Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5514391/

Topic: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: flybry
Posted 2012-07-15 05:27:46 and read 26996 times.

Eek! This doesn't look like fun.
The mess started with a mechanical failure for these passengers headed to Newark.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...tranded_in_shanghai_passenger.html

But, United did offer this for the inconvenience:

"United acknowledged the difficult situation and refunded the cost of their tickets and offered passengers $1,000 off a future flight, according to Rahsaan Johnson, a spokesman for the airline. He added the airline found spots on other flights for 50 of Flight 87’s original 275 passengers but was unable to accommodate the rest."

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-15 05:49:20 and read 26871 times.

Well, this happens daily and there are many issues that can be looked at, morally, economically and legally.
So in no particular order or importance and or priority.

1. Is the airline first responsibilty to accomodate the first delayed pax or to continue their schedule, is each flight an individual entity or something belonging to the company at large, we want everyone to pay their fair share in taxes, what about delays and travel inconvenience, is the principle the same?

2. Is this just a case of an airline being cheap and not having a spare a/c and crew ready to accomodate such an issue on a international long haul flight where their options going in are limited?

3. Is this just a case of an airline being cheap and not having sufficient local services available - whether theirs or contracted - to cater to pax in such a situation?

4. Is this a case of pax believing that the customer deserves good service and they were not willing to sit and take whatever was provided, too much expectations?

5. Does the airline really care whether these pax ever fly with them again, I ask that due to the old saying of an ounce of prevention is worth ........ or the other one where you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: NorthstarBoy
Posted 2012-07-15 06:09:00 and read 26712 times.

Interesting that UA was only able to reaccomodate 50 of the passengers. judging from that number it sounds like they reaccommodated everyone in business elite, ran out of room, and offered vouchers to everyone in coach.

In the meantime, UA 976 went tech last night, UA is fixing the plane and flying it empty to Dubai as UA 1747. they'll then turn it around and fly it back to Dulles as UA 1748 with those passengers who were supposed to be on UA 977. the delay for those passengers is a "measly" 14 hours.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: jfk777
Posted 2012-07-15 06:30:45 and read 26502 times.

With all the flights to China, Japan and other Star airlines in Asia United should have no problem getting "stuck" passengers. Its a disgrace this happened. Asiana, ANA or Air China could have helped and its sounds United didn't seel their help. Disgraceful. Where is Continental when you need the.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: GALLEYSTEW
Posted 2012-07-15 06:34:16 and read 26490 times.

Hate to tell you this......but THIS was CONTINENTAL metal. United in name only, still running subsidiary airlines. I think they did the best they could considering the circumstances. it is summer and flights are full. You can only accomodate on other airlines if there are seats available.

[Edited 2012-07-15 06:39:37]

[Edited 2012-07-15 06:41:56]

[Edited 2012-07-15 06:46:47]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: FURUREFA
Posted 2012-07-15 06:47:27 and read 26371 times.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
In the meantime, UA 976 went tech last night, UA is fixing the plane and flying it empty to Dubai as UA 1747. they'll then turn it around and fly it back to Dulles as UA 1748 with those passengers who were supposed to be on UA 977. the delay for those passengers is a "measly" 14 hours.


Just like 847 EWR-EZE on Friday night was delayed over 16 hours.... The return trip was of course delayed too.

Unfortunately seems to be pretty common these days.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: maxamuus
Posted 2012-07-15 08:12:51 and read 25751 times.

Would be intresting to know if it was a true "mechanical failure" or just more pilots refusing to fly over "light blubs and coffee pots" due to the stalled pilot negoations.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 08:32:46 and read 25608 times.

Quoting maxamuus (Reply 6):
Would be intresting to know if it was a true "mechanical failure" or just more pilots refusing to fly over "light blubs and coffee pots" due to the stalled pilot negoations.

Issue with the engine...

plane goes INOP on Wednesday...
due to parts they wee not able to get it fixed until Friday...
They were not able to leave Friday due to the crew timing out because of a boarding issue...that boarding issue was caused by the passengers refusing to go to the correct gate by the way....
flew out Saturday

Sounds like UA handled it fairly well actually:

put everyone up in a hotel/took care of other expenses
refunded everyones flight
gave out $1000 vouchers
rebooked passengers where possible

What more could they have done?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-15 08:53:40 and read 25457 times.

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 4):
Hate to tell you this......but THIS was CONTINENTAL metal. United in name only, still running subsidiary airlines.

Ok, so the merger did not take place, there is no single board of directors, there is no single person at the helm, there is still UA and CO management separate???

My issue is this, we are all fine saying that management and the boards should merge because its the right thing to do, it makes economic sense etc. etc. etc. Ok they did that, we do not now get to argue whether it is CO or UA metal, they are one company and if pax throw barbs it is at the one company.
Does it make the UA employees feel better saying oh it was those folks CO that screwed up? If management thinks the same it makes you wonder why the UA folks merged with those CO screw ups in the first place.
.
Unfortunately, none of that means anything to the pax who were inconvenienced, it is no comfort to them if someone says you know if it was a UA a/c and crew this would not have happened.

On the flip side, management may be encouraging such thoughts, after all, mergers in most cases are done on paper immediately to get financial benefits, the actual merging of the workforce is trivial, take US Airways, they are making profits and they still have East, West and all points inbetween.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: AWACSooner
Posted 2012-07-15 09:02:09 and read 25379 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
What more could they have done?

How about not stranded them in China for three whole days?

There's still plenty of other options available...how about sending a substitution plane? How about chartering another airline to send a substitution (it can and does happen from time to time)? How about bending over backwards to find them another airline to get them home? Only 50 out of 180+ accommodated? Pathetic! You have hubs at NRT, ICN, HKG and PEK nearby...all with large operations to and from the states.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: klwright69
Posted 2012-07-15 09:13:25 and read 25272 times.

A couple notes..

Sometimes I randomly check UA flights on the website to see how the post merger operation is going. It seems difficult. I will check on random flights from the random hubs and there are quite a few delays and some cancellations. Obviously not scientific, but just a random sample reveals some discouraging results.

A few weeks ago, a ORD-BRU and an ORD-PVG flight cancelled, and a EWR-TLV flight was delayed 8 hours.
So it is far too simplistic to say this only happens to just CO or UA metal.

Oh yes, and IAH-LOS, and LOS-IAH (cancelled the next day of course)

Sometimes flights from hell just happen. In the olden days, in the year 2000, I was on a UA ATL-DEN mainline flight. There was a weather issue, mechanical issue, and crew legality issue. It was an awful mix, the flight was not cancelled, but we took off at 1 a.m. a delay of 8 hours

[Edited 2012-07-15 09:15:31]

[Edited 2012-07-15 09:30:28]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 09:18:22 and read 25216 times.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 9):
How about not stranded them in China for three whole days?

While ideally planes would never go tech that's not a realistic expectation of anyone...

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 9):
There's still plenty of other options available...how about sending a substitution plane? How about chartering another airline to send a substitution (it can and does happen from time to time)? How about bending over backwards to find them another airline to get them home? Only 50 out of 180+ accommodated? Pathetic! You have hubs at NRT, ICN, HKG and PEK nearby...all with large operations to and from the states.

Well taking a look at loads right now UA is running at over 99% today (there were 7 empty seats today for example combined on all 4 flights out of PVG.) Just because you may be able to get them to NRT, ICN or another city does not mean that you would necessarily be able to get them on an outbound flight...getting 50 passengers re booked during the high season out of 275 is a decent percentage.

As for sending in a different aircraft UA actually did send in another aircraft (the plane that the passengers flew back to EWR on was not the same one that went tech.)

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cedarjet
Posted 2012-07-15 09:27:48 and read 25144 times.

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 4):
Hate to tell you this......but THIS was CONTINENTAL metal. United in name only

Well I hate to ask, but what name painted on the side of the plane? What was the name printed on the safety cards, the cabin crew name tags, the check-in desk, the air traffic controller's radar blip, the ticket?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-15 09:36:29 and read 25062 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 11):
Well taking a look at loads right now UA is running at over 99% today

Ahh, so a question, are those loads that high because the airline wants them that way or because of demand? If loads are that high someone is getting left as there are always overbookings and pax not showing up, last minute cancellations, etc etc. so additional capacity which may drop loads down to 80% would be a good financial move right?
Allows more flexibility, more premium seats, more economy, more seats to accomodate stranded pax versus just the elites. Overcapacity is not always a financial burden, if managed properly it can be very beneficial.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-15 09:37:55 and read 25061 times.

I feel bad for the passengers. It would have been a very difficult process. Mechanical delays on long haul flights are very frustrating. There are few options to reaccomodate people, and it takes time to fix the problem.

Having a mechanical problem cancel a flight happens. Getting the parts to fix them can be time consuming. When the fix is not a simple swap out, sometimes maintenance does not get it done in the amount of time predicted.

One that does make it harder is that it is an international flight departing China. China is quite challenging with exit immigration requirements. The process works relatively smoothly for normal operations, but when passengers have to be sent back to hotels, immigration and customs becomes very difficult as they have to re-enter China. It's also very difficult for transit passengers. Difficulty moving people through the airport can result in delays in and out. The result is the crew timing out since on flights from China - US East Coast typically they only have about 2 hours of crew time to handle delays before timing out.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ElPistolero
Posted 2012-07-15 09:38:18 and read 25045 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 11):
While ideally planes would never go tech that's not a realistic expectation of anyone...

I genuinely have a hard time believing that United couldn't find 275 seats for stranded pax over 3 days.

3 days (even 2 days) is a long, long time. I seem to be under the (possibly mistaken) impression that there is enough capacity to accomodate one 767 worth of stranded passengers between China and the US on *A carriers alone within 48 hours. And that increases manifold, if one takes into account non -*A carriers. Then theres the small matter of getting a replacement aircraft out there. Bit surprised that also took 48 hours.

Seems to me as though UA decided that keeping pax in China was cheaper than trying to pay money to other airlines to accomodate them. I don't put much value on tied credit. Does this come with an expiration date?

All in all, as anybody who has a job knows, a two day delay can have significant ramifications for employees. How many employers out there are going to believe that there was no way for the airline or pax to get people home over 48 hours on a fairly well-served route? I mean, if it was sub-Saharan Africa, it might be believable, but China? With the volume of traffic between China and the US?

Saving money at the expense of people who've spent $1000+ to fly your airline....its a risky tactic. We've all dealt with IRROPs. My worst delay was 22hrs (including a night in a hotel) on a 10 hr Europe-Asia flight in peak. 48 hrs...unbelievable. 72 hours... you can't pay me a $1000 to go back (hence my dismissal of the tied credit - many people won't be going back to UA).

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: sevenheavy
Posted 2012-07-15 10:05:03 and read 24816 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
With all the flights to China, Japan and other Star airlines in Asia United should have no problem getting "stuck" passengers. Its a disgrace this happened. Asiana, ANA or Air China could have helped and its sounds United didn't seel their help. Disgraceful. Where is Continental when you need the.

This is one of the busiest weeks of the year for air travel. Easy to say "just put them on other carriers!", much harder to actually do. Its entirely possible that all the options they tried were full (I can't see in the article where it says that United didnt seek seats on other carriers ??, in fact, it says they found 50 seats for some of the passengers, without saying where)

Its impossible for anyone who wasnt there to know the full story, but I have a hard time believing that UA made no attampt to reaccommodate at least some of these passengers. Its not in their interest to do so - its far cheaper to reprotect them on another carrier rather than pay the accommodation, meal, transport and eventual compensation costs.

I'm not defending UA, they may well have handled the situation poorly. But it doesnt mean they just blindly sat back and waited without at least trying to get some of the passengers out of there

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 10:18:40 and read 24522 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
Ahh, so a question, are those loads that high because the airline wants them that way or because of demand?

Probably both this time of the year....UA is looking for the right yield mix and at the same time it's a very busy travel period.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 15):
I genuinely have a hard time believing that United couldn't find 275 seats for stranded pax over 3 days.

I don't...not time of year. This is peak travel season....rerouting passengers is not as easy as one might think. Even using the flight that was canceled as an example 275 seats is one seat short of completely booked. (UAs J/Y 772s seat 276.)

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: WarmNuts
Posted 2012-07-15 10:22:41 and read 24435 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 11):
...getting 50 passengers re booked during the high season out of 275 is a decent percentage.

As for sending in a different aircraft UA actually did send in another aircraft (the plane that the passengers flew back to EWR on was not the same one that went tech.)

I think the question (and from a pax perspective, a valid one at that) is did United do everything they could to get them home as soon as possible given what (statistically, one would imagine) would be considered an unreasonable delay?

Furthermore, IMO, a $1,000 voucher for a future flight is insufficient given the prolonged nature of their delay... I remember when airlines would give you a $500 for volunteering to get bumped an hour or two. At the very least, include a system-wide upgrade or a comped RT ticket anywhere they fly.

Lastly, while I agree the pax are (at least partly) responsible for the final delay (as their procrastination in getting to their a/c resulted in the flight crew timing out before the flight could depart), IMO UA could have better communicated this to the pax to ensure they expedited their transfer to the appropriate gate early enough for the flight to depart. Maybe have a rep convey this before they left for the original gate?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-07-15 10:22:42 and read 24437 times.

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 4):
Hate to tell you this......but THIS was CONTINENTAL metal

This was UNITED. There is no such thing as Continental anymore. It's United, United is responsible.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: leothedog
Posted 2012-07-15 10:35:30 and read 24199 times.

This is so typical of United Airlines. When something doesn't go right, instead of explaining exactly what is going on to the passengers effected, the gate personel do not say anything, or cannot back up what they do say. I know. I've experienced it myself first hand. That's why I avoid United at all costs if possible.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-15 10:37:35 and read 24157 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 15):

All in all, as anybody who has a job knows, a two day delay can have significant ramifications for employees. How many employers out there are going to believe that there was no way for the airline or pax to get people home over 48 hours on a fairly well-served route? I mean, if it was sub-Saharan Africa, it might be believable, but China? With the volume of traffic between China and the US?

It is quite challenging to reaccomodate passengers on other airlines for international flights. For a 24 hour delay, many airlines will not put people on other airlines at all. First off, there's no alternative nonstop service. UA can reaccomodate people on its own flights without having to individually get their approval, but with load factors so close to 100%, that is hard.

Also reaccomodating on other airlines requires a connection. That requires finding an airline with zero notice that has seats for sale on two separate flights. With loads as high as they are, that is a challenge.

UA agents are not restricted to Star Alliance airlines at all. They can put passengers on any airline that they have the reciprocal agreements with (meaning basically most airlines that are members of any alliance, but not VX or WN) UA has no problem putting people on AA or DL. In fact often it is easier. But passengers don't always want to make a connection, and sending someone on another airline is going to cause a lot of difficulty with baggage, hotel accomodations, etc as China quarantines the luggage of outgoing airplanes if the flight cancels.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Norcal773
Posted 2012-07-15 10:42:06 and read 24026 times.

Anyone here who's complaining how horrible this was obviously hasn't flown much. This stuff happens every once in a while when you travel a lot. Granted UA didn't handle it very well but to say you'll never fly them again is a stretch. Sh*t happens, get over it.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 10:42:26 and read 24028 times.

Quoting WarmNuts (Reply 18):
I think the question (and from a pax perspective, a valid one at that) is did United do everything they could to get them home as soon as possible given what (statistically, one would imagine) would be considered an unreasonable delay?

Furthermore, IMO, a $1,000 voucher for a future flight is insufficient given the prolonged nature of their delay... I remember when airlines would give you a $500 for volunteering to get bumped an hour or two. At the very least, include a system-wide upgrade or a comped RT ticket anywhere they fly.

I am not going to use the term unreasonable delay but I will say that I think its a long one. It's of course horrible that it happened but I think UA did the best that they could do under the circumstances.

A plane goes tech in PVG you are automatically going to be delayed by at least 12-24 hours simply because the crew is going to time out before repairs can be completed. I don't know precisely what was wrong with the engine but I think we can infer that it wasn't a common part that failed as they had to source parts from either UA TechOps or GE stateside (vs getting the part from UA spares in NRT or sourcing it from a local source.)

It sounds like they managed to rebook 50 passengers during the high season for air travel...how they rebooked them (UA or another carrier is not specified.)

Other passengers that could not be rebooked were given refunds, hotel rooms, food/other expenses and a $1000 voucher. That's pretty good compensation when you consider that they basically just received a free trip to China and a voucher that will cover the cost of another transpacific flight with some level of planning (with notice EWR-PVG is ~1100... short notice is around ~1850.)

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: maxamuus
Posted 2012-07-15 10:59:07 and read 23736 times.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 15):
you can't pay me a $1000 to go back (hence my dismissal of the tied credit - many people won't be going back to UA).

I wouldnt be surprised to see these vouchers poping up on Ebay any time now for that very reason.

Wasn't it within the last six months or so that UA did the very same thing in ANC to people headed to China as well ?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DL WIDGET HEAD
Posted 2012-07-15 11:19:45 and read 24195 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
They were not able to leave Friday due to the crew timing out because of a boarding issue...that boarding issue was caused by the passengers refusing to go to the correct gate by the way....

This sounds absurd. Why would the passengers who have been stranded there for 2 days and who obviously want to be on their way "refuse to go to the correct gate"? It does not ring true that the 2nd cancellation was brought about by UA's passengers. Perhaps another technical glitch with their computer system or some glitch with systems in PVG but to blame the passengers for the 2nd cancellation well, that's just pitiful. Back to back International cancellations are excessive and uncommon. This sad story just goes to illustrate what a horrendous operational summer UA is having as a result of their horribly managed merger. This is not the way to do it Smisek.

[Edited 2012-07-15 11:24:39]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 11:25:29 and read 24104 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 25):
Why would the passengers who have been stranded there for 2 days and who obviously want to be on their way "refuse to go to the correct gate"? It does not ring true that the 2nd cancellation was brought about by UA's passengers.

....read the article. Net net allot of the passengers refused to move to the new gate and tried to block passengers traveling on another EWR bound flight...police were called and by the time it was sorted out the crew had timed out.

In other words a few idiots behaved like jackasses and screwed over their fellow passengers.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 25):
Perhaps another technical glitch with their computer system or some glitch with systems in PVG but to blame the passengers for the 2nd cancellation well, that's just pitiful

There was no glitch and they were ready to go...

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DL WIDGET HEAD
Posted 2012-07-15 11:33:41 and read 24146 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
What more could they have done?

They should have sent a rescue flight. But as a result of not scheduling enough spares into the operation (according to McDonald) this summer, UA rolled the dice and their customers came up short. Or should I say their EX customers.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: RDH3E
Posted 2012-07-15 11:34:47 and read 24079 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
If loads are that high someone is getting left as there are always overbookings and pax not showing up, last minute cancellations, etc etc. so additional capacity which may drop loads down to 80% would be a good financial move right?

You don't build the church for easter sunday. Buying an additional aircraft just to have spare capacity at peak time is a waste of money. What would you do with it the rest of the year when you don't need it?

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 21):
Also reaccomodating on other airlines requires a connection. That requires finding an airline with zero notice that has seats for sale on two separate flights. With loads as high as they are, that is a challenge.

Not to mention you also run into Visa issues for many transiting passengers...

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: klwright69
Posted 2012-07-15 11:40:42 and read 23915 times.

Quoting maxamuus (Reply 24):
Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 15):you can't pay me a $1000 to go back (hence my dismissal of the tied credit - many people won't be going back to UA).
I wouldnt be surprised to see these vouchers poping up on Ebay any time now for that very reason.

It has been awhile since I was awarded a voucher, but as I recall they are non transferrable, and a must be booked within a specific period of time.

I absolutely believe that during the peak period there were few seats available on scattered flights. Why is this unbelievable to some?

In an earlier post I referred to an 8 hour delay. When the flight departed in the end it had 40 pax, so they do attempt to reaccomodate people.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: klwright69
Posted 2012-07-15 11:48:04 and read 23757 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 27):
They should have sent a rescue flight. But as a result of not scheduling enough spares into the operation (according to McDonald) this summer, UA rolled the dice and their customers came up short. Or should I say their EX customers.

During peak travel season utilization is extra high, especially with longhaul widebody planes.

I do not necessarily think they are all excustomers. If the voucher is not transferrable than use it.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 11:48:28 and read 23836 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 27):
They should have sent a rescue flight. But as a result of not scheduling enough spares into the operation (according to McDonald) this summer, UA rolled the dice and their customers came up short. Or should I say their EX customers.

They did send a spare aircraft (the plane that they flew to EWR was not the same aircraft that went tech.) You of all people should know that airlines do not simply have 777s laying around waiting for an aircraft to go tech. Pete McDonald was referring to spare capacity and flexibility built into the domestic system primarily. Flexing that spare capacity into PVG is far far more complex than on a quick domestic flight between ORD and ATL.

As for those passengers being ex customers...TBD that's not your decision or mine.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: WROORD
Posted 2012-07-15 11:55:42 and read 23691 times.

Quoting leothedog (Reply 20):
This is so typical of United Airlines. When something doesn't go right, instead of explaining exactly what is going on to the passengers effected, the gate personel do not say anything, or cannot back up what they do say. I know. I've experienced it myself first hand. That's why I avoid United at all costs if possible.

