London Heathrow's New Terminal 2 Opens for Business - United Operates First Flight to Arrive at the Queen’s Terminal

Your hypothesis is not accurate regarding one's point of view. I am in the fortunate position of having been a pilot and subsequently being head of a large division in a publically quoted company. So, although it is common sense (which is not that common....) that one does not make decisions as a result of a "hissy fit" (i.e. an emotional outburst)if one wants to remain objective or as a result of a "spat" with a local dignatory, etc., etc., this is what appears to have happened on several occasions. As many people know, the people at the top set the mindset for the rest of the people within the organisation, this fact also works in a reverse mode where several police forces stop all minor infractions in the belief that minor becomes major in due course. The decision not to take this T2 opportunity leads one to conclude that their is a "slackness" throughout the organisation. The surge of the "let's fix it/let's be better" attitude prevelant within the early Conti organisation seems to have waned to a trickle in the "new" United - the hunger has abated. That stalwart of aviation history Gordon Bethune being appointed Chairman brought hope to the "new" United but one person cannot do everything that needs to be done to effect a turn-around. A team of similarly minded (and spirited) people is required to achieve great things. Great leaders surround themselves with people who think along similar lines to them and have a record of achieving success. Just how many times did the "old" United try and make a go of matters without success - I recall they even tried the "all employees are shareholders" route which didn't pan out. One just has to look at their plans (and planes) to see how tired the company was compared to the upsurgent Conti. The melding of the two airlines'philosophies/attitudes is a major task. Many a potentially great merger is scuppered by the personalities involved: when personalities have differences it is an unfortunate fact that shareholders fall in the pecking order of importance. Although of importance, the day-to-day running of the organisation trumps the shareholders' interests. Hopefully, someone will rise and save this merger. It all starts at the top.

United doesn't fly the 787 to London currently. Why would they go through all that effort and schedule disruption to send a SMALLER plane to London? Just because it's new? Is anyone seriously going to avoid booking on United because they didn't do that or book on United only because they did?

Proverbs 13:20 King James Version (KJV)
He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

I think the merger was OK, but the move to Chicago and surrounding himself with a bunch of losers was just plumb stupid. IMHO One good example is the post below. They couldn't even get a 787 in there for that ceremony.

Well, it's an attempted blend of the old & new corporate worlds; an upstart in COE and the old and entrenched UAL. The merger, as I said below was not a bad thing, but the original intent, I'm sure, was to shake the dust out of the old. By moving out of Houston to Chicago, he left the management team behind that made COE work. While some went with him , all did not. The old wound up in the majority and in control instead of the other way around. Seems to me that UAL has been reorganized several times in the past and, while maybe as with a band aid, the bleeding would stop for awhile, it really needed stiches in the first place. The merger provided an avenue for stitches. The move to Chicago just left the band aid in place.