwest Airlines has eaten United's lunch in short-haul flying. In Latin America, United has fallen to No. 3 behind AMR Corporation's American Airlines, which took over Eastern Air Lines' Latin American routes and has become the dominant carrier to the region, and Continental Airlines.

In Denver, discount carrier Frontier Airlines has slowly but steadily gained ground and United has shrunk. In August, United had 56 percent of passengers at Denver International, according to the airport, down from 65 percent in the same month of 1999. Frontier grew to nearly 11 percent from 6 percent over the same period.

In Chicago, American has narrowed United's advantage. In March 1999, shortly after American's pilot sickout, United had an 18-percentage-point edge over American in share of domestic revenue in Chicago, according to J.P. Morgan. By the summer of 2000, when United had a pilot slowdown, the gap was just nine points -- and has remained at about nine points since.

One can build a case that the summer of 2000 was the turning point for United. Managers of United parent UAL Corp. were desperately trying to win approval from labor and government to acquire US Airways Group Inc., and were willing to buy pilot approval. Rick Dubinsky, the former head of United's pilot's union, famously said pilots didn't want to kill the golden goose, "We just want to choke it by the neck until it gives us every last egg."

Instead, it was passengers who were choked. To force management's hand, pilots ground United's operation to a snail's pace. They won big raises -- but then the deal fell apart. Regulators blocked the merger, the economy soon turned south, passengers switched loyalty, terrorists struck and suddenly the golden goose was headed to the intensive-care unit. The summertime nightmare cost United some $500 million, management later said, and the effects have lingered.

High labor costs are by no means unique to United. United's pilots at the time were trying to leapfrog over their counterparts at Delta Air Lines; United's mechanics earlier this year wanted a deal better than the rich new contract signed by mechanics at Eagan-based Northwest Airlines. What is unique is that employees own more than half of United's stock and pilots and mechanics have great clout on the board of directors.

United has other particular problems, too. While other carriers, such as American and Continental, were aggressively mortgaging airplanes in order to raise cash and ride out this recession, United missed opportunities to access the capital markets earlier this year.

"But for a few timing decisions, we could be substituting AMR Corp. for UAL Corp.," UBS Warburg analyst Sam Buttrick said. "There were windows of opportunity for UAL to raise capital that they took a pass on."

Some think management didn't want too much cash on hand because executives were trying to convince mechanics to agree to a less-expensive contract. Furthermore, United CEO Jim Goodwin, who had accurately predicted trouble only to anger employee-owners, stepped down in October 2001, under fire from employees. The ship was rudderless at a crucial time.

"Various management changes and labor problems have undermined confidence" in United in the capital markets, said Phillip Baggaley, an airline analyst at Standard & Poor's Corp. "They lost access to the public debt capital markets prior to others."
 
A misleading title

The title of that article is a little misleading. It leads one to think that some lost bags and cancelled flights can bring down an entire airline.

It's really *not* that simple. There are a lot of other factors that contribute to the success of an airline: Service is one of them.

Towards the end of the article the writer begins to touch on various other factors, giving some depth to his thesis.

I only hope that management schools are watching this very closely and it serves as a case study in future classes.

And I'm speaking of not just UAL. As the article mentioned you can just as easily insert AMR or NWA or DAL into the picture.

In a business where the profit margins are as thin as the airlines things really need to be controlled a little tighter.
 
I just read an article that stated ual alpa was "stunned" by management's proposed cuts. They indicated that Tilton wanted more than double what was already agreed upon....Didn't ual pilots agree to 18%? Are they really now asking for more than 36%? Yikes! Any ual pilots care to respond?
 
maybe too little too late...

United Airlines Leads Airline Performance Rankings

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 2, 2002--United Airlines (NYSE:UAL - News) continued a year-long trend of operational excellence by placing first in the latest Department of Transportation (DOT) statistics for on-time performance and for completing 99.6 percent of its scheduled flights in October.
United also set a record yesterday (Sunday, Dec. 1, 2002) by having 90.5 percent of its seats filled, carrying more than a quarter-of-a-million passengers.

Compared to 2001, United moved up from ninth place to first in on-time arrivals, with nearly 90 percent of its flights in October arriving within 14 minutes of schedule - the measure used by the DOT to calculate on-time performance. United also posted the fewest cancellations in the industry. In addition, the company's mishandled bag rate per 1,000 customers was near the top of the industry, bumping the airline up from eighth place last year to fourth.