Amen to that I was stuck in MSY in Feb for over 8 hours and the gate people where nowhere to be found. When they finally came to tell us that the flight will not depart all other UA flights departed and they could not put me on AA because there was no seats. I went over to AA counter and was told that there are some seats, returned back to UA counter and told that to the gate agent and she said I still cannot get you on that flight. They just do not care about pax.
My other flight from ORD the following month was delayed over an hour as only half of the crew showed up - c'mon 10 AM flight and the rest overslept or forgot? I think there is a lot of tension between management and the employees and in some instances employees are doing nothing to anger pax. I send complaints letters to Mr. Smisek and still have not heard from them - they cleary do not give a damm.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: AWACSooner
Posted 2012-07-15 12:04:40 and read 23527 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 11):

Well taking a look at loads right now UA is running at over 99% today (there were 7 empty seats today for example combined on all 4 flights out of PVG.) Just because you may be able to get them to NRT, ICN or another city does not mean that you would necessarily be able to get them on an outbound flight...getting 50 passengers re booked during the high season out of 275 is a decent percentage.

I understand you're trying to defend your airline, but the bottom line is they screwed up big time here!
Why not put them on another airline? There's plenty of Star Alliance carriers in that region.
Plenty of options were on the table for this situation, and it looks like UA picked one of the worst ones!

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: AWACSooner
Posted 2012-07-15 12:09:08 and read 23453 times.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 32):
I send complaints letters to Mr. Smisek and still have not heard from them - they cleary do not give a damm.

This was indicative of UA before the merger too. In all the years I've been flying UA, customer service (on the ground) has never seemed to be a priority for them.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United1
Posted 2012-07-15 12:10:07 and read 23369 times.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 33):
Why not put them on another airline? There's plenty of Star Alliance carriers in that region.

Who says that they didn't put them on another airline....we have no info that they did or did not...the only thing that we do know is that UA managed to accommodate 50 passengers. UA does not limit its agents to rebooking passengers on UA or Star carriers only...they can and do rebook on most any airline.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 33):
I understand you're trying to defend your airline, but the bottom line is they screwed up big time here!

I'm not defending them at all but I am saying that the options you, and others, think that they should have taken may not have been as easy (or even possible) as you seem to think that they are.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: jetblast
Posted 2012-07-15 12:11:07 and read 23343 times.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 33):
I understand you're trying to defend your airline, but the bottom line is they screwed up big time here!
Why not put them on another airline? There's plenty of Star Alliance carriers in that region.

Easier said than done. What if there were no seats left?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DL WIDGET HEAD
Posted 2012-07-15 12:22:32 and read 22887 times.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 33):
the bottom line is they screwed up big time here!

Bingo! This is a major UA screw up. It amazes me how the UA apologists on this forum actually think that UA performed well in this instance. All airlines have technical issues but UA seems to compound their tech issues with all kinds of other issues and then the apologists have the nerve to blame the customers. I'll bet that most of those folks stranded by UA will never fly them again and I don't blame them. This is not an isolated incident. Every day one reads in the newspaper of one epic UA failure after another and yet the UA apologists delude themselves by thinking that evrything is running well and that UA is no different from any other airline which is just bovine scatology. Instead of heaping false praise on UA they should be profoundly embarrased by this event and hope that their airline will turn around. Doesn't look like a turn around is forthcoming though and could get much worse should the pilots get the green light to begin a strike count down.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: AADC10
Posted 2012-07-15 12:36:31 and read 22651 times.

The story emphasizes the 3 day delay and that UA was only able to accommodate 50 passengers but I believe it was 50 passengers the day of departure. PVG-EWR is one of first departures of the day and they go the 50 on the later UA flights flights to ORD, SFO or LAX. I doubt that there were more than a handful waiting around until Saturday, some of which may have been VDBs, non-revs and other low boarding priority passengers.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-15 12:53:30 and read 22357 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 27):

They should have sent a rescue flight. But as a result of not scheduling enough spares into the operation (according to McDonald) this summer, UA rolled the dice and their customers came up short. Or should I say their EX customers.

I don't know any airline that would have spent a spare airplane to deal with a mechanical writeup where it is believed that a spare part can fix the plane.

The way maintenance at United works is they writeup a mechanical problem. The airplane goes out of service. Maintenance diagnoses the problem and tells scheduling of an Expected Return To Service time. Scheduling/Dispatch then figures out what to do. If it looks like the crew will time out, they will issue a 18 hour delay to give crew rest and time to send the passengers to hotels. If the maintenance problem looks like it will take quite a long time to fix, then they may send another airplane. Sometimes maintenance gets it wrong. Sometimes a second unplanned problem happens (such as it appears the second day's delay was due to airport operations causing the crew to time out).

It's really easy to say that they should have sent a rescue airplane when you read a headline that passengers were stuck for three days, but with the information at hand when the initial mechanical problem happened, did a rescue airplane look like the best option?

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 37):
Bingo! This is a major UA screw up. It amazes me how the UA apologists on this forum actually think that UA performed well in this instance.

I totally agree that it is UA's fault for having passengers stranded for 3 days. I just proposed some reasons why this could have happened. It really can and does happen to every airline.

One thing I know for sure is such a problem would not have happened if the plane was in EWR going to PVG. However dealing with a crisis at a distant outstation involving mechanical problems, shipping parts, customs, immigration, crew timeouts, airport handling problems, etc is difficult for every airline's operation center to handle.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-15 13:05:05 and read 22144 times.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 28):
Buying an additional aircraft just to have spare capacity at peak time is a waste of money. What would you do with it the rest of the year when you don't need it?

Why jump to the extreme and assume new a/c, UA has multiple types of a/c in their fleet, adjusting capacity can also be the a/c type used and the number of seats / classes in different types, like 777, 747, A330, 767.
Capacity adjustment can be a 767 with no first, a 777 with first, 3 class, more / less premium seating etc. etc. etc.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 39):
I don't know any airline that would have spent a spare airplane to deal with a mechanical writeup where it is believed that a spare part can fix the plane.

We read on here all the time about the number of a/c required to provide long haul service, the figure banted about is usually 3 frames, it does not mean that 2 a/c are stiiting waiting for a failure, but it means that if available, the time frames for resolution are known and not in the 3 days range.
In this case something else happened, the crew timing out issue on the second cancellation is suspect, if true, I would say that someone rolled the dice and attempted to use a crew not involved in the 3 plane rotation to speed up the retireval of the situation and it backfired due to the pax delay.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-07-15 13:07:29 and read 22153 times.

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 4):
Hate to tell you this......but THIS was CONTINENTAL metal. United in name only, still running subsidiary airlines. I think they did the best they could considering the circumstances. it is summer and flights are full. You can only accomodate on other airlines if there are seats available.

When is this going to stop? CO is gone, flown into the sunset, accept it. There is no CO any more. It's sad, fine airline, fine employees, good service. But if those were the benchmarks of staying in business we'd still have BN, WA Transworld Airlines (USA)">TW and WA.

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
Does it make the UA employees feel better saying oh it was those folks CO that screwed up?[/quote

Most likely, heck I've heard people working for the same carrier tossing the blame ball around hoping not to be the one.
Oh wait, these are employees of the same carrier, so yes, it most likely does make some employees feel better to say, oh they were CO so it's their fault, but it's not. It's an all UA issue now.]

[quote=AWACSooner,reply=9]Only 50 out of 180+ accommodated? Pathetic! You have hubs at NRT, ICN, HKG and PEK nearby...all with large operations to and from the states

Not to mention the numerous options via non *A carriers, how about even LH or any other European carrier star A or not.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 15):
I genuinely have a hard time believing that United couldn't find 275 seats for stranded pax over 3 days

I can only imagine it was hard to do, but I've found seats 2 days prior to Dec 25th for ten in one or two keystrokes, it's got to be hard, but not impossible. I guess once UA paid off the other 225 passengers, they figured why try any harder, they have been compensated, we'll fix it when we can.

Quoting sevenheavy (Reply 16):
Its impossible for anyone who wasnt there to know the full story, but I have a hard time believing that UA made no attampt to reaccommodate at least some of these passengers. Its not in their interest to do so - its far cheaper to reprotect them on another carrier rather than pay the accommodation, meal, transport and eventual compensation costs.

Agreed, But have you ever been stuck in a foreign country by a US carrier? I think what they are able to do and what they are willing to do, are two different things, The whole story lies with those involved behind the scenes at UA, the passengers have their point of view, so do the airline personal at PVG, but UA ops has the most accurate version.

Quoting WarmNuts (Reply 18):
Furthermore, IMO, a $1,000 voucher for a future flight is insufficient given the prolonged nature of their delay... I remember when airlines would give you a $500 for volunteering to get bumped an hour or two. At the very least, include a system-wide upgrade or a comped RT ticket anywhere they fly

Yes, those were the days when you'd volunteer get delayed a few hours, and arrive home with a $500.00 voucher. Now the airlines need to be neck deep in s**t before they start looking at this kind of option. But $500 back in the day could get you to Europe in the off season, including the taxes, now $1000.00 barely gets you out of the country. Do these compensation vouchers allow taxes to be covered? Most freebie tickets don't allow you to pay the taxes from the total value of the voucher.

Quoting leothedog (Reply 20):
This is so typical of United Airlines. When something doesn't go right, instead of explaining exactly what is going on to the passengers effected, the gate personel do not say anything, or cannot back up what they do say. I know. I've experienced it myself first hand. That's why I avoid United at all costs if possible

Honestly, this is not unique to UA, I have been through the wringer with AA, DL and OZ at one time or another, UA is just so large that it does not communicate that well with everyone that it should communicate with.

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 28):
Not to mention you also run into Visa issues for many transiting passengers

A well thought out point, who knows how many nationalities UA was dealing with on this flight, probably mostly US and Chinese, but transit issues could have been a consideration when accommodating these poor folks.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DL WIDGET HEAD
Posted 2012-07-15 13:09:25 and read 22101 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 39):
It's really easy to say that they should have sent a rescue airplane when you read a headline that passengers were stuck for three days, but with the information at hand when the initial mechanical problem happened, did a rescue airplane look like the best option?

You offered a very valid assessment. I concur with most of your analysis. In the end, yes, I think a rescue flight would have been better. There was no way of knowing for sure that the part(s) being sent from wherever would have even solved the problem. Again, UA was rolling the dice at the customers expense. UA has a problem with not having enough spare aircraft for their summer operation. This is a problem that the UA planners brought upon themselves. There was an incident like this just a few days ago in UA's back yard near Houston where UA stranded passengers for a whole day due to lack parts, spare aircraft, crew duty time etc. It's not just an international phenomenon. There is an ugly pattern developing here for UA.

[Edited 2012-07-15 13:12:01]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-07-15 13:14:39 and read 22004 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 42):
Again, UA was rolling the dice at the customers expense. UA has a problem with not having enough spare aircraft for their summer operation.

What evidence do you have that the result would have been different for AA or DL?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-15 13:22:17 and read 21882 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 42):

You offered a very valid assessment. I concur with most of your analysis. In the end, yes, I think a rescue flight would have been better. There was no way on knowing for sure that the part(s) being sent from wherever would have even solved the problem.

True you never know if the mechanic or maintenance controller who made the call about what the problem was correct or not and return to service time was correct.

However, I think you underestimate the impact of a spare aircraft. On domestic flights spare aircraft are easier since the same crew that brings it in can take it out. On international flights, you have to find a crew with duty time available and get the airplane dispatched to PVG. That's about 4-6 hours to notify crew, get an airplane, clean & fuel it, dispatch it, file paperwork for arrival slot in PVG, etc. Then you have to have a crew to operate the flight back. UA is more likely to have a 777 in SFO, but a PMCO crew can't operate that plane and it is not configured correctly.

On the other hand if it is a spare part, it can be sent on the next plane on any airline priority to PVG. Then maintenance can fix it. Even if an engine run is required, the airplane would be fixed and ready to go before the spare even got to PVG. So you wasted the cost of an airplane and crew in PVG for no reason which impacts the operation and costs. In the end it makes more sense to run the risk of a 3-day delay to keep the whole operation moving rather than plan for the worst and long term Out of Service Event in PVG.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 42):
Again, UA was rolling the dice at the customers expense. UA has a problem with not having enough spare aircraft for their summer operation. This is a problem that the UA planners brought upon themselves. There was an incident like this just a few days ago in UA's back yard near Houston a where UA stranded passengers for a whole day due to lack parts, spare aircraft, crew duty time etc. It's not just an international phenomenon. There is an ugly pattern developing here for UA.

Just about every airline has the problem of not enough spare aircraft in their peak season schedule. Airline management is willing to take a few more long delays and cancellations in exchange for the additional revenue of operating a tighter schedule. The spares are enough for typical operation, but events always happen. There's no way in the world that AA could have maintained a realistic schedule following the day when they had 20% of their fleet taken out of service after a hailstorm in DFW. Or how about EK's spares mess caused by the A380 crack inspections and repairs.

My point is that it happens to airlines and mechanical problems are a fact. It's hard to judge the overall health and network of an airline from a single event. Sure, if you want top level dispatch reliability and the best handling of irregular operations, the industry leaders are almost always ANA and JAL. However, their maintenance programs are also an extreme cost burden on those airlines. What frustrates me is saying, it's the merger's fault, or CO screwed UA or UA screwed CO or Smisek should be blamed. I really don't understand how blaming a bearing failure or a cracked fan blade or a bad hydraulic pump on an executive or a whole corporation makes sense.

[Edited 2012-07-15 13:33:02]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DL WIDGET HEAD
Posted 2012-07-15 13:42:25 and read 21603 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 43):
What evidence do you have that the result would have been different for AA or DL?

My comments are about UA's deteriorating, self induced operational failure(s). I'm not here to say that AA or DL or LH are far superior nor did I even imply it. But since you brought it up, in regard to DL's operation, there is a sufficient number of spares built into the summer schedule to prevent 3 day strandings at far away or even close places. This is a decision that each airline has to make and it requires immense discipline due to unrealized revenue opportunities by maintaining spares. UA is on the wrong side of the equation in this regard.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
My point is that it happens to airlines and mechanical problems are a fact. It's hard to judge the overall health and network of an airline from a single event.

That would be true if this was an isolated event but sadly it is not. As mentioned before, this situation has become prevalent at UA and what's worse seemingly acceptable.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DL WIDGET HEAD
Posted 2012-07-15 13:53:25 and read 21371 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
What frustrates me is saying, it's the merger's fault, or CO screwed UA or UA screwed CO or Smisek should be blamed. I really don't understand how blaming a bearing failure or a cracked fan blade or a bad hydraulic pump on an executive or a whole corporation makes sense.

It's not the Tech issue that's at fault. It's the recovery issue (or lack of recovery) that's at fault here. Bad decisions from the top down resulted in this and other UA fiasco's of late. Yes it's a merger problem. Yes, it's Smisek problem. Yes, this is way more of a problem at UA right now that at other airlines. Stop sugar coating UA's piss poor performance and accept it as it really is.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-15 13:58:09 and read 21272 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 45):
That would be true if this was an isolated event but sadly it is not. As mentioned before, this situation has become prevalent at UA and what's worse seemingly acceptable.

Do you have data supporting that? I have seen data that reflects the opposite of that for maintenance events. However UA certainly was behind the pack in 2007-2008 but things are far better now from a maintenance and scheduling standpoint. Reservations and airport operations is where the airline has fallen apart.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-15 14:16:05 and read 20981 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
They were not able to leave Friday due to the crew timing out because of a boarding issue...that boarding issue was caused by the passengers refusing to go to the correct gate by the wa

Sorry but while I wasn't there I don't think it was caused by the passengers but rather by poor information to the passengers.

Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
What more could they have done?

That is what they should look at for the next time. Sadly I think airlines stopped doing that long time ago. They will analyze if they could have put the plane back in service faster but that's about it.

I am convinced we will see a lot more passenger rights regulation going forward. Among things I think is coming, some will take a long time, are: Cash instead of vouchers. Passengers flying out in order of their scheduled flight times, i.e little pain over many instead of a lot of pain to a few. Contacting passengers and offer compensation to stay until later flights.

Quoting United1 (Reply 23):
That's pretty good compensation when you consider that they basically just received a free trip to China and a voucher that will cover the cost of another transpacific flight with some level of planning (with notice EWR-PVG is ~1100... short notice is around ~1850.)

Is it? What costs did the passengers have because of the delay? Without considering that I don't think you can say it is good.

I know someone will say that is what travel insurance is for. I agree, airlines should have insurance to cover the problems they cause. Passengers should have insurance for the problems they cause. Passengers should not need insurance to cover problems caused by airlines.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 25):
This sounds absurd. Why would the passengers who have been stranded there for 2 days and who obviously want to be on their way "refuse to go to the correct gate"?

Because of poor communication. If you have been lied to over and over there is a time when you stop trusting what they say. If you see a plane in front of you and they ask you to go somewhere else....

Quoting United1 (Reply 26):
In other words a few idiots behaved like jackasses and screwed over their fellow passengers.

Probably. But I think the jackasses are the airline representatives communicating with the passengers.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 32):
I went over to AA counter and was told that there are some seats, returned back to UA counter and told that to the gate agent and she said I still cannot get you on that flight.

Have had this happen to me many times. Part of why people do not believe what the airlines say. Not even when it is the truth.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 39):
It's really easy to say that they should have sent a rescue airplane when you read a headline that passengers were stuck for three days, but with the information at hand when the initial mechanical problem happened, did a rescue airplane look like the best option?

20/20 makes things so much easier 

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Confuscius
Posted 2012-07-15 15:01:32 and read 20297 times.

Quoting flybry (Thread starter):
Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days 

Seems like the passengers got shanghai'd in Shanghai!

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: NWADTWE16
Posted 2012-07-15 17:49:49 and read 18154 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 21):
They can put passengers on any airline that they have the reciprocal agreements with (meaning basically most airlines that are members of any alliance, but not VX or WN) UA has no problem putting people on AA or DL.

It is irrelevant in this case but i believe VX is now RULE 240 and reciprical, they invested millions to join Sabre and will show up as viable options where space can be booked and an e-ticket created. I dont know specifically if UA and VX are on this page together, maybe UA Gate staff could elaborate? I too agree UA made a bad choice holding the passengers and not dispatching another aircraft. It is possible there was no availability on any carriers, ive seen that happen many times.ie Xmas 2000 DTWLAX, i had to seek volunteers by offering $500 credit and a refund as it was 13 days before we had availability. This not dispatching aircraft timely during massive delays seems to be getting quite common. We just had the NK incident the other day as well and any of the over 8 hour delays listed above shouldve been candidates....

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-07-15 17:55:20 and read 18069 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 45):
But since you brought it up, in regard to DL's operation, there is a sufficient number of spares built into the summer schedule to prevent 3 day strandings at far away or even close places.

. . . assuming an immediate decision to move an aircraft to PVG. But why do you make that assumption? Remember that the second delay - the crew timing out due to airport ops - would have happened even if UA had flown a new airplane in.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: kl692
Posted 2012-07-15 18:49:37 and read 17266 times.

My sister was stuck in ACC for 6 days thanks to DL and we had to book her another flight on KL at our own expense and you know what DL offer her? $50 voucher on her next flight with DL. No thanks was the answer.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: SHAQ
Posted 2012-07-15 20:22:36 and read 16045 times.

Quoting kl692 (Reply 52):

And here people are complaining and saying bad things about UA.
They compensated these people in such a great way!
They got refunds, hotel, and a free ride to China!
Imagine, with $1000, I can fly from EWR to Europe R/T or I can put +-$500 and I have a cheap ride to Asia.
Maybe UA is facing more technical delays now, and they know it, but they are also trying to fix this problem.That's why they are re-scheduling their ops and also are stopping retiring some a/c so their fleet have more slack.

I'm getting sick&tired of the UA bashing..

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: abrelosojos
Posted 2012-07-15 21:02:42 and read 15656 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 21):
It is quite challenging to reaccomodate passengers on other airlines for international flights. For a 24 hour delay, many airlines will not put people on other airlines at all. First off, there's no alternative nonstop service. UA can reaccomodate people on its own flights without having to individually get their approval, but with load factors so close to 100%, that is hard.

= I will have to disagree. Any airline with an interline agreement can protect on another. Most big name airlines will routinely do it on non partner airlines. Of course, obscure carriers and those in consumer "un-friendly" regions such as LatAm won't do it nicely, but it is regularly done.

I once had a 777 go tech in United - the OPS manager and a wonderful girl who worked for UA-KWI protected everyone and worked diligently to do so. Individual approvals for partner airlines are generally needed if the flight is in airport control - otherwise, the interline agreement dictates protected booking mapping.

Working for a rather large airline in Asia right now that happens to be an United partner, I can confidently say that within 1 airline all 275 guests could have easily made it to an United hub in the U.S.

United dropped the ball on this. Given how they have been recently, I am not surprised.

Saludos,
A.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: abrelosojos
Posted 2012-07-15 21:05:20 and read 15658 times.

Quoting SHAQ (Reply 53):
Imagine, with $1000, I can fly from EWR to Europe R/T or I can put +-$500 and I have a cheap ride to Asia.
Quoting SHAQ (Reply 53):
and a free ride to China!

= If I paid for a business trip and UA offered me this, I would be insulted more than anything else. You have to recognize that not everyone cares about a "free ride to China" or "fly from EWR to Europe R/T". This thinking is extremely myopic and undermines why people (especially those in premium cabins) fly in the first place.

Saludos,
A.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: abrelosojos
Posted 2012-07-15 21:10:41 and read 15606 times.

Quoting NWADTWE16 (Reply 50):
It is irrelevant in this case but i believe VX is now RULE 240 and reciprical, they invested millions to join Sabre and will show up as viable options where space can be booked and an e-ticket created. I dont know specifically if UA and VX are on this page together, maybe UA Gate staff could elaborate?

= Look, rule 240 is a pre-dereg ruling that has been modified and I honestly don't get why people make such a big deal out of it. It does not even exist in many T&C's. VX might roll-over to Sabre, BUT if they don't have an interline agreement with United, UA can't do anything ... unless by some miracle, someone at UA super high up just buys a ticket on VX. So post GDS, VX can show up ... but UA cannot "protect" as it would not be IET compliant with VX. Hope this clears things up a bit.

Saludos,
A.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: spink
Posted 2012-07-15 21:38:28 and read 15291 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Passengers flying out in order of their scheduled flight times, i.e little pain over many instead of a lot of pain to a few.

While this may sound nice on the surface, I not sure it makes any sense in reality. This not only significantly complicates scheduling but also has the very real probability of compounding the problem esp when you consider the interconnected aspect of an airline network.

This in lots of ways goes back to basic network theory which while an airline itself is not a digital/analog interconnection network, its operations very much do mirror. In a globally scheduled interconnection network, when a item misses its allotted slot times (due to a variety of reasons), you actually want to re-slot the item instead of priority queue it into the existing system. By re-slotting you maintain the best possible service to the most numbers of items which results in an overall higher average QoS. By force queuing or re-slotting all items that are already slotted, you end up significantly degraded QoS to all items and lower average QoS. You can actually construct mathematical proofs that prove this.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tennis69
Posted 2012-07-15 22:28:38 and read 14824 times.

There are many worse places to be stuck for 3 days than Shang Hai. I wish I was on that flight!!

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: azstagecoach
Posted 2012-07-15 23:19:57 and read 14410 times.

But how does the $1000 voucher help a single stranded passenger get home? The voucher is for a future round-trip flight, but may of the 225 desperately need a one way ticket home-- which is currently running $5682 on United.com for next-day departure. How is the $1000 voucher, plus another thousand (or two) from the refunded ticket, going to cover the $6000 one-way ticket home?

What passenger would fly united again after being $4000 in the hole, give or take, after a three day delay?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2012-07-16 00:34:51 and read 13767 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 37):
All airlines have technical issues but UA seems to compound their tech issues with all kinds of other issues and then the apologists have the nerve to blame the customers.

Nice labeling. It sounds like a few reasonable posters are being dismissed out of hand because it doesn't fit other's point of view.

United1 already said what happened with the customers. If you disagree, thats your choice. He works there, you don't.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 42):
Again, UA was rolling the dice at the customers expense.

This happens everywhere. That's why you have people who need to make tough calls. It would be great if there was always an easy answer, but sometimes there isn't.

I'm not saying UA did everything right - I wasn't there. I do believe, though, that some here simply want to throw them under the bus because they are United.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
However, I think you underestimate the impact of a spare aircraft. On domestic flights spare aircraft are easier since the same crew that brings it in can take it out. On international flights, you have to find a crew with duty time available and get the airplane dispatched to PVG. That's about 4-6 hours to notify crew, get an airplane, clean & fuel it, dispatch it, file paperwork for arrival slot in PVG, etc. Then you have to have a crew to operate the flight back. UA is more likely to have a 777 in SFO, but a PMCO crew can't operate that plane and it is not configured correctly.

Reailty is always a great place to visit. Thank you! I was thinking the same thing. Get a plane ready. Call a crew. etc. It isn't just snapping your fingers and making it happen.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 46):
It's not the Tech issue that's at fault. It's the recovery issue (or lack of recovery) that's at fault here. Bad decisions from the top down resulted in this and other UA fiasco's of late. Yes it's a merger problem. Yes, it's Smisek problem. Yes, this is way more of a problem at UA right now that at other airlines. Stop sugar coating UA's piss poor performance and accept it as it really is.

Whatevrz...

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):

I am convinced we will see a lot more passenger rights regulation going forward. Among things I think is coming, some will take a long time, are: Cash instead of vouchers. Passengers flying out in order of their scheduled flight times, i.e little pain over many instead of a lot of pain to a few. Contacting passengers and offer compensation to stay until later flights.

That would be a nightmare. It might be the "right thing" to do, but it would be a nightmare. Can you imagine the backlog of calling if a dozen flights were delayed or cancelled due to weather?

Quoting kl692 (Reply 52):
My sister was stuck in ACC for 6 days thanks to DL and we had to book her another flight on KL at our own expense and you know what DL offer her? $50 voucher on her next flight with DL. No thanks was the answer.

You must be mistaken. DL has contingencies for such things, spare aircraft/crew, and just the best people around.  
Quoting azstagecoach (Reply 59):
But how does the $1000 voucher help a single stranded passenger get home? The voucher is for a future round-trip flight, but may of the 225 desperately need a one way ticket home-- which is currently running $5682 on United.com for next-day departure. How is the $1000 voucher, plus another thousand (or two) from the refunded ticket, going to cover the $6000 one-way ticket home?

What passenger would fly united again after being $4000 in the hole, give or take, after a three day delay?

I don't think they'd be paying to get home. They originally paid for the flight to the US, but UA is refunding that (so they are flying this trip for free now) and also giving them a $1000 voucher, plus hotel/food/perhaps other expenses while stuck in PVG.

----

Anyhow, I'm not a UA apologist. I don't fly them and I don't know anyone who works for them. However, I think RoseFlyer really provided some excellent and tangible reasons why things happen the way they happen sometimes, and United1 gave some inside information that we are free to accept or reject. In the end, though, I think they come out sounding a lot more reasonable and informed than many of the anti-UA commenters right now. Of course, if UA hadn't had so much trouble of late, they likely wouldn't be garnering the attention.

It will pass.

-Dave

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2012-07-16 02:46:16 and read 12783 times.

Quoting abrelosojos (Reply 54):
Working for a rather large airline in Asia right now that happens to be an United partner, I can confidently say that within 1 airline all 275 guests could have easily made it to an United hub in the U.S.

Considering ,as has been explained on numerous occasions that its peak travel time, thats a brave statement to make. Other airlines would have been packed to the gills as well or are you saying that even at peak travel times the airline you work for was flying empty planes during this period? I would be more worried about that!

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 04:02:47 and read 12218 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 57):
By re-slotting you maintain the best possible service to the most numbers of items which results in an overall higher average QoS. By force queuing or re-slotting all items that are already slotted, you end up significantly degraded QoS to all items and lower average QoS. You can actually construct mathematical proofs that prove this.

I fully agree the current system is built to impact as few as possible, i.e. make a few take all the pain. What I'm proposing is to set a time limit on the impact any unit may experience. Which is better QoS depend on how you value time.

Quoting azstagecoach (Reply 59):
But how does the $1000 voucher help a single stranded passenger get home?

The voucher isn't about getting them home. Per the info they booked up all available seats anyway. The voucher is a compensation for the troubles.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 60):
That would be a nightmare. It might be the "right thing" to do, but it would be a nightmare. Can you imagine the backlog of calling if a dozen flights were delayed or cancelled due to weather?

If it is the right thing to do why should we care about if it is a nightmare? We are all can do people, aren't we? 

Seriously, I don't agree it would be a nightmare. I absolutely agree it would be a nightmare if you had to have employees pick up the phone and try to call each passenger, but why would they? Airlines already use automatic dialing systems to leave a message when there are changes to passengers flights. Or they use SMS or email.

It is a long time since we reached the point where essentially all passengers are reachable with a SMS or email in a timely manner. While there are difficult regions the percentage of passengers who are not able to get on a computer with Internet access is small. The number of passengers who can do it directly from their phone is high.

What would have been a nightmare yesterday is nothing more than making relatively straight forward tolls available today.

And of course you would be smart about how you implement it. If the delay is short you would send out the messages only to ask for passengers willing to delay their flights, If it is really short you wouldn't bother as people would not respond in time.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2012-07-16 04:33:13 and read 11951 times.

Unfortunately this was a no-win situation for both UA and the passengers involved. There is limited capacity. There are few if any 'relief' aircraft available. Mainintaing 'relief' aircraft and the necessary staff is very expensive and cuts into the already limited profits of airlines already tight due to pax demands for the cheapest possible price yet higher fuel and labor costs. UA and other possible airlines that pax could have been accommodated on had few seats and only at a premium price UA didn't want to pay or delayed pax wouldn't pay. The PRC has strict security rules as to visitors. You have crew 'timeout' rules.
Part of the problem is with the pax themselves. Too many live in the past when too big a/c were used so plenty of seats available to re-accomidate pax who couldn't go on previous flights. Then you have the mentality that those delayed have first dibs on then next flight and those pax scheduled for that next flight should be dominoes to seats on the next flight.
You have major cuts in staffing making it difficult to process re-accommodation. You also have where most pax that can use cellphones, smartphones and computers that can put out to the world their 'side' and bashing the airlines to the world in minutes, well before the airlines can figure out a way to deal with a problem.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: kl692
Posted 2012-07-16 04:37:07 and read 11907 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 60):
You must be mistaken. DL has contingencies for such things, spare aircraft/crew, and just the best people around.

You must be mistaken cause that is what happen

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2012-07-16 04:57:42 and read 11733 times.

Quoting kl692 (Reply 64):
You must be mistaken cause that is what happen

He wasn't mistaken, he was being sarcastic, hence the   , he was in fact agreeing with you.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 05:27:08 and read 11396 times.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 63):
Then you have the mentality that those delayed have first dibs on then next flight and those pax scheduled for that next flight should be dominoes to seats on the next flight

Why is that wrong? Or more specifically. Why should passenger having the unfortune to be on a plane with problems have to see people pass them?

The current system is based on what is easiest for airlines. The passenger side is largely missing.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 63):
that can put out to the world their 'side' and bashing the airlines to the world in minutes, well before the airlines can figure out a way to deal with a problem.

I think you're missing the root problem. Passengers reactions are the result of how the airline handle the situation. The immediate bashing is because passengers have learned the hard way that any cryptic message about delay means that from that moment they are best described as piñatas instead of passengers.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-07-16 05:35:15 and read 11286 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
With all the flights to China, Japan and other Star airlines in Asia United should have no problem getting "stuck" passengers. Its a disgrace this happened. Asiana, ANA or Air China could have helped and its sounds United didn't seel their help. Disgraceful. Where is Continental when you need the.

We know better than that, most flights this time of year are already full so most if not all airlines probably had no choice but to refuse the passengers. This is typical of most of the uneducated lemmings that fly these days, "Why don't you have backup equipment; you should have extra staff available etc. It happens some times, get over it.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: GALLEYSTEW
Posted 2012-07-16 05:54:05 and read 11190 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 3):
With all the flights to China, Japan and other Star airlines in Asia United should have no problem getting "stuck" passengers. Its a disgrace this happened. Asiana, ANA or Air China could have helped and its sounds United didn't seel their help. Disgraceful. Where is Continental when you need the.
Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 4):
Hate to tell you this......but THIS was CONTINENTAL metal. United in name only, still running subsidiary airlines. I think they did the best they could considering the circumstances. it is summer and flights are full. You can only accomodate on other airlines if there are seats available.

I should have quoted the post I was responding to when I posted the first time. Just tired of UNITED bashing.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: GALLEYSTEW
Posted 2012-07-16 05:58:45 and read 11194 times.

Quoting SHAQ (Reply 53):
And here people are complaining and saying bad things about UA.
They compensated these people in such a great way!
They got refunds, hotel, and a free ride to China!
Imagine, with $1000, I can fly from EWR to Europe R/T or I can put +-$500 and I have a cheap ride to Asia.
Maybe UA is facing more technical delays now, and they know it, but they are also trying to fix this problem.That's why they are re-scheduling their ops and also are stopping retiring some a/c so their fleet have more slack.

I'm getting sick&tired of the UA bashing..

THANK you for this!!!! It was a major inconvinience, but refunded tickets, hotels, and $1000 for future travels is not a bad deal

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2012-07-16 06:23:21 and read 11053 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):

Why is that wrong? Or more specifically. Why should passenger having the unfortune to be on a plane with problems have to see people pass them?

Are you serious? The potential fall out for the domino effect you would have an airline follow would be a nightmare all across the board! Not a logical solution at all and I am sure if you were booked for that flight that was not cancelled to be told that your seat was given to someone else because their flight was cancelled, you would be really annoyed (putting it mildly), I know i would be!.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: BHMNONREV
Posted 2012-07-16 07:05:43 and read 10908 times.

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 49):
Quoting flybry (Thread starter):Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days Seems like the passengers got shanghai'd in Shanghai!

Cue the Nazareth intro...  
Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2):
In the meantime, UA 976 went tech last night, UA is fixing the plane and flying it empty to Dubai as UA 1747. they'll then turn it around and fly it back to Dulles as UA 1748 with those passengers who were supposed to be on UA 977. the delay for those passengers is a "measly" 14 hours.

Several years ago I had the unfortunate experience of the UA977 delay, DXB-IAD and it was just as you described here. Bird went tech at Dulles on the 976 leg and we had a 12 hour delay getting out of Dubai waiting for the replacement A/C to arrive. We were given a room and meal vouchers at the Dubai airport terminal hotel past security and a $300.00 voucher. I ended up having to take a taxi from Dulles to National to catch my connecting flight to ATL and arrived at Hartsfield well after midnight, 13.5 hours after my original scheduled arrival time.

Bottom line, this stuff happens folks. Just seems to happen on United more than others..

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: spink
Posted 2012-07-16 07:15:30 and read 10861 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
Why is that wrong? Or more specifically. Why should passenger having the unfortune to be on a plane with problems have to see people pass them?

It is wrong because those passengers what that were inconvenienced are now inconveniencing yet more passengers and with disproportionate effect. What you are proposing basically makes a bad situation worse and results in worse QoS for more people and worse average QoS.

Quote:
The current system is based on what is easiest for airlines. The passenger side is largely missing.

Actually, it is based on what is best for both the airline AND passengers. In an interconnection network, you have significant ripple issues. The problem of slotting in the passengers across the network who have missed their timing is already bad enough, what you are proposing compounds the problem and provides at best minimal relief while causing yet more passengers (significantly more) significantly decreased QoS.

Your proposal would be fine if every flight was always point-to-point. But they aren't. Each flight is carrying a large number of passengers that will be getting on another flight. It ripples out pretty quickly across a network. No network would be able to operate efficiently given the realistic mechanical failure/weather rates which will result in increased prices and much less stable source to destination determinacy. The net result would be higher prices with less QoS which isn't in anyone's interest.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 07:23:37 and read 10822 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 67):
It happens some times, get over it.
Quoting ual777uk (Reply 70):
Are you serious? The potential fall out for the domino effect you would have an airline follow would be a nightmare all across the board! Not a logical solution at all and I am sure if you were booked for that flight that was not cancelled to be told that your seat was given to someone else because their flight was cancelled, you would be really annoyed (putting it mildly), I know i would be!.

Of course I'm serious. Why shouldn't I be?

I'm sure the passengers on the cancelled flights are at least as annoyed as passengers on a later flight would be. I also think that inconvenience increases by time making them even more annoyed, to put it mildly.

If you have reservations for a restaurant at 19:00 and their is no table available until 19:30 should the table go to you, who showed up for your reservation and have waited, or the person just walking in with a 19:30 reservation?

I would be royally annoyed if I had the 19:00 reservation and didn't get to eat until 23:00 because other people had reservations for when tables opened up. Think you would too.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: spink
Posted 2012-07-16 07:24:09 and read 10806 times.

Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 71):
Bottom line, this stuff happens folks. Just seems to happen on United more than others..

We would need actual statistics to make that determination. Mechanical issues affect every airline. Several years ago I had a bad string of luck with SQ doing SFO-HKG-SIN. On one flight the plane went mechanical during the stop over in HKG, with the only saving grace being that the day before another 747 went mechanical so we only had an additional 4-5 hour delay as the finished up the maintenance of the previous mechanical 747.

Would be interesting if there was a public database for mechanical rates among airline though.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 08:10:27 and read 10664 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 72):
Your proposal would be fine if every flight was always point-to-point. But they aren't. Each flight is carrying a large number of passengers that will be getting on another flight. It ripples out pretty quickly across a network.

You're pretending every flight is always full. We know loads vary greatly throughout the system. It may take a long time to send a plane load of passengers from a remote location but that they will equally block flights at the other side is not anchored in reality.

Quoting spink (Reply 72):
No network would be able to operate efficiently given the realistic mechanical failure/weather rates

You're dramatically overstating the consequences. If this was true the system would grind to a complete halt several times per day already in current situation.

Quoting spink (Reply 72):
with less QoS

To my knowledge there is no common QoS standard for this situation. If you give preference to how many passengers are affected then your version will provide better QoS result. If escalated for time my suggestion provide better QoS.

What do you think the result will be if you scientifically ask passengers? Put half the group in the delayed category as the first question and the other half in the later flight. Then reverse the viewpoint twice.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: EaglePower83
Posted 2012-07-16 08:10:29 and read 10689 times.

I guess I'll throw my 2RMB in here.

I think, with how stingy UA/CO has been lately with comp, this seems like quite a generous offering. Hotel, food, refund and $1000 travel voucher? That sounds awesome! Good for them on that.

Flying United this year has definitely been more drama-prone than it used to be. So i'm not surprised it wasn't handled the best way.
Someone mentioned the auto-contacting of passengers.
Prior to 3/3/12, I was signed up for all of UA's e-updates. They used to always call and email about flight updates and they were usually in a timely manner where I was well informed or was able to take action. Often-times their system used to auto-rebook me on what were rather "smart" new itineraries I was happy with.

After the new system switch, the auto-contact "easy update" thing no longer works properly [for me].
There's no more auto rebooking, no more protected bookings. Most flight updates are ill-timed, have poor info or don't come at all. A few times I've had "delayed flight" messages arrive either while in the air or after landing on my "delayed flight." Duhhhh, I know I left late because I'm landing late. Thanks for the update!

Their system is completely screwed up, so even if the CAN DO go getter employees wanted to help out those stranded passengers, often the system is either too cumbersome to do so or it literally will not allow the staff to do things they used to do with ease.

***I do not work for UA, these are only personal observations from my flights and talking with UA staff during my travels.

I have changed my regular carrier to AA now due to the UA drama. It's tough, like saying goodbye to a good friend of 7 years. But this friend has drastically changed. And AA generally gets the job done with less drama and better communication now. I have to fly more 'Eagle' flights, but that's ok.
He's not the root of all evil, but I don't see myself going back to UA in good conscience until Smisek is gone.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-07-16 08:59:09 and read 10573 times.

while that flight was stuck at leat 3 747-422's came and went non-stop to SFO, I don't know what the Contnental side was thinking IF anything, but that Didn't Have to happen.. Those passengers COULD have been routed via SFO OR NRT back stateside. Just like CAL had a damaged airplane in LHR and only RELUCTANTLY asked for help from their OWN counterparts @ UAL in LHR when Delta Didn't have the resources to help them. This Merger is as F'd up as a SOUP Sandwich!!
A whole bunch of Smoke and NO fire, and ALL the smoke is from the CAL side because they don't know what they're doing and are too damn PROUD to ASK!! They ACT Like they've got all the answers when we can all see that they DON'T have the slightest CLUE !! And What's Worse?? We're not 20 FEET from each other at the Willis !! The CAL 777 ops manager sits 6 FEET from the UAL 747-777-767 Ops manager and their Mouth was Broken??

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 09:01:50 and read 10530 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 77):
while that flight was stuck at leat 3 747-422's came and went non-stop to SFO

Question is if there were empty seats on them.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-16 09:08:36 and read 10492 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):

I'm sure the passengers on the cancelled flights are at least as annoyed as passengers on a later flight would be. I also think that inconvenience increases by time making them even more annoyed, to put it mildly.

The way most airlines handle cancellations is to reaccommodate the passengers on the canceled flight with space available within the airline or outside of the airline. Bumping one day’s passengers onto the next flight and continuously bumping people results in more missed connections and more affected passengers and ends up costing the airline more. You don’t have to agree with it, but airlines typically handle it as preferring to severely inconvenience a few passengers rather than minorly inconvenience many passengers.

Quoting spink (Reply 74):
Quoting BHMNONREV (Reply 71):
Bottom line, this stuff happens folks. Just seems to happen on United more than others..

We would need actual statistics to make that determination. Mechanical issues affect every airline. Several years ago I had a bad string of luck with SQ doing SFO-HKG-SIN. On one flight the plane went mechanical during the stop over in HKG, with the only saving grace being that the day before another 747 went mechanical so we only had an additional 4-5 hour delay as the finished up the maintenance of the previous mechanical 747.

Would be interesting if there was a public database for mechanical rates among airline though.

There are actual statistics on airplane reliability. Each airline under FAA jurisdiction is required as a part of its reliability program to compare its performance to its peer airlines for each fleet type. Airbus and Boeing both publish this data to the airlines in the form of dispatch reliability. Airlines do compare it to benchmark themselves, which is where fleet leaders like ANA and JAL are very apparent. US airlines typically bring up the rear along with some European airlines. Unfortunately this is data that is restricted to those that work in the reliability organizations and management within the airlines. I can’t divulge the information, but the US airlines are all relatively similar, and it varies among which type of airplane as to who is the best. Charts are published with dispatch reliability as the data point and the X axis has fleet utilization. Continental 777s typically had some of the highest fleet utilization in the entire world, so accordingly their dispatch reliability is expected to be less.

One factor that often gets missed is that reliability data comes in the form of dispatch reliability. Being that United is the largest airline in the world, there is no question that events like this one happen more often at United. Quoting the number of news articles or A.net threads is a very small sample size. Overnight delays are happening on a daily basis. 1 in 100 gets an a.net thread.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-07-16 09:17:00 and read 10462 times.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 76):

The shares system is "Basic" at best. It doesn't do 1/3 of the stuff the apollo system did and it doesn't appear to be getting any Better evidently.. But suffice to say the CAL IT team is getting "beat up" daily because of it. As Well as everything ELSE they have in their IT "gunnysack" that's ALSO a Piece of Crap as well. We should have run parallel processes until we saw side by side who's stuff was better, I have NO doubt Nothing From the CAL side would have survived the CUT! And I'm not being overly Critical. Their IT stuff just isn't any Good for the most part. But! They don't KNOW any better. And they Didn't want to Listen Anyway.. So?? This is the position we find ourselves..

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ual777uk
Posted 2012-07-16 09:36:03 and read 10382 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
Of course I'm serious. Why shouldn't I be?

For the reasons already explained, the ripple effect of your way forward would be a disaster.....lets not just inconvienience this flight load of passngers, lets go to town on the next as well and so on. Sorry, makes no sense to me whatsoever!

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
If you have reservations for a restaurant at 19:00 and their is no table available until 19:30 should the table go to you, who showed up for your reservation and have waited, or the person just walking in with a 19:30 reservation?

I would be royally annoyed if I had the 19:00 reservation and didn't get to eat until 23:00 because other people had reservations for when tables opened up. Think you would too.

Talk about a poles apart comparison, unless of course the table i booked was for 275 people and the restaurant could only ever seat 50, then I might get annoyed!

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 09:41:57 and read 10375 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
Why is that wrong? Or more specifically. Why should passenger having the unfortune to be on a plane with problems have to see people pass them?

The current system is based on what is easiest for airlines. The passenger side is largely missing.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying:
Flight 1 goes tech on Monday
Bump pax on Tues Flight 1 to accommodate MON's pax.

I'm I understanding your theory correctly?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: EaglePower83
Posted 2012-07-16 10:55:00 and read 10210 times.

Regarding what Tech was kept from what airline...
FWIW, I've seen lists in threads on Flyertalk from UA staff saying that about half the IT systems at the new UA were actually kept from pmUA.
If I remember correctly, most or everything on the company's MRO side was pmUA sourced.

Baggage and Res was taken from CO.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: flashmeister
Posted 2012-07-16 11:39:55 and read 10092 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 19):
This was UNITED. There is no such thing as Continental anymore. It's United, United is responsible.

Yes, and sadly, the new United has kept some of the worst (and, admittedly, best) traits of Continental. One of the worst is Continental's abysmal performance with IROPS. It's well known that pre-merger CO would tend to fall apart when confronted with operational challenges, or at least more than you'd see from the other majors. This story seems to show that it's more of the same, just with a different name on the side of the plane.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 43):
What evidence do you have that the result would have been different for AA or DL?

Go back and read the conversations here or on other forums: Continental simply sucked when it came to irregular operations, compensation, and customer satisfaction in the event of problems during a trip. It's little surprise that we're seeing the same now with United.

Quoting SHAQ (Reply 53):
I'm getting sick&tired of the UA bashing..

I can understand that, but quite a lot of it is earned.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-16 12:17:13 and read 9969 times.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 83):
Regarding what Tech was kept from what airline...
FWIW, I've seen lists in threads on Flyertalk from UA staff saying that about half the IT systems at the new UA were actually kept from pmUA.
If I remember correctly, most or everything on the company's MRO side was pmUA sourced.

People like to say on the forums that CO is the one that took over and is running the show, which really isn't true in all parts of the business.

Engineering and Maintenance is one area where it is more heavily on the PMUA side. The Sr. Vp of maintenance and technical operations is Jim Keenan who is ex-UA from SFO. Mike Lorenzini and Mark Mounsey are the other VPs in maintenance and both came from PMUA.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 77):
while that flight was stuck at leat 3 747-422's came and went non-stop to SFO, I don't know what the Contnental side was thinking IF anything, but that Didn't Have to happen.. Those passengers COULD have been routed via SFO OR NRT back stateside.

Since you supposedly work for United, why don't you look up how many seats were open on those flights? You can do that with the flight tracker on the internal network.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 12:17:44 and read 9958 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 79):
You don’t have to agree with it, but airlines typically handle it as preferring to severely inconvenience a few passengers rather than minorly inconvenience many passengers.

How airlines like to handle it doesn't matter much. What matters is that after a few times when passengers have been stranded multiple days there will be calls for legislation. Like it or not but customer rights are getting more attention. Mostly because companies abuse the power they hold.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 81):
For the reasons already explained, the ripple effect of your way forward would be a disaster

You're wrong. The additional ripple effects are minor. The workload on the airline is the biggest difference. More tickets to change. Automation will handle most of it.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 81):
.lets not just inconvienience this flight load of passngers, lets go to town on the next as well and so on. Sorry, makes no sense to me whatsoever!

But making other passengers have there lifes put on hold multiple days makes sense to you  Wow!

You will start seeing headlines about passengers being held hostage and similar. Not completely true but not wrong either. As long as they can get people to their destination within a few hours there are no problems. Next day from remote stations generates negative comments but people accept. Multiple days where the stranded passengers see other passengers pass and you have problems. If it happens once in a blue moon it's still OK. But for each time it happens and for each additional day there are increasingly more problems. Soon enough there are calls for legislation.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 81):
talk about a poles apart comparison, unless of course the table i booked was for 275 people and the restaurant could only ever seat 50, then I might get annoyed!

So you're saying a single group booked all 275 seats on the plane. And the plane could only take 50 passengers despite them having booked 275 on it  Wow!

Your objections to the restaurant example are completely of the mark.

Let me try to clarify it to you. You're on a ship and all your meals are in the same restaurant. Not that it matters but let's say it holds 275 people who are served in a single sitting. ( To make it clear. The restaurant equals the airline. The sitting the flight and 275 is the capacity in both cases)

It is time to eat and you go there and you're told there is a problem with the kitchen for that restaurant. Other restaurants can handle 50 people but the rest of you get no food. Please come back for next meal when we hope to have the kitchen working. (Other restaurants represent other airlines and other flights by the same airline. Kitchen problem is whatever prevented the flight from operating.)

When it is time for the next meal you go there and again you're told they can't serve you. Please come back for next meal but you see other passengers happily eat at other restaurants. (Next meal represent the next flight by the airline. Other restaurants again other airlines and other flights by the same airline.)

Somehow I doubt you will have much understanding for not being served day after day. But that is pretty much what the airlines are doing when they let a few people take the full impact.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 82):
I'm I understanding your theory correctly?


Pretty much. I'm also saying they should contact passengers for the time it takes to get everyone out to see who are prepared to be delayed for compensation. If they can't find enough people then yes, exactly as you said.

When you get your head around it you'll find that the difference is that many passengers will have short delays but apart from the people who prefer to take compensation no-one will have long delays. (They miss one meal but not several)

The rest is letting computers do what they do so well, organize data. If one of the Monday passengers will be stuck one day at this location and one day at the hub then be up front about it and explain why he is put to wait one more day at the original location. That way even the ripple effects are covered.

When you have good reasonable explanations people accept inconvenience. They are not happy but they accept it. It is when they feel they are made to take more than their fair share it gets out of hand.

I am amazed people actually argue it is the convenience for the airline that should be the deciding factor. Or that it is reasonable to let a large group of people be very severely affected instead of a larger group much less. I am sure most of them will change their mind if they are made to wait multiple days and see other passengers pass by.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 13:07:31 and read 9807 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):

Pretty much. I'm also saying they should contact passengers for the time it takes to get everyone out to see who are prepared to be delayed for compensation. If they can't find enough people then yes, exactly as you said.

That's crazy talk.

If I'm booked on Tues. flight, and there's nothing wrong with Tuesday's flight then why should I be disrupted? Crazy talk. It's just bad luck that Monday's flight went tech but it's not MY bad luck. Frankly I would think it's violates the airline's Contracts of Carriage.

As for the concept of looking for volunteers on the Tues. flight to accommodate Monday's passengers? Logistical nightmare. This would only work MAYBE if there were a later flight the same day. Once you're trying to get people who haven't arrived at the airport for a flight to give up for people you've sent away from the airport you're bound for a cock-up.

At the end of the day, it's a disruption and it's any company's job to keep a disruption to a minimum. Your suggestions, especially the bumping bit does nothing but extend the disruption both in time and numbers of people.

From an "on the ground" customer service point of view, I can't comment on how the passengers were dealt with however I do think the compensation offered by UA is more than adequate.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-07-16 13:16:27 and read 9781 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):
That's crazy talk.

It's absolutely not an apples to apples comparison, but it's exactly what WN does a lot of times with m/x cancellations. WN does it in sequence until they are back on schedule, which can be pretty quick if they are smart about using flights with lots of padding on the block time or flights that are very early, for instance because of headwinds or flights that are very empty and can be consolidated on to other flights.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-16 13:19:28 and read 9770 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 79):
You don’t have to agree with it, but airlines typically handle it as preferring to severely inconvenience a few passengers rather than minorly inconvenience many passengers.

How airlines like to handle it doesn't matter much. What matters is that after a few times when passengers have been stranded multiple days there will be calls for legislation. Like it or not but customer rights are getting more attention. Mostly because companies abuse the power they hold.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 81):
For the reasons already explained, the ripple effect of your way forward would be a disaster

You're wrong. The additional ripple effects are minor. The workload on the airline is the biggest difference. More tickets to change. Automation will handle most of it.

I don’t think we are ever going to agree on this. The airline has a certain number of seats. They are going to be paying for 750 hotel room nights because of the cancellation. Is it better for 750 people to stay one extra night, or have 250 people stay 3 nights? The ripple effect is greater of having to reaccomodate 750 people versus 250 people. The ripple effects of additional missed connections is not minor. Also now you are compensating 750 people and have 750 people who will think twice about flying United next rather than 250 extremely angry mob like people (which I fully agree have a right to be angry and frustrated).

Also, another thing to point out is that airlines are not required to reaccomodate passengers on other airlines. That’s not what is in the contract of carriage. The contract of carriage states that passengers must be placed on the next available flight within that airline. Unless I understand the contract of carriage incorrectly, putting people on other airlines is a courtesy. For international flights it is an expected courtesy, but not required. There are airlines that never rebook people on other airlines’ flights, such as the biggest US domestic carrier – Southwest.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: max999
Posted 2012-07-16 14:00:35 and read 9667 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 89):
Also, another thing to point out is that airlines are not required to reaccomodate passengers on other airlines. That’s not what is in the contract of carriage. The contract of carriage states that passengers must be placed on the next available flight within that airline. Unless I understand the contract of carriage incorrectly, putting people on other airlines is a courtesy. For international flights it is an expected courtesy, but not required. There are airlines that never rebook people on other airlines’ flights, such as the biggest US domestic carrier – Southwest.

Yes, that's the contractually minimum in most airlines' contract of carriage. But it's kind of sad to think that UA is only doing the bare minimum (finding seats on their own metal) during these extraordinary circumstances. They are sending the wrong message.

And I find it hard to believe that there were NO available seats on other carriers to reaccomodate the passengers over the course of three days if UA staff really tried. It feels like some management decision to take a risk and save a few bucks to not pay the expense of last minute tickets on other carriers...their bet failed.

Also, WN is not an apt comparison because they don't fly international long haul flights to destinations halfway across the world.

[Edited 2012-07-16 14:08:30]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 14:09:19 and read 9654 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 88):

It's absolutely not an apples to apples comparison, but it's exactly what WN does a lot of times with m/x cancellations. WN does it in sequence until they are back on schedule, which can be pretty quick if they are smart about using flights with lots of padding on the block time or flights that are very early, for instance because of headwinds or flights that are very empty and can be consolidated on to other flights.

I live 9 miles from MDW so fly WN frequently and I've never seen them bump people from a flight in order to accommodate people from a cancelled service. On "On The Fly" (the TV show that highlights WN) at least once an episode someone from a disrupted flight wants to get on a flight that's running to schedule and, unless there are seats the answer is "no."

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at?

(and yes, Cubs rule!)

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-16 15:08:37 and read 9486 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 91):
On "On The Fly" (the TV show that highlights WN) at least once an episode someone from a disrupted flight wants to get on a flight that's running to schedule and, unless there are seats the answer is "no."

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at?

Its not an absolute, but it is / can be done, it depends on the route, a/c availabe and pax loads.

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
1. Is the airline first responsibilty to accomodate the first delayed pax or to continue their schedule, is each flight an individual entity or something belonging to the company at large, we want everyone to pay their fair share in taxes, what about delays and travel inconvenience, is the principle the same?

If more instances like this occur regulators will start looking at this, not because they believe or don't believe it but because of the way airlines handle these situations. Expect some logistics folks to rework their strategy in terms of assets required for operating such flights, a question which is never answered post incident, the money saved decreasing the assests on had, was it wiped out by one incidents compensation and the poor PR generated?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 15:20:20 and read 9433 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 92):

Its not an absolute, but it is / can be done, it depends on the route, a/c availabe and pax loads.

What? That WN will involuntarily bump someone in order to accommodate a disrupted passenger from an earlier flight?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 15:40:00 and read 9375 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):
That's crazy talk.

Crazy talk is suggesting that it is fair to let Monday's passengers spend day after day watching flights to their destination take off with the airline they used and not be allowed to board. Suggesting they should have lesser rights than every booked passenger is really crazy.

Provide justification acceptable to a Monday passenger why they should be put on an indefinite delay and I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. It isn't that the Tuesday passengers where not at fault because neither were Monday passengers.


Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):
but it's not MY bad luck

Nor is it the fault of the passengers booked on Monday's flight? What will you say when you're booked on the Monday flight? Let me bend over. I deserve all the bad luck. Doubt it.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):
Logistical nightmare. This would only work MAYBE if there were a later flight the same day. Once you're trying to get people who haven't arrived at the airport for a flight to give up for people you've sent away from the airport you're bound for a cock-up.

Technology has changed this. You can easily reach the vast majority of passengers before they even get ready to leave for the airport. With Monday's passengers knowing they will get out on Tuesday's flight they will be at the airport.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):
At the end of the day, it's a disruption and it's any company's job to keep a disruption to a minimum. Your suggestions, especially the bumping bit does nothing but extend the disruption both in time and numbers of people.

It drastically reduces the maximum delay experienced by any passenger. Again, a three day delay is much worse than a single day delay. It isn't just three times.


Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 89):
I don’t think we are ever going to agree on this.

Likely. Especially if you look at it with the current airline mentality. Today's rules are very lopsided with advantage to the airline. Individual passengers do not have the power to change it. But multiple occasions together with media will force legislation.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 89):
The ripple effects of additional missed connections is not minor.

During normal or low season the airline is likely to be able to accommodate most passengers. The few who don't are no different than any of the many other passengers you need to deal with every day. Difference is that you have more options since you know about them earlier. They really don't change much.

During high season the airline is likely to come out ahead. The reason is that for each time there is a problem you're likely to have an opportunity with a seat opening up. With high load factors that seat is likely to sell and at good price putting the airline comparably ahead.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 89):
Also now you are compensating 750 people and have 750 people who will think twice about flying United next rather than 250 extremely angry mob like people (which I fully agree have a right to be angry and frustrated).

Let's be clear. If you have a single passenger becoming "mob like" you have failed miserably. If that is how you treat passengers you will alienate them soon enough anyway so get the 750 leaving now and save some time.

As to if you compensate 250 passengers for 3 days or 750 passengers for 1 day, should there be a difference? I think there should. Each additional day should increase compensation so for three days you average more.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 89):
Also, another thing to point out is that airlines are not required to reaccomodate passengers on other airlines. That’s not what is in the contract of carriage. The contract of carriage states that passengers must be placed on the next available flight within that airline. Unless I understand the contract of carriage incorrectly, putting people on other airlines is a courtesy. For international flights it is an expected courtesy, but not required. There are airlines that never rebook people on other airlines’ flights, such as the biggest US domestic carrier – Southwest.

The contract of carriage is written by airlines for airlines. As long as there are few problems they do not matter. The day problems become common and they are considered lopsided legislation will re-balance.

It does not take many of these multi-day delays before there is legislation. Have a few in a short period together with it being election year and even Romney will propose it.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 91):
at least once an episode someone from a disrupted flight wants to get on a flight that's running to schedule and, unless there are seats the answer is "no.

That is how most if not all airlines handle it today. WN is good in how they offer increasing amount of compensation to find passengers willing to take a later flight. I have done so a few times after I have asked for guaranteed seat on next flight and it has never been denied.

But if WN starts to leave passengers for days at end I fully expect new legislating.

Quoting spink (Reply 72):
It is wrong because those passengers what that were inconvenienced are now inconveniencing yet more passengers and with disproportionate effect.

Let's get this right, The passengers are not inconveniencing any other passengers. It is the airline that is inconveniencing passengers. Forcing long delay on one group is disproportional worse than shorter delays on more to get essentially the same amount of delay.


[Edited 2012-07-16 15:40:32]

[Edited 2012-07-16 15:44:06]

[Edited 2012-07-16 15:44:43]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 16:44:15 and read 9255 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):

As to if you compensate 250 passengers for 3 days or 750 passengers for 1 day, should there be a difference? I think there should. Each additional day should increase compensation so for three days you average more.

Yes...because then you've aliented 750 people. Not a good business model and you can say all you want that it's better to disrupt 750 people a little than 250 alot but you're dead wrong on this. Dead wrong. Most passengers can understand a disruption. I doubt many will understand the premise, "Sorry, you're flight's going but you're not because these people from yesterday's cancellation are taking your seats." Do you want to talk about a riot? Let me know when and where you try this 'cause I'd like to be there.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Nor is it the fault of the passengers booked on Monday's flight? What will you say when you're booked on the Monday flight? Let me bend over. I deserve all the bad luck. Doubt it.


No, but nor would I visit my bad luck onto someone else. That would be sheer selfishness and stupidity.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):

That is how most if not all airlines handle it today. WN is good in how they offer increasing amount of compensation to find passengers willing to take a later flight. I have done so a few times after I have asked for guaranteed seat on next flight and it has never been denied.

But then you've relinquished your seat voluntarily and I highly doubt WN involuntarily bumped a passenger on a later flight to carry you. And even WN has a max. limit they'll offer for volunteers

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Technology has changed this. You can easily reach the vast majority of passengers before they even get ready to leave for the airport. With Monday's passengers knowing they will get out on Tuesday's flight they will be at the airport.

And what about Tuesday's passengers? You'd like to think that technology has changed this but it's not completely true. You're lucky to reach 75% of passengers on a flight in a timely manner when there's a disruption.

I just find zero merit in your idea. And believe me, I've tried.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: fxramper
Posted 2012-07-16 17:09:07 and read 9219 times.

Dunno why this needed it's own article or thread. The new UA does this often. EZE & IST go late and mx all the time. UA 905 cxl yesterday and passengers are stuck. Rumor has Smisek making a 'graceful' exit at the end of the year.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-16 17:33:25 and read 9132 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 93):
What? That WN will involuntarily bump someone in order to accommodate a disrupted passenger from an earlier flight?

Yes, because it is good customer service, how they do it seems to be the problem, most have no issue when they ask for volunteers. Carriers are allowed to overbook, that is actually taking reservations for more pax than they have seats, what happens when everyone shows up, who gets disrupted, which pax has priority and how is it the pax fault?

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
The passengers are not inconveniencing any other passengers. It is the airline that is inconveniencing passengers.

They are allowed to do this legally for overbooking, scheduling more flights per hour than a airport can handle and numerous other ways that they have had politicians pass rules / regs for their benefit.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
Yes...because then you've aliented 750 people. Not a good business model and you can say all you want that it's better to disrupt 750 people a little than 250 alot but you're dead wrong on this.

This is why for long haul flights into foreign countries it is good logistics for carriers to have 3 a/c designated for the flight, one operating the flight and the other two operating flights within set time frames to make them available for emergencies, to ensure that the delay does not go over into the next rotation and affect the max number of pax.
We are not seeing the logistics but I am willing to bet that somewhere within the system pax were inconvenienced when that second a/c was sent to the rescue, I don't think it was sitting unsed with a relief crew, that probaly explains why they timed out when the pax were late boarding.

In the example given below, I like it expect for one change.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Please come back for next meal when we hope to have the kitchen working. (Other restaurants represent other airlines and other flights by the same airline. Kitchen problem is whatever prevented the flight from operating.)

When it is time for the next meal you go there and again you're told they can't serve you. Please come back for next meal but you see other passengers happily eat at other restaurants.

It should have been you see passengers eating in the same restaurant that is saying they cannot serve you.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):
If I'm booked on Tues. flight, and there's nothing wrong with Tuesday's flight then why should I be disrupted? Crazy talk. It's just bad luck that Monday's flight went tech but it's not MY bad luck. Frankly I would think it's violates the airline's Contracts of Carriage.

The airline service has already been disrupted, believe it or not the carrier has a responsibilty to all the pax who bought tickets, that is also in their Contract of Carriage.
You buy a ticket to a ball game and it gets rained out, tough luck, do you get your money back, after all the athletes did not play so it should be a no brainer right?
They do not give you your money back, the try to re-schedule you to another game of their choosing, and this is for a game in country, applying such rules to travel to foreign countries is not an equal situation.

You disagree that's fine, its a discussion site and we are offering opinions, I believe if more situations like this occur the regulators will get involved and airlines will not like the results forced on them, they still do not like the fact that they cannot keep pax onboard a/c stuck on the tarmac for 6+ hours without having to feed them or bring them back to the gate.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-07-16 17:47:33 and read 9102 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 73):
I would be royally annoyed if I had the 19:00 reservation and didn't get to eat until 23:00 because other people had reservations for when tables opened up. Think you would too.

So if all 275 people get bumped they would be able to bump 275 people off the next flight? That seems highly unlikely to happen. In the flying world, you would not be bumping anybody off a flight just because your flight should have left earlier. That is nonsensical.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-07-16 18:34:27 and read 8990 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 91):
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at?

If they have an airplane go out of service for m/x, rather than cancelling the outbound flight or delaying the flight until the plane is repaired, they'll frequently take an incoming flight, turn it to the outbound flight on the broken airplane and delay the scheduled outbound flight on that airplane. They repeat this process until things are back to normal - the result is that many passengers take small delays but no one takes a really horrendous delay.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: ridgid727
Posted 2012-07-16 18:55:41 and read 8968 times.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 41):
When is this going to stop?

It will probably never stop. As an example, Just the other day in SLC, I heard 2 DL agents talking, and one said are you Delta Delta, or Western Delta?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 19:49:19 and read 8814 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):
The airline service has already been disrupted, believe it or not the carrier has a responsibilty to all the pax who bought tickets, that is also in their Contract of Carriage.
You buy a ticket to a ball game and it gets rained out, tough luck, do you get your money back, after all the athletes did not play so it should be a no brainer right?
They do not give you your money back, the try to re-schedule you to another game of their choosing, and this is for a game in country, applying such rules to travel to foreign countries is not an equal situation.

Not accurate, I'm afraid:
Fans unable to attend the rescheduled game may exchange their unused tickets at any time for any future regular season game scheduled to be played within 12 months from May 28, 2011; excluding Opening Day.

Much more flexible than what you're making it out to be, but that's neither here nor there...

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 99):

If they have an airplane go out of service for m/x, rather than cancelling the outbound flight or delaying the flight until the plane is repaired, they'll frequently take an incoming flight, turn it to the outbound flight on the broken airplane and delay the scheduled outbound flight on that airplane. They repeat this process until things are back to normal - the result is that many passengers take small delays but no one takes a really horrendous delay.

And I can tell you from first hand experience this is not the way to go. It is better to keep a schedule and have passengers travel on their scheduled flight than to do what you're suggesting. And in the case of the UA PVG you'd always be incurring at least a 24hour delay. Bad customer service all around. What you're suggesting only works when you have ample time to notify people. To tell people today that they're not travelling tomorrow? Nightmare. What your suggesting works when there's an overarching reason, i.e. a hurricane is bearing down on BDA (and everyone knows it's coming). Airline "A" will delay, say, three days' flights by 24 hours and eventually the schedule will be synchronised to match reality but eventually, if it's a daily service, someone's flight will need to be canceled...but there's time to handle the cancellation and reaccommodate customers. Why? Because you have time to sort it all out. Hurricanes aren't usually a surprise. An engine falls off at departure time you don't have the time to do this effectively.

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):
Yes, because it is good customer service, how they do it seems to be the problem, most have no issue when they ask for volunteers. Carriers are allowed to overbook, that is actually taking reservations for more pax than they have seats, what happens when everyone shows up, who gets disrupted, which pax has priority and how is it the pax fault?

There's a difference between "oversales" and just bumping someone from today to accommodate someone from a cancellation of yesterday. Again, if WN offers a passenger USD1000.00 to voluntarily then that's fine because the volunteer knew what they were getting into. When an airline involuntarily denies someone boarding there's no explanation that'll make that customer feel better and I would suggest that the explanation of, "yesterday's passenger is more important than you" just won't cut it. And to shade the truth or outright lie on the explanation will ultimately come to light and make matters worse.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-16 20:04:37 and read 8823 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
Yes...because then you've aliented 750 people. Not a good business model and you can say all you want that it's better to disrupt 750 people a little than 250 alot but you're dead wrong on this. Dead wrong. Most passengers can understand a disruption. I doubt many will understand the premise, "Sorry, you're flight's going but you're not because these people from yesterday's cancellation are taking your seats." Do you want to talk about a riot? Let me know when and where you try this 'cause I'd like to be there.

You're dead wrong if you think airlines will be allowed to leave passengers stranded for multiple days at any kind of frequency. Even less so if higher load factors and utilization mean increasingly more days. Media will fo crazy about airlines holding passengers hostage. You think it was bad when they didn't return to the gates during the winter storms? Get ready for a storm.

I think you're dead wrong about the understanding from passengers on later flights. Majority of passengers can very quickly and accurately imagine themselves in the position of the cancelled flight. As long as the reason is communicated properly they will accept being delayed until next flight. What they will not accept is being delayed multiple flights. What you advocate the first passengers accept.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
No, but nor would I visit my bad luck onto someone else. That would be sheer selfishness and stupidity.

Visit my bad luck? Do you mean wish?

I do not wish bad luck on anybody. Why I find it unacceptable to force bucket loads on a few.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
But then you've relinquished your seat voluntarily and I highly doubt WN involuntarily bumped a passenger on a later flight to carry you. And even WN has a max. limit they'll offer for volunteers

I know they bumped a passenger on one occasion. It was the last flight out on New Orleans and I was the only person who indicated interest. I only accepted if I would get out on the first flight next morning. They wanted me to take a flight a few hours later. I could not accept and then they reserved a seat for the passenger they would bump on the first flight. Of course I only know what they told me...

Of course it is better if people volunteer for compensation and of course there is a max limit as to what the airline can offer. The very reason they need a procedure for when there aren't enough volunteers.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
And what about Tuesday's passengers? You'd like to think that technology has changed this but it's not completely true. You're lucky to reach 75% of passengers on a flight in a timely manner when there's a disruption.

I thought I had made it abundantly clear Tuesday's passengers would be contacted, email,SMS or automatic phone message. You're likely to send out the message at least 18 hours before the flight. Almost always will you have a morning within those 18 hours and more often than not you will have at least part of the evening. There are very few people taking flights who do not have a mobile phone able to receive SMS. Even those who do not have a phone or do not have it turned on are extremely likely to check their private email in the evening or morning.

Include the compensation offer and a link to the new itinerary and you will have very good feedback as to who have read it.

A decade ago I would be surprised if you could reach 75% of passengers within 18 hours. Today I think you will reach mid 90% in most regions of the world. Even in our African factories virtually 100% of job applicants have SMS.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
I just find zero merit in your idea. And believe me, I've tried.

That is your prerogative. I find your objections to be the standard objections we find almost every time we start a new project. That doesn't work here. Customers will not accept it. It is not how it is done in this industry. We need bigger inventory than that or the factory will grind to a halt all the time. It doesn't work left and right. But it does.

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):
They are allowed to do this legally for overbooking, scheduling more flights per hour than a airport can handle and numerous other ways that they have had politicians pass rules / regs for their benefit.

Those are very different circumstances and there are very good reasons why they do it. More importantly the rules applied when it fails are such that affected passengers are generally OK with how they are compensated and the length of the delay.

The reason for that comment was the preposterous claim that it is the Monday passengers who would inconvenience the Tuesday passengers.

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):
It should have been you see passengers eating in the same restaurant that is saying they cannot serve you.

Originally I intended to do it as two sittings in the same restaurant. But since there was problems understanding the first version I thought using sittings would fail too.

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):
This is why for long haul flights into foreign countries it is good logistics for carriers to have 3 a/c designated for the flight, one operating the flight and the other two operating flights within set time frames to make them available for emergencies, to ensure that the delay does not go over into the next rotation and affect the max number of pax.

You will run in to problems at some point and thus you need slack in the system to handle it. If you can schedule it like that great but there are many more options.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 101):
"yesterday's passenger is more important than you" just won't cut it.

If you do it like that of course you will have problems. But if you explain that you're backed up because Monday's flight got cancelled and you are getting passengers out in the order they were booked you will get a very different result.

I also find it very strange you state it is fine to tell Monday's passengers that they are worth less than Tuesday's passengers but you can't tell Tuesday's passengers that all passengers are important and your working on minimizing each passengers total delay and thus send people out in the order they were booked.  confused 

[Edited 2012-07-16 20:13:12]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2012-07-16 20:15:38 and read 8782 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 92):
Its not an absolute, but it is / can be done, it depends on the route, a/c availabe and pax loads.

"Can" be done - sure. The question is "can" it be done effectively in every situation? I've dealt with sold-out situations before when our equipment carrying 350 reserved people - one trip a day - went "tech" right before departure. There was no other equipment. If we were to begin bumping every day to the next day's trip, it would have been a horrendous nightmare. It was absolutely better to take the wrath of that one day's trip and end it there. We simply didn't have people standing around waiting to handle such a crisis and there was not a built in electronic option able to simply snap its fingers and magically make it better.

Sometimes life hands you lemons. Hopefully you can make lemonade but sometimes - they just lemons.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Crazy talk is suggesting that it is fair to let Monday's passengers spend day after day watching flights to their destination take off with the airline they used and not be allowed to board. Suggesting they should have lesser rights than every booked passenger is really crazy.

Provide justification acceptable to a Monday passenger why they should be put on an indefinite delay and I'll change my mind in a heartbeat. It isn't that the Tuesday passengers where not at fault because neither were Monday passengers.

They bought a ticket for that trip. I didn't. Why should I be bumped? You might look at it the other way but not everyone does.

In the end, do you want 250 people stuck in hotels for three days or do you want 750 - or 1750 - stuck in hotels for one day? Sorry, but while it sucks to be part of the 250, it probably is best to isolate the situation in this case.

That is, of course, if there is no other equipment/crew option readily available.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
Likely. Especially if you look at it with the current airline mentality. Today's rules are very lopsided with advantage to the airline. Individual passengers do not have the power to change it. But multiple occasions together with media will force legislation.

In an industry that is riddled with losses and struggles just to stay afloat in many cases, saying that it's all in the airline's favor is ludicrous. People - many, many people - are getting their dirt-cheap fares. That comes with the risks resutling from the lower revenue that the carriers receive. IMHO.

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):

Let's be clear. If you have a single passenger becoming "mob like" you have failed miserably. If that is how you treat passengers you will alienate them soon enough anyway so get the 750 leaving now and save some time.

I think every company should strive to keep their customers happy. Most certainly try. Sometimes, it all hits the fan, and usually in those cases there's one nut job or "living on the edge" person who is more than willing to start the turmoil.

-Dave

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: EK413
Posted 2012-07-16 20:19:16 and read 8760 times.

Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
put everyone up in a hotel/took care of other expenses
refunded everyones flight
gave out $1000 vouchers
rebooked passengers where possible

What more could they have done?

Sounds to me the airline has done everything they could possibly do to accommodate the effected passengers... Your always going to have Jo blow complaining that the airline didn't treat the situation very well...

EK413

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: mercure1
Posted 2012-07-16 20:43:41 and read 8735 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 80):
I have NO doubt Nothing From the CAL side would have survived the CUT
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...0729887/united-airlines-cio-leaves
"United declined to elaborate on the shift."   

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: etoile
Posted 2012-07-16 21:52:33 and read 8614 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 99):
Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 91):
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at?

If they have an airplane go out of service for m/x, rather than cancelling the outbound flight or delaying the flight until the plane is repaired, they'll frequently take an incoming flight, turn it to the outbound flight on the broken airplane and delay the scheduled outbound flight on that airplane. They repeat this process until things are back to normal - the result is that many passengers take small delays but no one takes a really horrendous delay.

The PVG incident was not like a SW flight at MDW. PVG to EWR is one daily flight. The process you describe, assuming 90% load, roughly means 90% of the passengers aggregated over a 9-day period are delayed for one day each, instead of 100% of the passengers on one day's flight being delayed until their aircraft and crew can go or are replaced. You're inconveniencing (and putting in hotels) approx 700% more passengers for at least a whole day.

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):
This is why for long haul flights into foreign countries it is good logistics for carriers to have 3 a/c designated for the flight, one operating the flight and the other two operating flights within set time frames to make them available for emergencies, to ensure that the delay does not go over into the next rotation and affect the max number of pax.

You will run in to problems at some point and thus you need slack in the system to handle it. If you can schedule it like that great but there are many more options.

You will have a minimum fare of $5000 for r/t EWR-PVG, many fewer people will have the opportunity to fly, much less satisfaction among people overall and much less economic activity overall. Flight crew will appreciate your full employment initiative.

I was recently on UA 863, JFK-SFO, scheduled departure 5:30 p.m. This flight was delayed due to SFO control. When flight was leaving gate, it was announced that because of logistical f/u, no catering on board (I am in business). Flight suffered an MX in the JFK runway queue. Returned to gate about 11:00 p.m. MX fixed, crew timed out. Flight cancelled. (Note that the cancellation occurred _after_ the flight's scheduled arrival time.) Full flight deboarded civilly (note that pretty much everyone didn't have dinner, particularly those of us who had expected to get fed en route), got their hotel vouchers and rebookings. No histrionics. On the way to the hotels, passengers were a little confused getting from Airtrain to the airport hotels. The passengers helped each other out. The flight was visited with bad luck and civility. The passengers went on with their lives.

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 95):
No, but nor would I visit my bad luck onto someone else. That would be sheer selfishness and stupidity.

Visit my bad luck? Do you mean wish?

No, he means "visit." Check the internets.

[Edited 2012-07-16 21:55:08]

[Edited 2012-07-16 21:56:14]

[Edited 2012-07-16 21:57:53]

[Edited 2012-07-16 22:03:08]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-16 23:48:41 and read 8453 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
If you do it like that of course you will have problems. But if you explain that you're backed up because Monday's flight got cancelled and you are getting passengers out in the order they were booked you will get a very different result.

No you won't. No matter how you phrase the explanation the response is going to be, "...and that's my problem, why?"

Quoting cmf (Reply 102):
I also find it very strange you state it is fine to tell Monday's passengers that they are worth less than Tuesday's passengers but you can't tell Tuesday's passengers that all passengers are important and your working on minimizing each passengers total delay and thus send people out in the order they were booked. confused

You're choosing to be obtuse in the face of logic. Monday's passengers are equal to Tuesday's passengers when you treat them equally. Both sets of passengers had the same chance to travel on their chosen day. Unfortunately for Monday's passengers an engine fell off.

Your plan puts the needs of Monday's passengers over the needs of Tuesday's passengers hence inequality.

As for sending people in the order they were booked...well, why even have dates/times on tickets then? An airline has a responsibility to do all that is reasonable to get a passenger from point-A to point-B on the date/times posted. Your plan for "customer recovery" just tosses that right out the window. It's sad that the airline couldn't meet this responsibility for Monday's passenger but it would be unreasonable to delay Tuesday's passengers.

At the end of the day your plan actually reduces any semblance of customer service rather than enhances it.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: toobz
Posted 2012-07-17 05:03:12 and read 8242 times.

Well in all honesty, I do not know what the loads on UA are, however I can say I have been traveling intra-Asia flights on DL for the past week- and they have ALL been packed! If UA flights are as full as DL flights have been, I can see why this was so disastrous for these pax. Whether or not UA could have done anything else...that I don't know. However I think what they offered the folks was pretty legit.. this coming from someone who is not a fan of "the worlds largest airline".

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-07-17 05:43:25 and read 8161 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
"Can" be done - sure. The question is "can" it be done effectively in every situation?

No, each situation is different along with its environment, hence there are always multiple contingencies. The contingencies that UA has to put in place for operation of flights to China from mainland USA are much different from those to operate flights within the USA, indeed most countries have different laws / rules to deal with international versus domestic delays, left up to the airlines, they would be uniform across the board, could be good could be bad.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
If we were to begin bumping every day to the next day's trip, it would have been a horrendous nightmare. It was absolutely better to take the wrath of that one day's trip and end it there.

At times an out-right cancellation is the best thing with accomodation on other carrier flights. This is nothing new to airline industry, schedule disruptions occur on a daily basis, the problem today is that airlines are seeking to operate as tight a ship as possible with little or no slack and or room for disruption, the financial reasons are out-side this thread but the effects are seen on a daily basis. I now work in the insurance / financial industry, folks either buy insurance because its the law or because they see the need for the financial protection, in any event, it is an expense that is carried and in many cases never used - say car insurance -, some folk never have accidents, so to them its a waste of money.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
No you won't. No matter how you phrase the explanation the response is going to be, "...and that's my problem, why?"

We agree its not your problem, its the airlines problem, the debate is how the airline deals with its problem.
Every delay in an airlines schedule is not an act of god as in weather.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
You're choosing to be obtuse in the face of logic. Monday's passengers are equal to Tuesday's passengers when you treat them equally. Both sets of passengers had the same chance to travel on their chosen day. Unfortunately for Monday's passengers an engine fell off.

To phrase it another way, it is unfortunate for the airline that the engine fell off. Now UA could keep those Monday pax with the Monday a/c and crew, and they stay together for however long it takes UA to get the a/c repaired, that is most fair to everyone concerned, except those other Tuesday pax who were waiting for that a/c to return from China to operate their flight.
In principle, unless an airlines keeps spare a/c and crew, the pain is always spread across other pax who were not involved in the initial disruption. In this case the situation got out of hand, will we ever know the full story, I doubt it, but it is not the last and I expect more to happen, and as it grows the legislators will get involved.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-17 13:04:53 and read 7827 times.

Quoting etoile (Reply 106):
No, he means "visit." Check the internets.

I check the intranets before asking the question and after reading your reply so can you please be a dear and provide the info.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
"Can" be done - sure. The question is "can" it be done effectively in every situation? I've dealt with sold-out situations before when our equipment carrying 350 reserved people - one trip a day - went "tech" right before departure. There was no other equipment. If we were to begin bumping every day to the next day's trip, it would have been a horrendous nightmare.

I agree effective is a very important parameter in the solution. If it wasn't they should always be required to seats on competitors equipment and if that wasn't enough charter fastest available equipment. Thus it becomes an issue of how handling how people are affected.

What kind of trips are you talking about? Sound like day trips where you bring people back to the same location as they started from. Very different from when you have people stuck in a place far from home or unable to get to the place they need to be. Very different.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
They bought a ticket for that trip. I didn't. Why should I be bumped? You might look at it the other way but not everyone does.

Why should the passengers who had been told they should reach their destination be bumped one more day. Not knowing if they will be bumped tomorrow and the day after that again?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
In the end, do you want 250 people stuck in hotels for three days or do you want 750 - or 1750 - stuck in hotels for one day? Sorry, but while it sucks to be part of the 250, it probably is best to isolate the situation in this case.

I don't want anyone stuck a single day but reality is that things do go wrong and then you need to do the best of it.

1750 means 7 days. Do you really think it is fair for those 250 people to have a week of their life taken away from them? Loosing a full week of work?

Please provide balanced arguments why it is better to suspend 275 peoples lives three days instead of 825 peoples lives one day each.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
That is, of course, if there is no other equipment/crew option readily available.

Of course. But the situation we are arguing is that those options aren't available.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 103):
In an industry that is riddled with losses and struggles just to stay afloat in many cases, saying that it's all in the airline's favor is ludicrous. People - many, many people - are getting their dirt-cheap fares. That comes with the risks resutling from the lower revenue that the carriers receive. IMHO.

What do the passengers get in the contract of carriage that is causing the airlines to make losses?

Quoting etoile (Reply 106):
The PVG incident was not like a SW flight at MDW. PVG to EWR is one daily flight. The process you describe, assuming 90% load, roughly means 90% of the passengers aggregated over a 9-day period are delayed for one day each, instead of 100% of the passengers on one day's flight being delayed until their aircraft and crew can go or are replaced. You're inconveniencing (and putting in hotels) approx 700% more passengers for at least a whole day.

I have no idea how you get to 7 times more passengers. Using your, 10 days solution it will affect many more. With the solution they picked it is a lot less.

Anyway your biggest error is that you ignore length of delay. You say that being delayed 1 day is equal to being delayed 3 days and even equal to being delayed 10 days.

Quoting etoile (Reply 106):
You will have a minimum fare of $5000 for r/t EWR-PVG, many fewer people will have the opportunity to fly, much less satisfaction among people overall and much less economic activity overall. Flight crew will appreciate your full employment initiative.

I like to know how you reached that 5,000 number. Looks like from thin air to me.

While I agree a dramatic increase in price will reduce demand I do not agree making 3 people being delayed one day each instead of one person being delayed 3 days will have that effect.

Very much looking forward to see the explanation for your numbers.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
No you won't. No matter how you phrase the explanation the response is going to be, "...and that's my problem, why?"

It isn't their problem. Nor is it the Monday passengers problem. It is the airlines problem. The airline has the responsibility to solve it in the best way to ALL passengers. Just as Monday's passengers where involuntary affected so will other passengers until everyone has been sent to where they should be.

Put simply Tuesday's passengers have equal rights with Monday's. Not more, not less, equal.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
You're choosing to be obtuse in the face of logic.

I'm not the one walking over dead bodies.

Your arguments have always been about Tuesday's and future day's passengers rights. I ask you the same as I asked PlanesNTrains.

Please provide balanced arguments why it is better to suspend 275 peoples lives three days instead of 825 peoples lives one day each. That means you can't just say it affects less people. You also need to address the much longer time those passengers are made to wait.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
Monday's passengers are equal to Tuesday's passengers when you treat them equally. Both sets of passengers had the same chance to travel on their chosen day. Unfortunately for Monday's passengers an engine fell off.

I am treating them equal. I am sorry they are affected for no cause by themselves and delay them equal amount of time.

You're the one treating them differently. Letting some people be unaffected and others be heavily affected. If obtuse is ever appropriate to be used at a form like this it for what you're doing here.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
Your plan puts the needs of Monday's passengers over the needs of Tuesday's passengers hence inequality.

As explained above. No. I put them equal.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
As for sending people in the order they were booked...well, why even have dates/times on tickets then? An airline has a responsibility to do all that is reasonable to get a passenger from point-A to point-B on the date/times posted

I agree an airline should do everything reasonable to bring passengers from point a to be at the times posted. When they fail they should get them there as close as possible to those times. That is why I say they should send them out in the order of the dates on the ticket.

That way all get close to the printed times. Not some very close and others not close at all.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 107):
At the end of the day your plan actually reduces any semblance of customer service rather than enhances it.

I have never considered playing Russian roulette with passengers to be good customer service. Monday passengers: Sorry there was a bullet in the chamber. Future passengers. I have reloaded. Let's play.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: n92r03
Posted 2012-07-17 13:25:37 and read 7828 times.

Quoting DL WIDGET HEAD (Reply 25):
This sounds absurd. Why would the passengers who have been stranded there for 2 days and who obviously want to be on their way "refuse to go to the correct gate"? It does not ring true that the 2nd cancellation was brought about by UA's passengers.
Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Because of poor communication. If you have been lied to over and over there is a time when you stop trusting what they say. If you see a plane in front of you and they ask you to go somewhere else....

Have either of you ever boarded a plane in China? It is a different experience than in the US. You don't even need to go to China to see it. Stop by any gate at SFO, LAX, ORD, DET, EWR that has metal headed to China or HKG and just watch.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-07-17 13:51:43 and read 7760 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 101):
And in the case of the UA PVG you'd always be incurring at least a 24hour delay. Bad customer service all around. What you're suggesting only works when you have ample time to notify people. To tell people today that they're not travelling tomorrow? Nightmare.

. . . which is why I started with the observation that it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-17 14:38:54 and read 7700 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):

It isn't their problem. Nor is it the Monday passengers problem. It is the airlines problem. The airline has the responsibility to solve it in the best way to ALL passengers. Just as Monday's passengers where involuntary affected so will other passengers until everyone has been sent to where they should be.

Put simply Tuesday's passengers have equal rights with Monday's. Not more, not less, equal.

I know you are going to disagree with this, but airlines operate a class structure and it is not about being fair or equal rights. It's about what makes sense for the airline. Not all passengers are equal and airlines don’t treat them equally. First class gets the best options for rerouting, followed by business, followed by coach with exceptions made for elite frequent flyers and passengers on full fare tickets. You get what you pay for.

You are single handedly arguing for a change to the way airlines do business. I’ve seen a few comments about the possibility of regulations being dropped on airlines. I don’t see it happening. This is the way it has been since deregulation and in reality far before that. If a flight cancels for any reason, those passengers are rerouted and accommodated as well as possible, but other passengers are not impacted by it. This limits disruption, otherwise you’d have cascading delays throughout the entire network and it would be unsustainable. On domestic routes, usually people can be reacomodated within about 4-6 hours. It takes longer on international flights. That’s the way it is. If you disagree with it, you are welcome to take your business elsewhere or lobby your congressman. You are also welcome to purchase a first class ticket which entitles you to priority reaccomodations. That’s your prerogative, but the airlines pay lobbyists more to keep things the way they are.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-17 16:42:43 and read 7594 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
I know you are going to disagree with this, but airlines operate a class structure and it is not about being fair or equal rights. It's about what makes sense for the airline. Not all passengers are equal and airlines don’t treat them equally. First class gets the best options for rerouting, followed by business, followed by coach with exceptions made for elite frequent flyers and passengers on full fare tickets. You get what you pay for.

I didn't think it would take this long for this argument to come up. So now you're saying that it is OK to bump Tuesday's passengers for Monday's passengers, as long as they are priority passengers. Why won't Tuesday's passengers object the same way for them as you said they would when we talked about Monday passengers in general?

Why will the Tuesday first class passenger be happy to give his seat to a Monday first class passenger but an economy passenger will not?

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
You are single handedly arguing for a change to the way airlines do business. I’ve seen a few comments about the possibility of regulations being dropped on airlines. I don’t see it happening.

Anyone not seeing the ever increasing objections to how airlines are strong arming passengers must live in a bubble. A few cases like this in a short period and there is new legislation to comply with. Most likely it will be poor as it is rushed in.

If the aviation industry want to avoid legislation they need to be smart now. There's only so much time many incidents before it happens.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
This is the way it has been since deregulation and in reality far before that. If a flight cancels for any reason, those passengers are rerouted and accommodated as well as possible, but other passengers are not impacted by it.

Funny argument. How many other things are the same since deregulation?

But you're wrong. This is not handled in the same way as during regulation. Terms for passengers are significantly worse today. Also, it isn't just a US problem. Look at what happened in Europe because airlines strong armed passengers. US got a taste of it with the winter storms. It will happen fast when it happens.

Also, it is very common that airlines make other passenger affected than those who were scheduled on the plane with problems.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
This limits disruption, otherwise you’d have cascading delays throughout the entire network and it would be unsustainable.

You're painting the devil on the wall. Even with the 80 - 90% load factors the ripple effects are small. On the hub side they deal with much more daily. The big difference from the deregulation days is that now there is software that can find the options without human intervention. Plenty of airlines will give you the updated itinerary while you're still on the delayed plane. Happens even on short flights. Don't know if any of the large US airlines do it. I'm not using them.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
You are also welcome to purchase a first class ticket which entitles you to priority reaccomodations

Why should I pay for what they give me anyway? You see this isn't about me. Some of us can identify what is right and wrong without tainting it with personal benefits.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
but the airlines pay lobbyists more to keep things the way they are.

Always falling back on strong arm tactics. Why not spend the money on doing it right instead.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: BCEaglesCO757
Posted 2012-07-17 18:13:44 and read 7510 times.

It's nice to think about.......but I'm realistic enough to know Gordon Bethune isn't walking through that door.

They need to blow his name up in bigger letters on aircraft 3006

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: BCEaglesCO757
Posted 2012-07-17 18:18:57 and read 7494 times.

Quoting toobz (Reply 108):
Well in all honesty, I do not know what the loads on UA are

They are very much full.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2012-07-17 18:48:14 and read 7449 times.

That was a pretty nice welcome of those passengers to the new United!

"At one point there was a physical altercation between a passenger and an airport official. Nobody in that airport seemed to know anything. The flight crew was as clueless as we were. Nobody was in charge."

"It was hard to believe what anyone was telling us,"

"Police got involved; they knocked one man to the ground. Then the captain climbed on a chair and tried to explain things to people. They wouldn’t listen. Nobody trusted him."

"We kept getting closer and closer to leaving, and then not leaving."

"Nobody knew what was happening and nobody would communicate with you."

Cant we all agree that uniteds real problem here was not communicating enough with the passengers. They felt lost and no communication they say that in quotes in the article. They gave them decent compensation certainly not great but ok. Everyone on here is either united was perfect and did everything best they could or united did nothing at all. Communication was the problem here. I am sure some people had real suffering because of this someone may have lost their job or some thing very serious because of this but if united has been more upfront and communicated more and honestly i think it could have been much better.

If united had been honest on the first day and said we have three nights of hotel accomodations, food vouchers, $1000 future united dollars compensation, a flight and seat guranteed for you in three days i bet you half the passengers would have be somewhat fine and the other half could have at least realized their fate sooner and prepared for the worst and realized they are severly delayed and reality to make alternate plans.

It was them not knowing when they would be getting back. Im sure there were some with bosses on the other ends screaming they must get back and thinking they would not three days later and potentially may have lost their jobs. I was on a business trip years ago and had bad weather coming home and my boss was furious at me for coming back a day later when the entire northeast was in a blizzard state and threatened to fire me if i wasnt there.....later i quite that job and horrible conditions but in this economy there many that might have to keep the horrible boss or company and a three day delay that you dont expect and keep getting pushed back could be disasterous. Im sure you would keep telling that boss youll be back and kept getting delayed those would be the people blocking the traffic of the other flight and desperate to make it back

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2012-07-18 01:42:38 and read 7163 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
I agree effective is a very important parameter in the solution. If it wasn't they should always be required to seats on competitors equipment and if that wasn't enough charter fastest available equipment. Thus it becomes an issue of how handling how people are affected.

What kind of trips are you talking about? Sound like day trips where you bring people back to the same location as they started from. Very different from when you have people stuck in a place far from home or unable to get to the place they need to be. Very different.

It was different in my scenario. It's hard for most of us to give an identical situation. I've got another (railroad) analogy that I think illustrates my point well, but frankly I don't think it's worth typing at this point.

Quoting cmf (Reply 110):
1750 means 7 days. Do you really think it is fair for those 250 people to have a week of their life taken away from them? Loosing a full week of work?

Please provide balanced arguments why it is better to suspend 275 peoples lives three days instead of 825 peoples lives one day each.

Please don't be condescending to me when I'm respectfully sharing my point of view.

I NEVER said that the 250 people would or should be there a week. United had already flown a replacement aircraft in from what I read. The problem was the crew timed out. Blame who you want for that, but I never said that they should be delayed a week.

What I was saying was that if you keep bumping the next days passengers to make room for those of the ill-fated flight, you might be cascading out a week or more trying to deal with the problem. Now you have multiplied the number of people affected, lives disrupted, customers unhappy, etc.

And you're the one telling me to provide a balanced argument???

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 117):
Cant we all agree that uniteds real problem here was not communicating enough with the passengers. They felt lost and no communication they say that in quotes in the article. They gave them decent compensation certainly not great but ok. Everyone on here is either united was perfect and did everything best they could or united did nothing at all.

I'm sure communication - as is almost always the case - contributed to the situation, exacerbating the problems already present. In fact, I would say that there are plenty of people here who neither think UA is the devil nor that they did everything perfect. It's an unfortunate event that probably could have been handled better at some levels but at the same time was dealt with in a manner that took care of those affected.

-Dave

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-18 15:09:20 and read 6840 times.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 118):
I NEVER said that the 250 people would or should be there a week. United had already flown a replacement aircraft in from what I read. The problem was the crew timed out. Blame who you want for that, but I never said that they should be delayed a week.

You said 1,750 people. With 275 per day that is a week.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 118):
Please don't be condescending to me when I'm respectfully sharing my point of view.

I'm sorry you took it as condescending. There was no such intention. I think what you took as condescending is my frustration with that no-one objecting to the FIFO method is providing a single argument about the Monday passengers situation. The request for balance was only because I wanted that side included.

I also got irritated at you using 1,750 people. As you said in your latest post it was 3 days, the 750 number. Adding another 1,000 to that does not seem appropriate.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 118):
What I was saying was that if you keep bumping the next days passengers to make room for those of the ill-fated flight, you might be cascading out a week or more trying to deal with the problem. Now you have multiplied the number of people affected, lives disrupted, customers unhappy, etc.

If FIFO will cascade out a week then so will the current method. Since we now seem to agree we got the passengers out of PVG on the third day that is also the day when the last passengers would get out with FIFO.

Whatever ripple effects you see from delayed passengers arriving on the two before the would happen to the system when the relief flight arrived anyway. When you consider the many other flights generating re-bookings you'll find the ripple effects to the total system between the two versions is minor.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 118):
And you're the one telling me to provide a balanced argument???

I hope that now you understand why I'm asking for a balanced argument.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 118):
I'm sure communication - as is almost always the case - contributed to the situation, exacerbating the problems already present. In fact, I would say that there are plenty of people here who neither think UA is the devil nor that they did everything perfect. It's an unfortunate event that probably could have been handled better at some levels but at the same time was dealt with in a manner that took care of those affected.

Problems happen. What matter is how they are handled and if we are ready to learn from them. There really isn't very much left for us to learn about how to avoid mechanical problems. We are at the point where reducing their occurrence cost much more than is saved.

Where we have much to learn is how we handle them. We are very poor at keeping people affected informed about what is happening. When they have no idea things quickly go wrong. There is the mistaken idea that it is better to say nothing until you can tell when it is done or you know when it is done.

It is tough to say that you don't know what it is. It is tough to admit that you can't give a time when it will be solved. Usually you can figure out a few deadlines very quickly. For example you know when you need to have the plane ready to go so that no-one times out. From that you know when the latest time to re-board is. Give the re-boarding time and tell mechanics are trying to figure out if it can be solved before that time. Then provide updates every 20 minutes.

Provide water. There is never an excuse to keep people without water. Unless there is a chance the problem is solved quickly de-board and provide a time when you will start re-boarding or provide the next update if the problem isn't solved. Don't force people to sit and wait in a small gate area just to be available for quick boarding. Provide food vouchers depending on the time of day.

Tell people you're working on alternative routing / hotels for the case it isn't solved in time to leave that day. Give people someone to talk with for their special situation. Because you have given a new boarding time passengers are not paniced about it.

Be smart. That includes using FIFO if it will take multiple days to get people out.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-18 16:12:09 and read 6766 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 119):
Where we have much to learn is how we handle them. We are very poor at keeping people affected informed about what is happening. When they have no idea things quickly go wrong. There is the mistaken idea that it is better to say nothing until you can tell when it is done or you know when it is done.

I couldn’t agree more. Communicating the situation is always better.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
I didn't think it would take this long for this argument to come up. So now you're saying that it is OK to bump Tuesday's passengers for Monday's passengers, as long as they are priority passengers. Why won't Tuesday's passengers object the same way for them as you said they would when we talked about Monday passengers in general?

Why will the Tuesday first class passenger be happy to give his seat to a Monday first class passenger but an economy passenger will not?

No passengers ever give up their seat to someone else involuntarily except for in an oversold condition. That’s how the contract of carriage is set up. I’m just saying that the first class passengers are the ones that most likely will be found a flight with the slowest delay. With 90% load factors, you can still get 10% out, and these are the priority passengers.

Quoting cmf (Reply 114):
Anyone not seeing the ever increasing objections to how airlines are strong arming passengers must live in a bubble. A few cases like this in a short period and there is new legislation to comply with. Most likely it will be poor as it is rushed in.

If the aviation industry want to avoid legislation they need to be smart now. There's only so much time many incidents before it happens.

I really don’t see legislation coming to instigate FIFO to handle IRROPS. If you have a hub close for a day due to a snowstorm, with FIFO, you are looking at rebooking 3 days of passengers. All of those passengers missed their original flights. Connections are going to create problems throughout the network and it is going to take longer to get the operation moving smoothly again, which should be the objective of the regulators in my opinion.

Here’s an example. CLE closes down for 24 hours due to a snowstorm and all of Monday’s flights are canceled. CLE is a major operation for United. On Tuesday, you have 20 passengers flying CLE-EWR-AMS. If you go on FIFO, the Tuesday passengers are likely going to miss their CLE-EWR flight because there are still people from Monday. Then you have empty seats that are wasted on EWR-AMS. You now have to rebook Tuesday’s passengers and they have to wait for an EWR-AMS flight or reroute them through a different hub which likely has people backed up. You can’t get back the seats on the EWR-AMS flight, so now you have to find another EWR-AMS flight that has seats available or bump people in EWR because of a snowstorm that happened the prior day in CLE.

I don’t deny that your process is fair to the Monday people. I just see it as having cascading impacts on the network. The strategy of inconveniencing and rebooking the fewest number of passengers necessary is how the industry handles IRROPS and it is done that way for a reason. It sucks for those involved in the original delay/cancellation, but in the grand scheme of moving people through the system, it is the best way to get people to their destination. Airlines don’t want to have one day of IRROPS at a hub or a cancellation on an international flight to have to result in cascading rebookings for days because every time you have to rebook passengers, you can cause seats downstream in the network to be wasted.

Some countries do require FIFO for rebooking passengers in IRROPS. For example if EWR-XXX cancels on Monday and Tuesday due to a massive snowstorm, passengers are rebooked in the order of their flights. A first class passenger or a premium passenger from Tuesday’s flight cannot get priority for a seat on Wednesday’s flight over someone who was originally on Monday’s flight. In the US this is not a requirement. During IRROPS in the US, low priority passengers on reward tickets or discount economy tickets keep getting rolled over to the bottom of standby lists by priority passengers. I agree that is not necessarily fair and I could see legislation on that issue. However if the flight you booked a ticket on operates, you have the right to that seat under current contract of carriage requirements except in an overbooking situation.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-07-18 16:15:40 and read 6769 times.

Quoting GALLEYSTEW (Reply 4):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
UA is more likely to have a 777 in SFO, but a PMCO crew can't operate that plane and it is not configured correctly

UA covers sCO flights in IRROPS from SFO all the time.

NS

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-18 16:35:18 and read 6733 times.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 121):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 44):
UA is more likely to have a 777 in SFO, but a PMCO crew can't operate that plane and it is not configured correctly

UA covers sCO flights in IRROPS from SFO all the time.

Very true. With the operations center combined, UA can cover CO airplanes and CO can cover UA flights. They do this for domestic flights when swapping planes. When crew duty times are not a problem, it is much easier.

The problem with international flights is that a replacement airplane can fly SFO-PVG, but that flight requires 4 pilots and the pilots will need to rest in PVG before operating the flight to EWR. The crew that was already in PVG to operate to EWR is stuck with the broken plane or until a PMCO 777 can get to PVG, which is more of a challenge since there are fewer of them. That means for the passengers in PVG, it will require about 36 hours before a spare plane and crew could arrive from SFO to operate the flight.

If maintenance thinks the plane in PVG can be fixed by flying in a spare part from SFO, the delay is likely to be closer to 24 hours, and thus if maintenance fixes the plane, UA just wasted all that fuel, crew time, and spare airplane for no reason other than "just in case" maintenance is wrong, which is not a very economical thing to do every time there is a mechanical problem somewhere in the world. I don't know of any airline that routinely will send rescue planes and crews on international flights when maintenance thinks all they need is a spare part.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: PlanesNTrains
Posted 2012-07-18 21:35:34 and read 6534 times.

Well, I don't know what else I can share from my point of view that will be different than what I've already said. I think that Roseflyer has pretty much covered most anything that I would say, but in a much more detailed, knowledgeable manner.

Thanks Roseflyer.

-Dave

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2012-07-18 22:00:46 and read 6504 times.

At this point it appears that even United realizes that it should have done better. Some of us agree.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: klwright69
Posted 2012-07-19 01:12:46 and read 6374 times.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 96):
Dunno why this needed it's own article or thread. The new UA does this often. EZE & IST go late and mx all the time. UA 905 cxl yesterday and passengers are stuck.

Exactly, especially check out the EWR-EZE flight. Cancellations and 3 to 8, even 11 hour delays are commonplace. It is horrifying.

Quoting toobz (Reply 108):
Well in all honesty, I do not know what the loads on UA are, however I can say I have been traveling intra-Asia flights on DL for the past week- and they have ALL been packed! If UA flights are as full as DL flights have been, I can see why this was so disastrous for these pax. Whether or not UA could have done anything else...that I don't know. However I think what they offered the folks was pretty legit.. this coming from someone who is not a fan of "the worlds largest airline".

Yes, UA seems to be doing the best it can under the circumstances.

Also, why is UA flight 117, ewr-hkg, on Wednesday delayed by 16 hours?

[Edited 2012-07-19 01:15:34]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-19 10:45:42 and read 6158 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
No passengers ever give up their seat to someone else involuntarily except for in an oversold condition. That’s how the contract of carriage is set up

Not true. It happens daily. Typical example is last minute switch because a plane with high load goes tech and that flight is then handled by a plane that was scheduled for a flight with lower load.

I fully support these kind of changes. It is reducing impact.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
I’m just saying that the first class passengers are the ones that most likely will be found a flight with the slowest delay. With 90% load factors, you can still get 10% out, and these are the priority passengers.

Priority passengers get the better options. If half the passengers will be delayed 2 hours and the other half 4 it is clear that the priority passengers will be in the first half. Nothing changes in this aspect.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
If you have a hub close for a day due to a snowstorm, with FIFO, you are looking at rebooking 3 days of passengers. All of those passengers missed their original flights.

I have no idea how you conclude it will take 3 days. Depending on the specifics it may be faster or it may take longer.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
Connections are going to create problems throughout the network and it is going to take longer to get the operation moving smoothly again, which should be the objective of the regulators in my opinion.

The task of legislators is to balance the needs and effects on everyone. Not just one side.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
Here’s an example. CLE closes down for 24 hours due to a snowstorm and all of Monday’s flights are canceled. CLE is a major operation for United. On Tuesday, you have 20 passengers flying CLE-EWR-AMS. If you go on FIFO, the Tuesday passengers are likely going to miss their CLE-EWR flight because there are still people from Monday. Then you have empty seats that are wasted on EWR-AMS. You now have to rebook Tuesday’s passengers and they have to wait for an EWR-AMS flight or reroute them through a different hub which likely has people backed up. You can’t get back the seats on the EWR-AMS flight, so now you have to find another EWR-AMS flight that has seats available or bump people in EWR because of a snowstorm that happened the prior day in CLE.

This is the forest and tree problem. Let's expand on your scenario.

EWR - AMS is a flight being feed from many different airports. If you have 20 CLE passengers on the Tuesday flight then you're likely to also have passengers on it both Monday and Wednesday. It may be more, it may be fewer but the difference is almost certainly much less than 20.

I don't know how many passengers you want to say there was on Mondays flight but let's say 25. First of all those 25 seats are gone. never coming back. So no matter what we will need to find 25 new seats for those passengers. It is likely that if there are 20 Tuesday passengers booked on it then we can get the last 5 from the 10% that remains with the 90% load factor. In this way there is little difference if we re-feed the Monday passengers to the system on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Let's say Tuesday had unusually high booking and we only had 10 passengers Monday. Of course we will have no problem finding seats from them. Now the question is if we are about to loose another 10 seats (10 from Monday and 10 Tuesday.)

