We're not the only ones...
My take is that UAL needs exit financing, and needs to show they have a plan. ANY PLAN! This is what Ted is. A bad plan, but a plan none the less.
http://www.aviationplanning.com/
From The Better-Get-A-New-Ad-Agency-Department, Phase II: United is covering the Denver market with teaser ads about "Ted" - its new low-fare airline-within-an-airline. Apparently, "Ted" is derived from the last three letters of "United." Others opine that the letters "T-E-D" stand for "They're Extremely Desperate."
The Ted website is a perfect example of what happens when an ad agency is let out of its cage unsupervised. A quirky, jumbled, and confused mosaic of pictures and things like: A video store. Three guys apparently one beer over the line at a Broncos game, wearing nothing but barrels and cowboy hats. References to "denim." A salute to macaroni & cheese. A clerk at a cigarette counter, replete with an advertisement for Camels in the background. (Nice image for the kids, eh?) The whole thing looks like it's aimed at cornering the lucrative trailer park market.
More Questions About TED: Regardless of advertising, key questions remain blissfully unanswered about Ted. (Or Starfish, Blowfish, or whatever this thing is going to be called.) Question one: how can Ted get lower costs when every major factor in the expense mix is reportedly the same as mainline? Fast turns? Not likely if the traffic depends on more than just Denver O&D. More seats? That doesn't make flying the plane any cheaper, in fact, it could deter premium passengers entirely. Question two: what's the effect of inter-mingling different products to the same customers, at the same connecting hub? For example, the Premier Executive passenger from Seattle connecting at Denver on his way to Phoenix. SEA-DEN, he gets mainline, upgraded to first class. Then his connecting flight to PHX plunges him into the murky denim-Marlboro-beer-and-potato-chip world of "Ted." It doesn't seem to make sense, and it's all painfully similar to the United Shuttle fiasco. Some folks in the media are asking the same questions of United and getting no answers, either. (We covered this a couple of weeks ago. Click Here.)
American's CEO last week again made the observation that an LCC sub-fleet of 25 or 50 airplanes cannot do much to change the fortunes of a carrier operating over 700 aircraft. But then again, he could be wrong. After all, United is paying its outside advisors plenty - according to the Denver Post, one advisor is billing his time at over $1,100 per hour - so maybe there's something we're all missing. And maybe it's just United's senior management missing good sense. One has to wonder how much money and energy is being diverted from turning around United's mainline operations just to start a funky 40-airplane non-low-cost LCC.
But the whole idea behind the Ted advertising is to "create a buzz." That may be prophetic. "Buzz" was the name of KLM's LCC.
It failed miserably.
© 2003 The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Check out F9's official reply per Rocky Mountain News:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_2423933,00.html
And I found these on Yahoo!'s message bbs
Teetering Each Day?
Thanks Enron Disciples?
Topheavy Egomaniacal Dumbf--ks?
They're Especially Desperate?
Total Encompassing Destruction?
Tilton's Engineered Debacle?
Tempting Each DIP (Debtor in Possession)?
Take Every Dollar?
Tragic Enema Done?