Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA 155 (Mar 29) Delayed 3 Hours - Why?  
User currently onlineEBGflyer From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1016 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Sitting here in ORD waiting for my plane to SFO, which is almost 3 hours delayed.

I can see the flight is coming in as UA 628 from San Diego and departed with a huge delay as well.

I'm just asking myself. Since ORD is a UA hub, why do they have to wait for a flight to come in all the way from SAN instead of replacing it with other equipment? I can hardly imagine, they are not able to push their flight equipment around. That's what other airlines do when delays occur. Even smaller airlines at their hubs have a plane or two as replacements if delay situations occur.. With UA's fleet of 350+ planes you'd imagine there would be something available.

What do you think?

[Edited 2010-03-29 20:33:52]


Future flights: CPH-BKK-MNL; MNL-GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL-LAX
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

UA has incredibly high fleet utilization, so often times a sub is not possible without greatly disrupting the rest of the network.

User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 12 hours ago) and read 3563 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 1):
UA has incredibly high fleet utilization, so often times a sub is not possible without greatly disrupting the rest of the network.

While challenging for the original poster, high utilization is good for UAL overall. Is there anything specific about UAL's fleet utilization that is different from other airlines?


User currently onlineEBGflyer From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 2):
While challenging for the original poster, high utilization is good for UAL overall. Is there anything specific about UAL's fleet utilization that is different from other airlines?

Having just arrived from CPH, it's a bit of a slap in the face to wait another 3 hours here in Chicago. I would imagine it would not be without cost for UA with the incurred delay. However, UA does not provide pax with any kind of compensation in terms of meal vouchers as they would have in Europe. Also, I could also imagine that not a lot of pax would be connecting in SFO anyway as the scheduled arrival at 10.45pm is too late for further connections. So all in all, it doesn't cost UA a whole lot to delay this flight. Seems like at least they are not even trying - no info here at all.

But still, I find it hard to believe that even with a high fleet utilization, you wouldn't be able to push things around. SAS does that by stealing equipment from other flights and then catches up along the way. A bit of a puzzle, but I'm sure it could be done better than just.

I think delays of 1 hour is ok. That happens.... but 3??? Unacceptable if you ask me!



Future flights: CPH-BKK-MNL; MNL-GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL-LAX
User currently offlineAIR757200 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
That happens.... but 3??? Unacceptable if you ask me!

Let them cancel the flight if three hours is unacceptable.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3067 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 11 hours ago) and read 3457 times:

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
However, UA does not provide pax with any kind of compensation in terms of meal vouchers as they would have in Europe.

Depends on the reason they're delayed. If the delay is out of their control (i.e. flow control, en route weather, weather at the departure or arrival city), they're not required to do anything. Europe has an incredibly aggressive, and some would argue inappropriate, compensation policy.

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
Also, I could also imagine that not a lot of pax would be connecting in SFO anyway as the scheduled arrival at 10.45pm is too late for further connections.

You just made the point. Theres likely no onward connections, therefore no additional pressure to make that flight run.


User currently offlineCrosscheck007 From Poland, joined Jan 2010, 278 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 3119 times:

Quoting AIR757200 (Reply 4):
Let them cancel the flight if three hours is unacceptable.

  ,   , and   !!

Totally agree. It is better to get there late than not at all...

Cheers,

007



Je l'attends pas un homme. J'apporte le parti, j'apporte le feu d'artifice.
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2834 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
think delays of 1 hour is ok. That happens.... but 3??? Unacceptable if you ask me!

Then next time take another airline. If you don't like United's service, don't fly on them.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):
Depends on the reason they're delayed. If the delay is out of their control (i.e. flow control, en route weather, weather at the departure or arrival city), they're not required to do anything.

Good point; this is a complicated business and you don't know what's going on behind the scenes. It's annoying, but that's life. UAL would rather operate the flights on time as well, they aren't late simply because they elect to be.

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):
Europe has an incredibly aggressive, and some would argue inappropriate, compensation policy.

Yes they do.

Quoting AIR757200 (Reply 4):
Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
That happens.... but 3??? Unacceptable if you ask me!

Let them cancel the flight if three hours is unacceptable.

Exactly.

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
Having just arrived from CPH, it's a bit of a slap in the face to wait another 3 hours here in Chicago.

So how did you come up with the wholly arbitrary decision that one hour was OK, but that three was not?

Quoting EBGflyer (Reply 3):
However, UA does not provide pax with any kind of compensation in terms of meal vouchers as they would have in Europe.

Since Chicago isn't in Europe, that is wholly irrelevant.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA Strike -- Why Would I *not* Choose VS Now? posted Fri Mar 26 2010 21:41:05 by LimaNiner
What To Do In CPH For 4.5 Hours? posted Wed Mar 24 2010 00:49:18 by aivisavia
Why Aren't Airline Tickets Transferable? posted Mon Mar 22 2010 04:20:30 by paneuropean
6 Hours In Taipei posted Wed Mar 17 2010 18:59:30 by planesarecool
3 Hours @ Dubai posted Wed Mar 17 2010 06:41:41 by N14AZ
6 Hours In ORD - What To Do? posted Sat Mar 13 2010 17:48:38 by DanVS
UA FF Mile Accrual Restrictions On Thai? posted Thu Mar 4 2010 11:16:56 by travellin'man
UA/CO Codeshare Flight Question posted Wed Mar 3 2010 00:31:01 by BACCALA
Why Can't I Find A One-stop MTY-SDQ Itinerary? posted Tue Feb 23 2010 14:50:04 by nycflyer
Why No ZED/INTERLINE Agreement With EasyJet? posted Tue Feb 23 2010 07:58:35 by FrenchPilot