However, we are now at a hub.. It means we have many other flights. Say that Monday we have 20 passengers flying to Berlin. Tuesday only 10. Here we have the reverse of the original AMS problem.

If we can find them a flight from AMS to BER we have filled up all our flights so no loss of capacity. Or, if we are not prepared to take that cost we need to go back to the passengers in CLE and tell them that they will either spend another day in CLE or another day in NYC. Because they will arrive at the same time anyway they will need to stay one more day in CLE so that other passengers who would not be affected by a second delay can arrive closer to their schedule.

FIFO will not have significant different end result. But you need to look at the whole system to see it. How long it takes to recover depends on how much slack you have in the system. The more slack the easier recovery, in both models. It is yet another situation where common sense is wrong. Common sense takes a too narrow view.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
is how the industry handles IRROPS and it is done that way for a reason.

The reason is that when the processes were setup re-booking was a manual process. You had agents search the system for available openings. A very inefficient process where adding just a few more re-routings added a lot more problems because lacked a holistic view of availability and needs.

Computers have changed that. There are programs that provide the holistic view. I have been involved in many supply chain implementations where we produce parts of the system in many different factories who by themselves are supplied by many other factories and where the end product needs to be at a certain place at a certain time. A passenger is no different from delivering an item at its destination.

Because of just in time the dynamics when a factory goes down (e.g. snow storm) or a delivery is delayed (e.g. flight not taking place) are not much different from the situations we talk about here.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
Some countries do require FIFO for rebooking passengers in IRROPS.

I was not aware this existed. I'm glad there are more forward thinking countries. I fully expect it will turnout to be countries lagging behind in every other sense.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
During IRROPS in the US, low priority passengers on reward tickets or discount economy tickets keep getting rolled over to the bottom of standby lists by priority passengers. I agree that is not necessarily fair and I could see legislation on that issue.

  Happy to see you're coming to my side.

I expect (want) contracts of carriage to say that FIFO only takes effect if it means the passenger will arrive more than x hours earlier than if under current system. I'd expect x to be in the 4 hour range for short flights and 12 hour range for longer flights. This way there is leeway for last minute changes, problems found while passengers are boarding or on the plane. two flights are very close to each other, etc.

I'd prefer that airlines ad the text by themselves, i.e. no legislation required. It would be a wonderful example of self-regulation working.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 120):
However if the flight you booked a ticket on operates, you have the right to that seat under current contract of carriage requirements except in an overbooking situation.

Not according to any contract of carriage I have read. From UA: "Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on ticket, timetable or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract."
http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf Rule 24 A 3

Airlines only promise to take you from point a to point b. They keep everything open as to how and when you will start and arrive. There accept a few responsibilities (hotel, food ) when it doesn't happen as ticketed but that's it.

Contracts of carriage are possibly the most lopsided terms between a company and end user there is. Manufacturers wish they could get away with what airlines do.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-19 12:26:28 and read 6058 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):

No passengers ever give up their seat to someone else involuntarily except for in an oversold condition. That’s how the contract of carriage is set up

Not true. It happens daily. Typical example is last minute switch because a plane with high load goes tech and that flight is then handled by a plane that was scheduled for a flight with lower load.

When an airplane goes tech and is swapped to a smaller plane, you have an oversold condition. It’s treated like an oversold flight and denied boarding compensation for volunteers and involuntary denied boarding compensation for non-volunteers is issued.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):

I have no idea how you conclude it will take 3 days. Depending on the specifics it may be faster or it may take longer.

I know because I used to work for an airline and took part in the daily operational calls. 3 days is about right when you have a hub closed down for 24 hours due to snow. The operation will start moving the next day, but it is about 3 days until a full schedule can be run with all airplanes back on their scheduled routes without crew duty time restrictions or maintenance restrictions.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):

The task of legislators is to balance the needs and effects on everyone. Not just one side.

And isn’t getting the operation fully functional and affecting the fewest number of passengers a goal that a legislator would support?

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
Not according to any contract of carriage I have read. From UA: "Schedules are Subject To Change Without Notice - Times shown on ticket, timetable or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract."
http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf Rule 24 A 3

Airlines only promise to take you from point a to point b. They keep everything open as to how and when you will start and arrive. There accept a few responsibilities (hotel, food ) when it doesn't happen as ticketed but that's it.

Where I worked, it was not allowed to deny boarding to any passenger to accommodate another passenger affected by irregular operations unless it was a crew member needing to get to an airport to operate another flight.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
The reason is that when the processes were setup re-booking was a manual process. You had agents search the system for available openings. A very inefficient process where adding just a few more re-routings added a lot more problems because lacked a holistic view of availability and needs.

Computers have changed that. There are programs that provide the holistic view. I have been involved in many supply chain implementations where we produce parts of the system in many different factories who by themselves are supplied by many other factories and where the end product needs to be at a certain place at a certain time. A passenger is no different from delivering an item at its destination.

Because of just in time the dynamics when a factory goes down (e.g. snow storm) or a delivery is delayed (e.g. flight not taking place) are not much different from the situations we talk about here.

Passengers are not boxes. You can’t just rebook them using an automated system and expect them to get where they are supposed to go. That works in baggage, but it doesn’t work with people who don’t have RFID tags stamped on their foreheads. Trust me, it is impossible to automate the entire rebooking system for international customers. Automation has helped significantly and has reduced the amount of time it takes to recover from IRROPS. Some airlines are getting better, but there are reasons why it doesn’t work. Here are some:

- People have connections that are invisible to the airline. Someone might have been flying PVG-EWR-MIA-CCS with the MIA-CCS leg on a different airline. If UA only knew they were going to MIA, then rebooking them to MIA is not what the passenger wants. A real agent talking to the passenger can figure out the best way to get them to CCS.
- Not all passengers have mobile phones and can be contacted. On domestic flights, it is a lot easier to text message and send out alerts. On international flights, people often do not have access to cellular communication or their contact information, so even if you rebook them, they don’t know. The people might be rebooked and not know.
- Some passengers may be flying with others that are on separate locators and want to travel together.
- Some passengers may have visa restrictions
- Some people change their travel plans and find alternate methods of transportation
- Some people want a refund and to cancel their trip
- Some people don’t mind a different option such as flying PVG-JFK whereas some will only fly PVG-EWR

Some rebooking can be done automatically, but it still is very difficult. Your previous example seemed to indicate that if IRROPS affect CLE-EWR then some passengers on Monday can be accommodated on Tuesday from people who missed their flight, etc is far too complicated to implement since passenger flows through a hub are not consistent every day. You are going to end up with empty seats, and any time you have an empty seat, you extended the amount of time it takes to recover from the irregular event.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
Happy to see you're coming to my side.

I am not debating with you to be argumentative. I am just trying to explain why things are done the way they are and why I disagree with your proposal. I am very knowledgeable on the subject since I have worked at an airline and been involved in operations including disaster recovery operations. I explained once to a person flying XXX-YYY that their flight was canceled because of a lightening storm 3 days prior in ZZZ took out 20% of the fleet and the network had not recovered yet.

You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, however I think some people respect it so that is why I give it.

[Edited 2012-07-19 12:29:57]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-07-19 15:40:04 and read 5956 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 87):

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):

Pretty much. I'm also saying they should contact passengers for the time it takes to get everyone out to see who are prepared to be delayed for compensation. If they can't find enough people then yes, exactly as you said.

That's crazy talk.

If I'm booked on Tues. flight, and there's nothing wrong with Tuesday's flight then why should I be disrupted? Crazy talk. It's just bad luck that Monday's flight went tech but it's not MY bad luck. Frankly I would think it's violates the airline's Contracts of Carriage.

As for the concept of looking for volunteers on the Tues. flight to accommodate Monday's passengers? Logistical nightmare. This would only work MAYBE if there were a later flight the same day. Once you're trying to get people who haven't arrived at the airport for a flight to give up for people you've sent away from the airport you're bound for a cock-up.

At the end of the day, it's a disruption and it's any company's job to keep a disruption to a minimum. Your suggestions, especially the bumping bit does nothing but extend the disruption both in time and numbers of people.

From an "on the ground" customer service point of view, I can't comment on how the passengers were dealt with however I do think the compensation offered by UA is more than adequate.

This sums up exactly how I feel too. Rolling passengers over and over does not work - and causes massive disruption to spread ad ripple through the system. Isolate the one flight, and keep it that way!

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: WROORD
Posted 2012-07-19 15:43:10 and read 5960 times.

Quoting tennis69 (Reply 58):
There are many worse places to be stuck for 3 days than Shang Hai. I wish I was on that flight!!

It is not like you are bar hopping on the Bund or shopping on Nanjing Road. You are stuck at the airport and waste half a day only to find out you have to go back to the hotel and try your luck the next day.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: spink
Posted 2012-07-19 21:48:07 and read 5806 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
Because of just in time the dynamics when a factory goes down (e.g. snow storm) or a delivery is delayed (e.g. flight not taking place) are not much different from the situations we talk about here.

Just in time factory delivery is significantly different than passenger rescheduling. JIT delivery is a many to one network with unidirectional flows and can easily route around failure.

In the case of a passenger system, you are dealing with a many to many network with bidirectional flows. On top of that, in a JIT network you have full knowledge where as in a passenger system, you have at best partial knowledge and in most cases close to zero knowledge.

The reality is that there really aren't any analogs out there for the reality of the airline system because the airline system is significantly more complex. There are whole sub-fields of scheduling and logistics that basically only cover the commercial airline industry. Realistically, the closest analog to a commercial airline network is a high end high performance computing interconnection network.

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
I was not aware this existed. I'm glad there are more forward thinking countries. I fully expect it will turnout to be countries lagging behind in every other sense.

This only applies within the subset of passengers that are delays and doesn't include any passengers who have not been delayed. All this means is that passengers who normally would have priority with the airline (first, biz, top end FF), do not have priority.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: toobz
Posted 2012-07-20 02:28:00 and read 5703 times.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 129):

Right on my friend. Been in Tokyo 2 days and haven't seen anything other than the airport and the hotel. No shopping or bar hopping here..well besides at the airport  

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-20 08:04:17 and read 5538 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
When an airplane goes tech and is swapped to a smaller plane, you have an oversold condition. It’s treated like an oversold flight and denied boarding compensation for volunteers and involuntary denied boarding compensation for non-volunteers is issued.

Not the situation I brought up.

I'm talking about same model plane being used for a different flight. Something that happens frequently.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
I know because I used to work for an airline and took part in the daily operational calls. 3 days is about right when you have a hub closed down for 24 hours due to snow. The operation will start moving the next day, but it is about 3 days until a full schedule can be run with all airplanes back on their scheduled routes without crew duty time restrictions or maintenance restrictions.

It's probably a good rule of thumb but actuals will vary depending on load factors and access to additional equipment. If you have a high percentage of business passengers you will have higher percentage of cancellations than if you have a lot of tourists on their way home.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
And isn’t getting the operation fully functional and affecting the fewest number of passengers a goal that a legislator would support?

I said balance. Thus they consider those things too.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
Where I worked, it was not allowed to deny boarding to any passenger to accommodate another passenger affected by irregular operations unless it was a crew member needing to get to an airport to operate another flight.

You did not give your highest priority priority customers guaranteed seats? You did never switch equipment (identical) between flights to reduce number of passengers delayed?

Don't know the airline you're referring to but both of the above is common on large airlines.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
Passengers are not boxes. You can’t just rebook them using an automated system and expect them to get where they are supposed to go. That works in baggage, but it doesn’t work with people who don’t have RFID tags stamped on their foreheads. Trust me, it is impossible to automate the entire rebooking system for international customers.

The term self loading cargo isn't without anchorage in reality. Of course I can re-book them automatically. As I said it happens on many airlines today. You're on a delayed flight and as you're about to land you see what flights you have been re-booked to.

That is just an example of a complete re-booking but even canceling a flight is an example. Difference is that typically we have only done half the process automatically. Then it is up to passengers to find and contact the airline to have a new itinerary created. The manual process mean it takes a lot of employee time. It also means passengers lose out on available seats as there may be changes between when the seat is lost and a new is found.

Communication is always an issue. A good example is last minute gate changes. They have problems because there is very little time. Some airlines/airports solve it by not confirming gate until equipment is there. The advantages is that you have all passengers at the airport and you know at what gates to search.

The situation I'm talking about is very different. There is a lot more time. You would not use it when there os only an hour or two, i.e. passengers are already on their way to the airport. You will have more time in the cases where this comes in to effect. Because of that and the prevalence of people carrying mobile phones (even when abroad) you have very high percentage of reach. If it is a next day situation, which it typically would be, you also have the emails people typically check morning and evening to increase it further.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
People have connections that are invisible to the airline. Someone might have been flying PVG-EWR-MIA-CCS with the MIA-CCS leg on a different airline. If UA only knew they were going to MIA, then rebooking them to MIA is not what the passenger wants. A real agent talking to the passenger can figure out the best way to get them to CCS.

The contract of carriage is very clear that the airline is transporting you between the locations on the ticket. I very much doubt you will find an airline giving you the EWR - MIA flight after a delay. If airline have a PVG - MIA flight with available seats you have a good chance but if they get you to EWR that is where they will drop you without concern for your next reservations. Probably the biggest reasons to have all legs on the same ticket.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
Not all passengers have mobile phones and can be contacted. On domestic flights, it is a lot easier to text message and send out alerts. On international flights, people often do not have access to cellular communication or their contact information, so even if you rebook them, they don’t know. The people might be rebooked and not know.

Mobile penetration for adult airline passengers is very high. You will be hard pressed to find someone without. Even for kids it is very common. I doubt there is any kid not flying as unaccompanied minor is without one and a parent checking their phone non-stop.

Reality is, you will have very few passengers showing up at the airport without knowing. The few who do are no worse than those who today show up to be told their flight has been cancelled.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
Some passengers may be flying with others that are on separate locators and want to travel together.
- Some passengers may have visa restrictions
- Some people change their travel plans and find alternate methods of transportation
- Some people want a refund and to cancel their trip
- Some people don’t mind a different option such as flying PVG-JFK whereas some will only fly PVG-EWR

Visa restrictions do not change because of this.

It is very easy to make a cancellation option available without requiring talking with an agent. It is faster for the passenger and better for the airline.

For the rest there is still the option to call. It is much better to handle 90% automatic and then deal with the last 10% manual than it is to handle 100% manual.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
etc is far too complicated to implement since passenger flows through a hub are not consistent every day. You are going to end up with empty seats, and any time you have an empty seat, you extended the amount of time it takes to recover from the irregular event.

It is too complicated for humans. Computers are very good at keeping track of all requirements and finding the best options. Using computers the difference will be very minor.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
I am not debating with you to be argumentative.

Neither am I.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
I am just trying to explain why things are done the way they are and why I disagree with your proposal. I am very knowledgeable on the subject since I have worked at an airline and been involved in operations including disaster recovery operations. I explained once to a person flying XXX-YYY that their flight was canceled because of a lightening storm 3 days prior in ZZZ took out 20% of the fleet and the network had not recovered yet.

I frequently see these kind of objections. Pretty much every time we change out a system we get exactly the same type of objections.

You should look at the SW almost every fortune 100 company and most fortune 500 companies use to schedule production and movement. They consider production results in various factories and possible deliveries from suppliers. They consider different transportation options and check availability.

I was involved in developing them 10 years ago and at that time we recalculated complete supply chains for large assemblers every 4 hours. Since then times have gone down.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, however I think some people respect it so that is why I give it.

I respect your opinion. I think you're wrong in this case. I think you're too stuck in the old processes to see the better options.

Quoting FI642 (Reply 128):
Rolling passengers over and over does not work - and causes massive disruption to spread ad ripple through the system. Isolate the one flight, and keep it that way!

We have technology to make it work. It isn't even a large investment. Even without using FIFO it should be done. Some airlines have much of it in place already. SK already re-book passengers automatically and have everything in place to communicate with them. I believe BA is in a very similar situation.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 129):
You are stuck at the airport and waste half a day only to find out you have to go back to the hotel and try your luck the next day.

The reality of multi-day delays.

Quoting spink (Reply 130):
Just in time factory delivery is significantly different than passenger rescheduling.

It is very similar. It is about moving things from a to b per a schedule.

Quoting spink (Reply 130):
JIT delivery is a many to one network with unidirectional flows and can easily route around failure.

Sometimes yes but often not. Often you need to bring things back. Even if you don't you need to bring back the truck or whatever it is you use to transport. The options for re-routing are not less with passengers.

Quoting spink (Reply 130):
The reality is that there really aren't any analogs out there for the reality of the airline system because the airline system is significantly more complex. There are whole sub-fields of scheduling and logistics that basically only cover the commercial airline industry. Realistically, the closest analog to a commercial airline network is a high end high performance computing interconnection network.

Sure there are. As said there are a lot of similarities with the transport requirement of JIT. There are obvious similarities with train operations. There are plenty of similarities to trucking.

You brought up networking and there are a lot of similarities. It doesn't matter at what level we look at networks re-send packages as soon as they receive information it failed. They don't let later packets jump ahead of a packet just because it failed before.

Quoting toobz (Reply 131):
Right on my friend. Been in Tokyo 2 days and haven't seen anything other than the airport and the hotel. No shopping or bar hopping here..well besides at the airport  

 

Don't you wish you had a booked seat so you could do other things until that time.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-20 08:38:49 and read 5495 times.

This is my last comment in this thread. I don't think this debate is going anywhere, but I'll add some more reasoning.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 127):
When an airplane goes tech and is swapped to a smaller plane, you have an oversold condition. It’s treated like an oversold flight and denied boarding compensation for volunteers and involuntary denied boarding compensation for non-volunteers is issued.

Not the situation I brought up.

I'm talking about same model plane being used for a different flight. Something that happens frequently.

I don't see why it is different. I'm confused. If a different plane is operating the flight than was originally scheduled has fewer seats than the original flight, then it is an oversold condition. If it has more seats, then suddenly reservations has more seats that they can sell.

There also are sacrificial flights in the network that are used to cover for other flights. United operates widebodies between hubs. If an airplane goes tech, then the domestic flight can be sacrificed to use the plane for international service. The passengers on the domestic flight are rerouted accordingly because they had a cancellation for operational reasons.

However I have not seen routers pick and choose low load flights to be canceled to operate high load flights. The repercussions of that are quite costly. I don't know of any airlines that do consider load when doing a tail swap to cause a cancellation. Maybe some do, but I just don't know.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):

You did not give your highest priority priority customers guaranteed seats? You did never switch equipment (identical) between flights to reduce number of passengers delayed?

Don't know the airline you're referring to but both of the above is common on large airlines.

Absolutely planes were swapped to handle IRROPS. For example if DEN closes in a snowstorm, you can expect extra SFO-ORD legs to be operated to help clear the backlog as people are being rerouted via other hubs.

Equipment swaps were done when they could be done. If you have a seat available to be sold, then the highest priority passengers are supposed to get it. If you don't have seats in inventory that can be sold, you use the standby system.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):

The contract of carriage is very clear that the airline is transporting you between the locations on the ticket. I very much doubt you will find an airline giving you the EWR - MIA flight after a delay. If airline have a PVG - MIA flight with available seats you have a good chance but if they get you to EWR that is where they will drop you without concern for your next reservations. Probably the biggest reasons to have all legs on the same ticket.

At the airline that I worked at, during IRROPS airport staff could reroute passengers to alternative airports if the passenger wanted. The passenger could be rerouted to JFK over EWR if they accepted that. Depending on the situation they could even change the final destination if there was a connection involved on a different airline.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-20 09:12:23 and read 5439 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 133):
I don't see why it is different. I'm confused. If a different plane is operating the flight than was originally scheduled has fewer seats than the original flight, then it is an oversold condition. If it has more seats, then suddenly reservations has more seats that they can sell.

There also are sacrificial flights in the network that are used to cover for other flights. United operates widebodies between hubs. If an airplane goes tech, then the domestic flight can be sacrificed to use the plane for international service. The passengers on the domestic flight are rerouted accordingly because they had a cancellation for operational reasons.

However I have not seen routers pick and choose low load flights to be canceled to operate high load flights. The repercussions of that are quite costly. I don't know of any airlines that do consider load when doing a tail swap to cause a cancellation. Maybe some do, but I just don't know.

Let's try again  

You have two flights departing at 10:00. They use identical equipment. One has 100 passengers the other 150. At 9:00 the plane scheduled to handle the 150 passengers goes tech and there is no way it will get ready soon. Which flight do you cancel?

Your airline may have cancelled the 150 passenger flight but others cancel the 100 passenger flight since 50 less passengers are affected. Of course they consider where the plane would go next before doing this.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 133):
At the airline that I worked at, during IRROPS airport staff could reroute passengers to alternative airports if the passenger wanted. The passenger could be rerouted to JFK over EWR if they accepted that. Depending on the situation they could even change the final destination if there was a connection involved on a different airline.

So if I hold a ticket with your airline for MIA - JFK and a ticket with another airline for JFK - DXB you will re-route me to DXB?   Never heard it happen.

I have had cases where I have had one ticket but two airlines and the first airline causing me to miss the connection and rather pay for hotel 3 days than put me on their parallel flight that had seats.

Being in LAX with ticket to JFK and then continuing to MIA on a different ticket I have been able to get a direct flight to MIA because I would arrive JFK too late but this is the closest I have experienced or heard.

I think the airline you refer to is the exemption.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-20 09:38:25 and read 5413 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 134):
So if I hold a ticket with your airline for MIA - JFK and a ticket with another airline for JFK - DXB you will re-route me to DXB?   Never heard it happen.

