hanno praticamente tutta la famiglia 767 compreso la rara versione 767-400ER portati in dote da Continental nelle due versioni Micronesia per collegamenti con le Hawai da 256 posti e Intercontinental con 235 posti ...se li vendessero fossi in AZ......
Via alla fusione tra United e Continental
- Autore Discussione uncomfortable
- Data d'inizio
Vorrei ben vedere! KLM, così come IB (e a mio avviso anche CO) sono marchi troppo forti per farli sparire per colpa di un merger e hanno anche un forte attaccamento sentimentale/patriottico. NW aveva perso lo smalto di un tempo, visti anche i problemi finanziari e la flotta non più modernissima, così si è ricorso all'integrazione totale della compagnia in DL. Che tra CO e UA abbiano deciso di mantenere il secondo mi pare una scelta quantomeno azzardata, poichè erano entrambi due brand forti, anche se in zone diverse del pianeta (CO Europa, UA Asia)
Chi lo sa: guardando i casi precedenti ci son state razionalizzazioni ed integrazioni di flotta tanto che, con un maggiore quantità di aeromobili, hanno ottimizzato tratte e frequenze inserendo aeromobili più adatti secondo le destinazioni operate. Alludo alla fusione di DL e NW.
Quello che mi auguro è che un voletto per IAH prima o poi spunti da qualche parte, ma non è detto che sia così scontato tanto che, anche se più volte hanno menzionato a IAH come hub principale, purché lo fosse anche per Continental, le destinzioni europee servite si possono contare sulle dita di una mano.
Nel caso di KLM ovviamente si è assistito ad una fusione con mantenimento di sfere d'influenza tanto che abbiamo assistito in pochi anni a diverse chiusure da parte Olandese (TRN, AMM, DAM) a beneficio di una maggiore ottimizzazione dei voli da CDG.
Non credo che sia un problema di slot - secondo me é un problema di LIN e di possibilitá di operare un certo numero di frequenze giornaliere da quell'aeroporto.
CO era vicina ad avere già da sola la famiglia completa, ma non ha preso in carico nemmeno il suo primo 767-324/ER, non so dove sia finito ora. E UA ha già eliminato i 762 più vecchiotti di quelli di CO.
Per aprire un volo da Houston all'Italia - hub o non hub, fusione o no - ci vorrebbe traffico fra Houston e l'Italia. Houston è una città che campa di petrolio e trae il proprio traffico più pregiato in quel settore: in questa ottica, è assai più verosimile un volo IAH-LOS, che uno IAH-FCO/MXP.
A parte il poco traffico point-to-point per l'Italia, IAH non è certo un hub ideale per portare passeggeri in Europa: se hai Newark (Chicago e Washington), non ti occorre certo Houston come scalo per andare in Europa.
A parte il poco traffico point-to-point per l'Italia, IAH non è certo un hub ideale per portare passeggeri in Europa: se hai Newark (Chicago e Washington), non ti occorre certo Houston come scalo per andare in Europa.
Questi i numeri del megacolosso:
A319: 55
A320: 97
A350: (25+50)
B735: 31
B73G: 36
B738: 117
B739: 42
B744: 25
B752: 137
B753: 21
B762: 10
B763: 35
B764: 16
B772: 72 (5)
B788: (36+50)
B789: (14)
TOT: 694
Sui regional qualcuno può aiutarmi?
A319: 55
A320: 97
A350: (25+50)
B735: 31
B73G: 36
B738: 117
B739: 42
B744: 25
B752: 137
B753: 21
B762: 10
B763: 35
B764: 16
B772: 72 (5)
B788: (36+50)
B789: (14)
TOT: 694
Sui regional qualcuno può aiutarmi?
Concordo, anch'io avrei tenuto sia il marchio United che Continental come è successo con AF e KLM e BA ed IB.
Concordo!
E' ovviamemte il problema di LIN a far si che AZ mantenga 5 COA.
Come marchio hanno tenuto Alitalia, AirOne per la nuova creatura a MXP, e AirOne Cityline per il regional anche se parlano di sostituirlo con Alitalia Rete Regionale.
Volare è già sparita se non a livello di COA e AZ Express se non cambia i progetti la seguirà.
Confermo quanto sopra.:compiaciuto:
Al contrario di AF+KLM e di BA+IB che servono ciascuna una Nazione, e quindi è una buona cosa mantenere un'aerolinea con una identità nazionale indipendente, UA e CO sono dello stesso Paese, tenere due brand separati che offrono lo stesso servizio non sarebbe una fusione vera.
Leggete qui, la risposta del CEO di US al CEO di CO che aveva fatto delle battute nei giorni scorsi (CO non voleva che UA si sposasse con la "ragazza brutta", riferendosi a US ovviamente).
Certo che tra partners della stessa alleanza non è carino, non è sintomatico di grande armonia.
Fellow Employees:
A number of you have contacted me asking about Continental CEO Jeff Smisek’s “ugly girl”
comment yesterday. In case you haven’t seen it, when announcing their plans to merge with
United Airlines yesterday, Mr. Smisek said, “I didn’t want him (United CEO Glenn Tilton) to marry
the ugly girl. I wanted him to marry the pretty one.” The ugly girl was a clear reference to US
Airways. Like me, many of you found his comment both chauvinistic and offensive to the hardworking
people of US Airways.
First, you should know that Jeff sent me an apology, stating that he “got carried away in the
moment,” “really felt badly” and “had no good excuse.” I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology,
have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it.
Having said that, the emails I’ve received from many of you suggest this comment hit a nerve so I
wanted to give you my views. As one of you simply put it, “Why are we the ugly girl?” The answer,
of course, is we are not and there’s no better evidence of that than our recent performance.
