that is so strange to see. Just last night I was driving with my girlfriend in Arvada CO just north of Denver and I saw a billboard that said "have you seen Ted lately." when I read it I said WHO THE F*^% is TED. very cool.
I think Tilton has done an excellent job so far.... how many people can turn an airline around that was loosing up to 20 millon a day into earning an operating profit each day with in the time frame he has done it in???? Not many....
There are many things that have been improved at UAL, however they still have a long way to go and there's much they still need to work on to improve....But with Tilton as CEO I reckon we'll defenitely see them out of bankruptcy on a healthy road again sometime next year...... The TED stuff is just something that they need on their plan to help them come out of bankruptcy even if it's not successful in the long run.
And I guess those extra gates UAL own in Denver will be used by TED now......too bad for F9...
I think both of the airlines tie there since none of them got what they really wanted. And yes, United has been having some tough competition from Frontier - until they'll be able to fight back with Ted.
As for the name Ted, I really don't think people (customers) care what the name is.... Look at Song - not exactly a brilliant name, but look how successful they are becoming, and it's hard to believe it's becoming a recognized brand which people are beginning to like. Some people prefer to fly on a major airlines product than just any old LCC if the airfare is close or matched. These days the number one thing people look for is the "cheapest air fare available" and some of the time the majors are matching those fares with LCC's, or they are pretty close, but it's tough on them since the LCC's are in a different business than the majors with lower operating cost. It's kind of like one arm is being pulled down and the other is being pulled up...not very comfortable. The majors LCC's will allow them to relax a little and give the other LCC's a little bit of their own type of competition...
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.
Well, one thing's for sure. From an advertising standpoint, the Ted campaign worked. We're all talking about it. Consulting companies are dissecting whether it means anything. It's in the media.
Of course, just because the advertising works doesn't mean that the company will do squat. Remember the shooting gerbils out of a cannon ad for Cyberian Outpost? Or the sock puppet for Pets.com? Great ads, but since the business model was flawed, all the advertising in the world didn't do squat.
[ QUOTE ]
From an advertising standpoint, the Ted campaign worked.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whether it worked or not depends on what the aim is. If the aim is to just create a buzz, I would say it's doing it's job. I would hope that the aim was to bring on MORE repeat passengers, well, that remains to be seen.
First off, from a marketing standpoint. This TED campaign is simply brilliant. It has done exactly what they wanted it to do and all of us are eating right up.
The only problem is the expectations they are creating could come back and bite them in the rear because if they don't deliver the product that they are boasting then there will be many more Frontier passengers and TED will be DEAD.
This will also create more jobs and help boost the economy in the Denver area.
On a similar note Denver Int. has come to a compromise on the gate battle between Frontier and United. Instead of a $300,000,000 airport expansion they narrowed it down to a $192,000,000 expansion. Here is the article: