Originally Posted by
Zoomie
Hey L-CAL guys, the L-UAL guys are absolutely correct!
Listen to the wisdom they bestow upon us.
The orders at CAL meant nothing without United and actually, as a matter of fact, the delays to the Boeing 787 weren't due to manufacturing and design flaws, they were delayed waiting for CAL to merge with United, otherwise CAL would have no place to fly, just big airplanes with all the routes in the world clean and dried up.
Without UAL, all those orders at CAL would be delivered and immediately parked on the ramp waiting for a big bad JUMBO airline to merge with us so we'd have somewhere to fly. Without a big jumbo airline, an airline can't grow; that's impossible!
I guess CAL had no chance at new routes anywhere or expansion in order to compete with the other legacy carriers out there. Our CEO said that the merger was absolutely necessary, and I'm pretty sure he gave up a whole lot of his pay and benefits just to ensure the survivability of both airlines.
This is why SWA, JetBlue, Alaska and Spirit have all gone bankrupt in the last few years. All the flying was eaten up by big mother United and there was none left.
It's a good thing United bought CAL when they did, because, even though USAir, who was doing worse than CAL prior to the merger, is making record profits, there was no possibility whatsoever that CAL could have made it on it's own. Just because CAL was the only legacy to make a profit since the industry crashed after 9/11 doesn't mean that they had a good business model.
Oh, and another point, UAL was "right sized" for the merger. It doesn't matter that UAL was 30% bigger than CAL, it's normal for the big company to change their operations to conform to those of the little company when a merger occurs when the big company is healthy. I'm sure if T-mobile had been allowed to merge with AT&T a few years ago, T-mobile's management would have taken over to make sure AT&T knew what they were doing. That was the plan, right?
I feel nauseous...
Zoomie,
I applaud individuals like GoCats who have taken time to use facts and figures to bolster their argument. Your statement above is a retort with no factual basis. You say you disagree, but you use only your opinions and sarcasm as evidence. You draw enormous analogies between Alaska and Continental as stand alone operations but you offer zero analysis as to how they may or may not be similar and what that MIGHT imply about Continental IF it had remained independent. In short, you take the easy way out and take no time at all to study the facts as they exist. Doesn't that bother you even the slightest?
How many planes did Continental have on order in April of 2010? What was the growth plan outlined in the 2009 Annual report? Was growth above 2 or 3% ever mentioned? Did the growth plans change between 2007 and 2009? What was the Global Aviation Industry outlook in 2009?
Do you honestly believe that Continental was going to grow regardless of industry trends? Do you really believe that United was never going to grow under any circumstances? Do you really believe that the Delta/Northwest merger allowed for smaller legacy carriers to effectively grow 10% or more from 2010 to 2013?
Nobody at United is saying that Continental wasn't a great company and a good partner; what every United pilot wants, I think, is a little respect for what we brought to the table namely a strong global route structure and a fleet of large aircraft doing long haul efficient flying that we all get to share in not to mention the increased feed opportunities we gain from joining forces.
Also, the boys at USA kicked ALPA out because they felt wronged and in response ALPA rewrote the merger policy to include the word "longevity". Not United pilots - ALPA. We didn't get a windfall; we got what current ALPA merger policy dictates.