In fact, we are performing better than Continental on almost all of the important metrics of our
business. Financially, we each reported first quarter financial results in the past two weeks, and
while we both lost money, we both lost much less than last year. However, US Airways’ rate of
improvement was much better than Continental’s driven by both higher revenue growth and
better cost control. On an absolute basis, our profit margins are now higher than Continental’s.
Operationally, we’re performing much better than Continental in the primary customer service
metric of on-time performance. US Airways jets arrived on-time more often than Continental’s
during the first quarter 2010, and we also outperformed them in on-time during all of 2009 and
2008. We are also now neck and neck with Continental in areas like baggage and complaints.
This is all being noticed by the outside world, as US Airways stock price is up 42 percent so far
this year, while Continental’s is up 15 percent, even after announcing their merger.
Bottom line, I think both of our airlines are doing a great job in a challenging business – but if I
were them I wouldn’t be pointing fingers.
So why did United choose to merge with Continental rather than US if we’re performing better
financially and operationally than they are today? I think the answer is straightforward and one
we’ve discussed many times – while we have a strong route network centered around PHL, CLT,
PHX, DCA and the Shuttle, Continental has dominant positions in major business markets like
Newark and Houston that allow them to collect even higher revenues than we can with our
network. United preferred that network to ours and while we may disagree with that decision, it
was United’s to make and we need to respect it and move on.
None of this means we don’t have a valuable standalone company. To the contrary, we’re
producing better standalone results than our peers like Continental. We announced last week that
we expect to report a profit in the current quarter of this year, which is further evidence of our
standalone value. As consolidation makes our industry less fragmented and more efficient, our
standalone prospects will only become stronger.
As we move forward, let’s not worry about the words of our competitors – no matter how
inappropriate they may be – but rather let’s continue to show the world what we can accomplish
by working together and performing our jobs in a professional and focused manner.
Thanks so much for your commitment to US Airways. I’m proud to be a part of your team and am
looking forward to aggressively competing against the new United Airlines – and winning -- for
many years to come.
Doug
Certo che tra partners della stessa alleanza non è carino, non è sintomatico di grande armonia.
Fellow Employees:
A number of you have contacted me asking about Continental CEO Jeff Smisek’s “ugly girl”
comment yesterday. In case you haven’t seen it, when announcing their plans to merge with
United Airlines yesterday, Mr. Smisek said, “I didn’t want him (United CEO Glenn Tilton) to marry
the ugly girl. I wanted him to marry the pretty one.” The ugly girl was a clear reference to US
Airways. Like me, many of you found his comment both chauvinistic and offensive to the hardworking
people of US Airways.
First, you should know that Jeff sent me an apology, stating that he “got carried away in the
moment,” “really felt badly” and “had no good excuse.” I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology,
have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it.
Having said that, the emails I’ve received from many of you suggest this comment hit a nerve so I
wanted to give you my views. As one of you simply put it, “Why are we the ugly girl?” The answer,
of course, is we are not and there’s no better evidence of that than our recent performance.
In fact, we are performing better than Continental on almost all of the important metrics of our
business. Financially, we each reported first quarter financial results in the past two weeks, and
while we both lost money, we both lost much less than last year. However, US Airways’ rate of
improvement was much better than Continental’s driven by both higher revenue growth and
better cost control. On an absolute basis, our profit margins are now higher than Continental’s.
Operationally, we’re performing much better than Continental in the primary customer service
metric of on-time performance. US Airways jets arrived on-time more often than Continental’s
during the first quarter 2010, and we also outperformed them in on-time during all of 2009 and
2008. We are also now neck and neck with Continental in areas like baggage and complaints.
This is all being noticed by the outside world, as US Airways stock price is up 42 percent so far
this year, while Continental’s is up 15 percent, even after announcing their merger.
Bottom line, I think both of our airlines are doing a great job in a challenging business – but if I
were them I wouldn’t be pointing fingers.
So why did United choose to merge with Continental rather than US if we’re performing better
financially and operationally than they are today? I think the answer is straightforward and one
we’ve discussed many times – while we have a strong route network centered around PHL, CLT,
PHX, DCA and the Shuttle, Continental has dominant positions in major business markets like
Newark and Houston that allow them to collect even higher revenues than we can with our
network. United preferred that network to ours and while we may disagree with that decision, it
was United’s to make and we need to respect it and move on.
None of this means we don’t have a valuable standalone company. To the contrary, we’re
producing better standalone results than our peers like Continental. We announced last week that
we expect to report a profit in the current quarter of this year, which is further evidence of our
standalone value. As consolidation makes our industry less fragmented and more efficient, our
standalone prospects will only become stronger.
As we move forward, let’s not worry about the words of our competitors – no matter how
inappropriate they may be – but rather let’s continue to show the world what we can accomplish
by working together and performing our jobs in a professional and focused manner.
Thanks so much for your commitment to US Airways. I’m proud to be a part of your team and am
looking forward to aggressively competing against the new United Airlines – and winning -- for
many years to come.
Doug
Nelle grandi alleanze è difficile che tutti vadano d'accordo con qualsiasi membro. E' successo storicamente e difficilmente non poteva non ripresentarsi oggi.
ma ora quale sarà il destino di us airways? è troppo fantascientifico pensare a un passaggio a oneworld con possibile fusione con american? così si avrebbero 3 mega compagnie in rappresentanza di ognuna delle alleanze
certo, mi riferivo soprattutto agli aerei dal 753 in su. Ne hanno una caterba e contanto che non volano in Africa mi sembrano un po' tantini...