"Despite the challenges that our airline faces, our employees continue to put the customer first and that's clearly evident in the DOT statistics," said Pete McDonald, United executive vice president-Operations. "Our employees should be very proud that we've been able to pass all of our competitors and give our customers the kind of dependability they expect from United.

"No matter which course our recovery takes it will be business as usual at United. And that means that United Airlines and its employees will continue to give our customers the best possible travel experience in the industry," he continued.
 
Gee, I'm confused

One article's title talks about service as the problem, but service is hardly mentioned. The other article shows how great United's service has been this year. Neither of the articles mention how much UAL spent trying to buy USAir, nor how much was wasted with that fractional thing. I guess labor really is the problem, but wait, they sure know how to make things happen.
 
When you cut out half your flights it isn't all that much of an achievement for the ones that remain to run on time, or have 90% load factor. Same deal with lost bags... when you're used to dealing with X bags / day but now you only have half as many to deal with, you have lots more time to track down the ones that get lost (or would've gotten lost).

Southwest took a nosedive in the on-time ranking, not because our on-time rate went down so much, as because everybody else went way up. When you have a big hub with huge banks of flights coming in & pushing out at about the same times, you get delays. When you suddenly make big cutbacks in the total numbers of flights, you greatly reduce the delays, since airport capacity didn't change.

At Southwest, our delays don't come so much from trying to land 50 airplanes at ATL in 5 minutes, but from delays turning the jets & the way that one delay will inevitably cascade to the rest of that aircraft's flights throughout the day. It's a consequence of building your whole day's schedule around a series of 20 or 25 or 30 minute turns. TSA requirements make those turns a lot more challenging, and we don't have the luxury of starting the boarding process 45 minutes befoe the jet is scheduled to push (since it isn't even on the ground yet!). If you plan on keeping the jet at the gate for 1+15 each time through the hub, you get some leeway to make up for previous lates; we never let our jets sit that long. Airplanes only make $ while they're flying. It's a choice we've made, and at the moment I'm happy that our jets are productive & making money, even if our on-time stats aren't at the top of the pack.

But don't take UAL's current DOT numbers as evidence of any great "improvements" they've made in the last few months. They're simply a consequence of reduced capacity. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Sorry Charlie

50% is a long way from 25% in cuts. Remember that there are far fewer employees to work the fewer flights as well. If we use your comparison, one would think that there are still 100,000 employees making it happen ? My guess is that maybe they are getting it ? UAL is not the only airline to "decongest" the hubs with parked aircraft, so I'll give you that one. United has parked almost 100 planes by itself ! As far as performance though, your cascading schedule problem is not unique to SWA. Mainline 737-300 also had some 40 minute turns unlike the minimum of 1+15 like you suggest. Even with 1+15 at the gate for every UAL jet, one late departure in the morning effects UAL just like SWA. Bring on the Shuttle with 737s and A320s on all domestic routes and we will see a decrease in "at the gate" times. I beleive that we will see productivity be the other MAJOR area addressed at UAL right up there with wage cuts. You folks over at SWA have nothing to worry about according to all of the fans that frequent these boards !

You guys use ACARS to report your OFF and On times yet ?

In any case, thanks for showing interest in UAL.
 
From P3-Adub:

"You guys use ACARS to report your OFF and On times yet ?".

I remember working in operations at America West about ten years ago. All the times were reported verbally from the crew to me. I then entered them into the computer. These were the times reported to the DOT. I remember that if the times were close to schedule the crew would report an "on-time".

We would enter out, taxi, and off times. If the push was late by, say 5 minutes, the crew would adjust their out time and show an extra long time between push and taxi.

And as far as the recovery goes....ALL of the people involved must come together and work as a team to turn this company around. This includes all unions AND its workers, management and the creditors. Personal sacrifices must be made for the greater good of saving the company. This will be a herculean task, but the alternative is....well, look at PanAm and Eastern. My fear is this effort will create [more] disgruntled employees.

Good luck to all of us.

GP
 
article

The article was trying to deal with one specific problem, customer fall off leading to revenue fall off.

We can blame labor or management or whoever we so choose. To me, contrary to Enigma's position stated elsewhere, you never take an action that leads directly to customer dissatisfaction.

