On Jun 4, 2008, at 7:12 AM, Tyler Munoz wrote: > I thought "Ted" was doing pretty well for UAL. Ted was a terrible idea, both for passengers and for the airline. Delta learned that with Song, and some of the European carriers learned the same lesson. Ted was particularly lame, since it could not really compete on price with Southwest and JetBlue, so all you got was a bunch of single-class A320s with reduced amenities, which put off high-yield business travelers (no paid F, no upgrades) in favor of low-yield leisure/family travelers. Good riddance. Won't be missed. Nor will the aging, fuel-guzzling 737-300/-500 fleet, either. United missed the boat in not ordering 737NGs when they (sort of) had the money, and now they'll have to make the A320/319 fleet stretch until the next up-cycle when they can maybe order some planes. So my question is, is this really primarily intended to make UAL a more attractive merger candidate next year when the cost reductions and ongoing reduced liabilities are reflected in the balance sheet? -- Michael C. Berch mcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you wish to unsubscribe from the AIRLINE List, please send an E-mail to: "listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx". Within the body of the text, only write the following:"SIGNOFF AIRLINE".