What killed UA was the higher than usual pay scales. The pilot's actions were during the last part of the economic boom and it turned away a lot of biz travelers away : they need punctual operations. They were barely able to pay those high salaries during the time that biz travelers were flying. Now it's impossible to cover those costs due to the lack of yields. We have about 50 consultants from a major consulting firm's Chicago office that travel every weekend on the ORD/MDW-BDL route. They prefer AA or even WN versus UA as they all told me about the problems they faced in the summer of 2000. I also agree with lack of quality management during past few years. Former CEO concentrated on bizjets and suck w/out fixing the dirt in the back yard. But I think UA will prevail and will take necessary measures to come out of the hole sooner or later.. The question is how soon.. Also let's not forget that bankruptcy could be a favorable option when you are trying to do drastic changes .. BAHA Fan of UA and Ch. 9 -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU]On Behalf Of Jim Fuoco Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 9:20 PM To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU Subject: Re: Why UA but not AA? UA pays its people more. AA has a network advantages as the largest airline in the world with a bunch more RJs. UA has had years of bad management and hence the employees have a nearly irreversable hate for management. On the revenue side, UA will see significant improvement resulting from the US codeshare. Jim On Sun, 4 Aug 2002, Jon Wright wrote: > Why is UA in such perilous financial straits but AA isn't? > > I always thought those two carriers were the Coke and Pepsi of > the airline industry. > > Cheers, > Jon > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Wright jwright@halcyon.com voice 425-635-0338 > fax 425-844-1403 > You've got a hard lip, Herbert. http://www.spudboy.com/~jwright >