Achieving a labor gain is little gain if the people you expect to pay for it are flying on someone else and avoiding you. Of all sins, this is the cardinal one.
 
Snoopy: Are you implying that UAL eliminated all the flights that were habitually late and those that had poor loads in order to get their numbers up? Even I know that would be impossible to do. Could it be that more people did actually fly on UAL and maybe those responsible for on time performance actually worked towards that goal? Every day there are articles expounding on the woes of the airlines. I think the "golden" days are over. If UAL survives, it will be an entirely different animal. 30% pay cuts for the pilots, 13% for the mechanics and thats for starters. Look out for work rule changes too. I fear that the near term outlook for all the airlines is not rosey.
 
Re: Sorry Charlie

P3-Adub said:
You guys use ACARS to report your OFF and On times yet ?

Not yet.

But I'll tell ya one thing, Most captains I fly with do not see it as an "out" time until the aircraft is pushing back, not just door closed. We had ACARS at my last Airline and the old "Doors closed parking brake released" was used by quite a few Captains to generate that "out" time. Now if we at SWA were making up times you think we could at least finish higher than 6th?
 
Info...

The new digital ACARS that we are getting is not going to be used to report out and in times. I agree with canyonblue, most guys I fly with want the legit times called in. Just my two cents.
 
ACARS ?

Never said you guys did massage the numbers, you did. "MOST GUYS I FLY WITH". Anyway, just havin a little fun. The old release the brakes to get the numbers is old stuff, hard to cheat the IN numbers !!! I think the "throwing stones in glass houses" might just apply here ???
 
Last edited:
Re: ACARS ?

P3-Adub said:
Never said you guys dig massage the numbers, you did. "MOST GUYS I FLY WITH".

Just mean when do you consider a flight "out". The "MOST GUYS I FLY WITH" deem it when the plane starts pushing backwards regardless of waiting for a conflicting plane in the alley etc.. I was pointing out that if anything we sell ourselves short by waiting on the out time when congestion or ATC have held us in place just past departure time. I don't massage numbers either as that does not adress the reason a flight leaves,pushes,closes the door late. The flights I have worked here are either on time or not even close, but mostly on time. Great teamwork here to make the schedule, unlike anywhere I have ever seen.
 
I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong :rolleyes: but the "out" time and the "off" time don't get reported, it is the "in" time that the DOT is tracking, actually, the "in" time plus 14 minutes.

Since I get paid when the door closes, and until it opens, I like to call 'em as I see 'em when we run over block . . .
 
Passengers don't give a rat's ass if an airplane is 14 or 15 minutes. They Don't like being an hour late and missing their connection and then having the rude, unsympathetic and arrogant CSRs tell em some bogus excuse like its the weather when it's a beautiful day outside.

People like myself hate flying United. Their service DOES suck and until they change their snotty ways, many of us will fly other airlines.

Hopefully, this Ch.11 thing will sober them up a bit, and snap them back into reality - that includes the pilots!
 
And this from a guy who thinks flying celebrities, CEOs and the beautiful people in his shiny jet is where it's at.:rolleyes:
 
I don't like to bash United, but I learned a long time ago not to mention the name of United Airlines at the dinner table when visiting family in IL and WI. It was like saying a dirty word . . . . . Many people in the Chicago area had come to hate riding UAL, and it is going to take a lot of work to change that perception.

That's why I knew Avolar was a truly stupid idea- most corporate customers have their own airplanes so that they don't have to deal with the airlines, so UAL saying that their name would bring them business from corporate clients told me that they didn't have a frigging clue about how they were perceived by corporate travelers.

Anyway, they can probably turn it around, but I don't think most of the employees have any idea of how painful it is going to be to be for the next few years.
 
Last edited:
Canyonblue,

Naw, I get what you are saying. I also get what others are saying about customer service ! I think that there is change taking place as we speak, just hope that the bow is not below the water line too much to save her ! New management, more comptetive employee costs coming soon, old planes parked, cost cuts aplenty, fewer employees, and sounds like a new model for domestic and international operations. Live for tomorrow and not yesterday folks ! Wish I was there to say thanks to all of our wonderful passengers for sticking with us !

Change or die people keep chanting on these boards, that is what is happening, with a little assistance from the judge. My prediction is that UAL will survive and will be considered a great career option once again !

Happy Holidays !
 

Latest resources

Back
Top