I don't see that happening, but I have seen a person accept PVG-ORD-MIA since the passenger was going to MIA in a different airline for the EWR-MIA segment.

Quoting cmf (Reply 134):
You have two flights departing at 10:00. They use identical equipment. One has 100 passengers the other 150. At 9:00 the plane scheduled to handle the 150 passengers goes tech and there is no way it will get ready soon. Which flight do you cancel?

The flight that was going to get the plane that went tech cancels. However if they think it can be a quick fix they might take a plane that had an 11am departure which was already on the ground. However I never worked with people who handled the domestic desks, so I am not sure how they handled it.

What I do know, was they did what they could for the operation as a whole. Limiting disruption to the entire operation was always the goal when deciding tail swaps, pre-canceling flights, rerouting aircraft, etc. When the passenger bill of rights came out, it was further motivation to try to keep the whole system moving on time as airlines were penalized for tarmac delays. It's better to cancel, than face tarmac delays, so bringing down the schedule before major events became more common. Some airlines would try to continue operating longer as a situation got worse before canceling. That led to it taking longer to recover since you had crew time outs, airplanes grounded, and severe delays.

[Edited 2012-07-20 09:57:30]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: United_fan
Posted 2012-07-20 10:03:04 and read 5368 times.

Seems to me they could have accomodated them on another Star Alliance carrier,

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-20 10:19:42 and read 5360 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
Mobile penetration for adult airline passengers is very high. You will be hard pressed to find someone without. Even for kids it is very common. I doubt there is any kid not flying as unaccompanied minor is without one and a parent checking their phone non-stop.

Reality is, you will have very few passengers showing up at the airport without knowing. The few who do are no worse than those who today show up to be told their flight has been cancelled.

So, I just checked on this with a former colleague in the operational research unit at a major international airline. She said they're lucky to get 80% of people affected by a disruption. She went on to say that, unless it's an obvious disruption, i.e. a snowstorm, on average 60% of passengers will still appear at the airport.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
I respect your opinion. I think you're wrong in this case. I think you're too stuck in the old processes to see the better options.

I haven't seen a better option yet. In a former life changing airline passenger processes for the better was my job. This isn't a case of it being an old process...it's just the correct process.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
We have technology to make it work. It isn't even a large investment. Even without using FIFO it should be done. Some airlines have much of it in place already. SK already re-book passengers automatically and have everything in place to communicate with them. I believe BA is in a very similar situation.

The arguments seem to have changed abit which makes me wonder if you're seeing the folly of the FIFO concept for a cancellation. I flew NYC-CHI yesterday. For those who were unaware, both NYC and CHI had bad weather Wed. causing mass cancellations on the route and rollovers to Thurs. Remembering what you said about WN bumping someone on a later flight so you could travel I asked a WN agent about this. Basically I asked if it was WN's policy to do FIFO, (I tried to explain it as best I could per your ideas) and she said, "Christ, no!". I then told her about what occurred with you volunteering your seat so someone who was disrupted could travel provided you were guaranteed a seat on the later flight, causing someone else to be bumped. She said, "Huh. I guess the (WN) agent gambled on there being a noshow on the later flight and lost. I doubt they'll do that again." She then went on to say, "Wait..so the guy who volunteered got comped and the guy who got bumped got compensation? We paid out twice when we didn't have to pay at all? Unreal."

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
It is very similar. It is about moving things from a to b per a schedule.

People aren't things. People question. People complain.

Quoting cmf (Reply 134):

You have two flights departing at 10:00. They use identical equipment. One has 100 passengers the other 150. At 9:00 the plane scheduled to handle the 150 passengers goes tech and there is no way it will get ready soon. Which flight do you cancel?

Your airline may have cancelled the 150 passenger flight but others cancel the 100 passenger flight since 50 less passengers are affected. Of course they consider where the plane would go next before doing this.

I don't understand this point. There are too many variables not accounted for in a generally unrealistic scenario.

Quoting cmf (Reply 134):

So if I hold a ticket with your airline for MIA - JFK and a ticket with another airline for JFK - DXB you will re-route me to DXB? Never heard it happen.

I have had cases where I have had one ticket but two airlines and the first airline causing me to miss the connection and rather pay for hotel 3 days than put me on their parallel flight that had seats.

In the world of airline alliances there is more cooperation even on separate tickets. Generally speaking, as long as there's no out-of-pocket cost to the airlines, they'll assist.

In short, FIFO is a poor concept for both passengers and airlines alike.

[Edited 2012-07-20 10:24:24]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-20 12:42:19 and read 5231 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
So, I just checked on this with a former colleague in the operational research unit at a major international airline. She said they're lucky to get 80% of people affected by a disruption. She went on to say that, unless it's an obvious disruption, i.e. a snowstorm, on average 60% of passengers will still appear at the airport.

Let's look at this a bit. Right now a phone number or email address is (mostly) not required and they still reach up to 80% according to your source. What are the reasons they don't reach all? Missing or wrong data is big. Many of them because they think it will be used to send spam. Combine it with the additional time they would have and I'd suggest there are very few still missing. Especially as people learn they can trust info coming from the airlines.

We have left the days where a message at the hotel was the best way to communicate with someone out of their home town, if you knew the hotel.

Why do you think 60% show up despite most having been informed the flight is cancelled? How many of them spoke with an agent by phone and then went to the airport? How many went to have accommodation sorted out? How many went because the phone agent said they might get lucky. How many went there because they did not trust the data they received received by phone. How many went their despite very unrealistic chances to catch a standby?

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
I haven't seen a better option yet. In a former life changing airline passenger processes for the better was my job. This isn't a case of it being an old process...it's just the correct process.

I'm sorry you're stuck in the old thinking. If you still have access to data model it out. You will find there is very little difference as to when the last passenger is where they should be. There won't be a lot of additional empty seats. The real difference is that there will no (almost) multi-day delays.

As long as the multi-day delays are rare there will not be legislation. Just as there wasn't legislation about compensation in Europe for a very long time. Just as there wasn't legislation about keeping people on the plane for very long time.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
The arguments seem to have changed abit which makes me wonder if you're seeing the folly of the FIFO concept for a cancellation.

Where do you think my arguments have changed? The idea that humans would be able to fly was once considered folly. People were sent to prison for saying earth was round and rotated around the sun. We usually need a lot to accept new views.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
I asked if it was WN's policy to do FIFO

I've never suggested it is their policy.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
I then told her about what occurred with you volunteering your seat so someone who was disrupted could travel provided you were guaranteed a seat on the later flight, causing someone else to be bumped. She said, "Huh. I guess the (WN) agent gambled on there being a noshow on the later flight and lost. I doubt they'll do that again." She then went on to say, "Wait..so the guy who volunteered got comped and the guy who got bumped got compensation? We paid out twice when we didn't have to pay at all? Unreal.

I do not know if the passenger on the morning flight got compensated but I assume she did. I do know they wanted me to take a later flight because the morning flight was full. I told them I could not do that and thus would keep my reservation. After that he told me that I would get a confirmed seat on the morning flight and that he would confirm a seat for the person being bumped in the morning. He may have gambled on a no-show. That I do not know.

It happened March 13, 2009. Flight was New Orleans to Miami. Don't remember if there was stop in Tampa. I flew out on the 14th.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
People aren't things. People question. People complain.

I agree people are not things. Part of why multi-day delays are much worse. Few people can have multi-day buffers on their travel. People can only bring so much extra medicine. People only have so many days without showing up to work before they get in trouble. People only have so many days before they need to pick up kids or animals.

Most can handle a day but each day after that is increasingly more difficult.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
I don't understand this point. There are too many variables not accounted for in a generally unrealistic scenario.

Generally unrealistic scenario? You worked on scheduling flights and find airplanes going tech after they arrive to the gate unrealistic?

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
In the world of airline alliances there is more cooperation even on separate tickets. Generally speaking, as long as there's no out-of-pocket cost to the airlines, they'll assist.

It doesn't take much before there is an out-of-pocket expense. As I said, I have never experienced or heard of a case where an airline took over a segment separately ticketed with a different airline after they had sent someone to the destination on the ticket with them.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 137):
In short, FIFO is a poor concept for both passengers and airlines alike.

In short, multi-day delays will not be accepted with any frequency if it means other passengers are jumping ahead.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-07-20 13:18:55 and read 5201 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
I'm sorry you're stuck in the old thinking. If you still have access to data model it out. You will find there is very little difference as to when the last passenger is where they should be. There won't be a lot of additional empty seats. The real difference is that there will no (almost) multi-day delays.

Your proposal in my opinion would lead to an airline having the worst completion factor and on time performance of any airline. It also would likely have some of the highest rates of lost luggage, misconnects, and delayed passengers. It reduces the number of multi-day delays (which by the way I didn’t know what a huge problem to begin with) at the expense of every other metric for performance than an airline uses.

Let’s recap with a fictional CMF airlines. If an airplane goes tech, another airplane from the lowest load factor route is swapped on to it. We are ignoring downstream legs of the route plan that the robbed airplane was to fly. Crew end up going to cities they were not scheduled to. Crews timeout because of swaps. I assume this airline has limited subfleets, because that can cause a major problem since non ETOPS/overwater planes are restricted from certain routes, etc. Cancellation rates go up due to crew time outs. Maintenance cancellations go up as well since airplanes aren’t available as originally scheduled for maintenance because of all the tail swaps.

Next, if the first flight of the day between two hubs cancels, we have to rebook everyone on that route until the backlog is cleared because of FIFO. So the 6am passengers get the 7am passengers’ flight until everyone is reaccomodated. With high load factors, it can be until the afternoon when the backlog is cleared.

If weather closes one hub down, then all passengers throughout the network can expect to miss their connections because of FIFO. When one hub closes, routes throughout the network cancel (a fact that happens because planes are grounded), and because of FIFO, every seat is given to the people who have waited the longest. So when weather strikes, rather than limiting the disruption to the 25% of the passenger’s who were flying directly through that hub or were scheduled on a plane that was involved in the cancellations, 75% or more of the passengers in the network are going to be affected since any cancellation causes all passengers flying that route in the day to lose their seat. Fortunately CMF airlines is very good at operating ad-hoc flights and adding planes when this happens since they have additional spare airplanes and spare crew.

Because of the extremely sophisticated rebooking system, people are notified of all the changes to their itineraries. They don’t show up to the airport and fight to speak to check in agents, or when they do the airline has extra staff. The poor passenger who doesn’t use text messaging/mobile emails or worse the person from China whose cell phone does not work in the United States is left guessing as to why their seat has been given away when they show up at their gate and see an airplane boarding to their destination. The poor Chinese passenger also misses their next flight because they don’t know where they have been rebooked to and doesn’t speak English very well either.

Now on to the repercussions. Because of FIFO, all passengers receive delays on a route rather than on a single flight, which means far greater compensation payments. All the FIFO system treats passengers as involuntary denied boarding within the airline’s control, so they all are getting their tickets refunded or large payments. Hotel rooms stack up because of additional missed connections since people miss the bank of departures that they were supposed to connect to.

Now whenever there is a disruption to the airline network, it is quite predictable that passengers will arrive late. Passengers get accustomed to the constant rebooking and know that if they fly CMF airlines, they are likely to end up a few hours late to their destination. Business travelers with meetings and tight schedules avoid CMF airlines, and elite travelers go elsewhere to an airline that has a higher percentage of getting passengers to their destination on time. Sure the average delay per passenger might be the same, but rather than being significantly delayed 10% of the time, they are minorly delayed 50% of the time, which is a lot of dinner meetings missed.

I might be trying to be dramatic, but I think CMF airlines is going to go out of business pretty quickly or go back to the way of old thinking.

Back on topic, I agree United absolutely failed on this event. However there are many reasons to explain what happened and in the end, I see it as a worst case scenario, and UA can do much better. However large scale changes like FIFO won't solve the problem.

[Edited 2012-07-20 13:20:06]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-20 15:32:03 and read 5125 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
If an airplane goes tech, another airplane from the lowest load factor route is swapped on to it.

If Roseflyer airlines operate as other airlines do today it too will do this.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
We are ignoring downstream legs of the route plan that the robbed airplane was to fly.

Why would that be ignored when I said it was considered?

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
Crew end up going to cities they were not scheduled to. Crews timeout because of swaps. I assume this airline has limited subfleets, because that can cause a major problem since non ETOPS/overwater planes are restricted from certain routes, etc. Cancellation rates go up due to crew time outs. Maintenance cancellations go up as well since airplanes aren’t available as originally scheduled for maintenance because of all the tail swaps.

Why are crew going to different cities than scheduled because they use a different plane?

Apparently at Roseflyer Airlines every plane is different from all other planes in the fleet.

Please explain how Roseflyer Airlines manage to fly airplanes that have gone tech.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
Next, if the first flight of the day between two hubs cancels, we have to rebook everyone on that route until the backlog is cleared because of FIFO. So the 6am passengers get the 7am passengers’ flight until everyone is reaccomodated. With high load factors, it can be until the afternoon when the backlog is cleared.

I said there will be a minimum number of hours before it kicks in. One hour is obviously not realistic. When the next flight is 24 hours later it is absolutely realistic.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
They don’t show up to the airport and fight to speak to check in agents, or when they do the airline has extra staff.

Because if you have less passengers showing up t the airport you need additional staff   

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
The poor passenger who doesn’t use text messaging/mobile emails or worse the person from China whose cell phone does not work in the United States is left guessing as to why their seat has been given away when they show up at their gate and see an airplane boarding to their destination. The poor Chinese passenger also misses their next flight because they don’t know where they have been rebooked to and doesn’t speak English very well either.

At Roseflyer Airlines passengers who have their flights canceled quickly become fluent in English. Not that it is needed because nothing is communicated. As passengers for the cancelled flight show up they are sequestered. As seats become available on all legs of their journey they are sent home. This may take several days as Roseflyer Airlines is running at 90%+ load factor and will never change an airplanes routes so that there are no changes in maintenance schedules.

That this takes multiple days is not a problem for them since they do not have jobs, family or any kind of commitments they need to attend. They happily stay sequestered with always packed bags so they are available to leave at a moments notice as seats become available on all legs needed to reach their final destination.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
Now on to the repercussions. Because of FIFO, all passengers receive delays on a route rather than on a single flight, which means far greater compensation payments. All the FIFO system treats passengers as involuntary denied boarding within the airline’s control, so they all are getting their tickets refunded or large payments. Hotel rooms stack up because of additional missed connections since people miss the bank of departures that they were supposed to connect to.

Because Roseflyer only take people out of sequestering when there are seats available on all connection and think that the burden of being delayed 4 hours equals the burden of being delayed multiple delays they always pay out the same compensation.

Roseflyer Airline has negligible costs for food and shelter as people with suspended lives only need such things the first day. They also have a policy of no more than on cancelled or delayed flight at any time so once they know where it is they can send home agents at all other locations thus keeping salaries at a fraction of other airlines.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
Now whenever there is a disruption to the airline network, it is quite predictable that passengers will arrive late. Passengers get accustomed to the constant rebooking and know that if they fly CMF airlines, they are likely to end up a few hours late to their destination. Business travelers with meetings and tight schedules avoid CMF airlines, and elite travelers go elsewhere to an airline that has a higher percentage of getting passengers to their destination on time. Sure the average delay per passenger might be the same, but rather than being significantly delayed 10% of the time, they are minorly delayed 50% of the time, which is a lot of dinner meetings missed.

Roseflyer Airlines is making money hand over fist since everyone who want someone to go away for a while count on Roseflyer Airlines to keep them suspended for long times. Only problem is that there is no communication so the person you sent away will suddenly show up.

After this happened a few times and as the horror stories about being suspended are making the media things are no longer so rosey at Roseflyer Airlines.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 139):
I might be trying to be dramatic, but I think CMF airlines is going to go out of business pretty quickly or go back to the way of old thinking.

You are very dramatic. Show a lot of imagination too. Pity it isn't anchored in how things would work.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: toobz
Posted 2012-07-20 16:08:41 and read 5099 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):

it's the life of a non rev...grrr.
I was in Tokyo. DL had multiple flights cancelled out of NRT and HND the past few days. Nightmare is putting it mildly. However they were able to confirm revenue PAX on other flights no problem. They even sent a couple 98xx flights to the rescue.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: tymnbalewne
Posted 2012-07-20 16:53:54 and read 5046 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
In short, multi-day delays will not be accepted with any frequency if it means other passengers are jumping ahead.

But what you're proposing is that the disrupted passengers jump ahead of those who would otherwise not be disrupted.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
I'm sorry you're stuck in the old thinking. If you still have access to data model it out. You will find there is very little difference as to when the last passenger is where they should be. There won't be a lot of additional empty seats. The real difference is that there will no (almost) multi-day delays.

The last passenger will arrive whenever the last passenger arrives. What you're proposing is that you disrupt a large cadre of people as well as an airline's operation for no benefit to anyone. In your scenario the last passenger, and every passenger before him/her will have suffered a delay with most of them suffering for no good reason.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
Generally unrealistic scenario? You worked on scheduling flights and find airplanes going tech after they arrive to the gate unrealistic?

You have two flights departing at 10:00. They use identical equipment. One has 100 passengers the other 150. At 9:00 the plane scheduled to handle the 150 passengers goes tech and there is no way it will get ready soon. Which flight do you cancel?

Your airline may have cancelled the 150 passenger flight but others cancel the 100 passenger flight since 50 less passengers are affected. Of course they consider where the plane would go next before doing this.

Well, why don't you reread your scenario. Two flights operating the same route at the same time and one cancels? Either your scenario is unrealistic or your communication ability is unclear.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):

It doesn't take much before there is an out-of-pocket expense. As I said, I have never experienced or heard of a case where an airline took over a segment separately ticketed with a different airline after they had sent someone to the destination on the ticket with them.

What out of pocket expense is there for the airline? THey're not paying for accommodation, they're just rebooking the passenger and with alliances such as oneworld and STAR there is more cooperation that benefits the customer.

Quoting cmf (Reply 138):
I do not know if the passenger on the morning flight got compensated but I assume she did. I do know they wanted me to take a later flight because the morning flight was full. I told them I could not do that and thus would keep my reservation. After that he told me that I would get a confirmed seat on the morning flight and that he would confirm a seat for the person being bumped in the morning. He may have gambled on a no-show. That I do not know.

Now, I don't have the inclination to look at what you originally said about this situation but I thought you said there was a passenger who was affected by a disruption and you gave up your seat so they could travel. So, you would've received compensation because you volunteered to give up your seat, and the person who was bumped on the later flight would've been compensated because they were involuntarily denied boarding. Had things gone the way they were supposed to, the only expense for WN would've been any expenses, (i.e. HOTAC) for the initially disrupted passenger. There wouldn't've been any cash or voucher payouts required.

Out of this entire thread though I think the most bizarre thing is that a planeload of passengers would happily accept that they're not travelling because yesterday's flight canceleld. Crazy talk.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: etoile
Posted 2012-07-20 19:00:08 and read 4971 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
Out of this entire thread though I think the most bizarre thing is that a planeload of passengers would happily accept that they're not travelling because yesterday's flight canceleld. Crazy talk.

I have a different candidate:

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
The task of legislators is to balance the needs and effects on everyone. Not just one side.

The task of legislators is (1) to get re-elected and (2) direct as much tax revenue to their constituents as possible, which is closely related to (1). To expect that legislators could visit upon the airline industry a regulatory regime that could effectively deal with flight disruptions is not realistic.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-20 19:28:16 and read 4942 times.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
But what you're proposing is that the disrupted passengers jump ahead of those who would otherwise not be disrupted.

No. I'm proposing they keep the order the airline confirmed their flights. I don't know how this can be unclear by this point.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
The last passenger will arrive whenever the last passenger arrives. What you're proposing is that you disrupt a large cadre of people as well as an airline's operation for no benefit to anyone. In your scenario the last passenger, and every passenger before him/her will have suffered a delay with most of them suffering for no good reason.

Yet again, no.

I'm saying it will not be accepted to make a group of passengers carry a disproportionate burden when they had no fault in the cancellation.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
Well, why don't you reread your scenario. Two flights operating the same route at the same time and one cancels? Either your scenario is unrealistic or your communication ability is unclear.

Or your ability to follow is poor. Maybe it is easier if I use airport codes. Two flights are scheduled to depart JFK at the same time. One is flying to ATL and the other two TPA. Both are with 737-800. The flight to TPA has 100 passengers and the flight to ATL has 150 passengers. The airplane scheduled for the ATL flight goes tech. One of the two flights will be cancelled. You already have crew for both flights. The only question is who will be on the plane.

Do you cancel the flight that actually went tech or do you cancel the flight with lest impact?

Do you cancel the flight based on where the bad luck happened or do you move the bad luck to reduce the amount? If you're cancel the TPA flight you accept to move bad luck.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
What out of pocket expense is there for the airline? THey're not paying for accommodation, they're just rebooking the passenger and with alliances such as oneworld and STAR there is more cooperation that benefits the customer.

Security fee, segment fee, airport fee. Other airlines do not like to carry passengers without getting paid.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
Now, I don't have the inclination to look at what you originally said about this situation

Don't let lack of facts stop you from commenting.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
you said there was a passenger who was affected by a disruption

I said WN offered compensation to whoever gave up their seat so that passenger could fly. I do not know the reasons why they did it.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
So, you would've received compensation because you volunteered to give up your seat

Yes.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
the person who was bumped on the later flight would've been compensated because they were involuntarily denied boarding

I assume they would start by hoping for a no-show. Then look for volunteers. Only if those failed would denied boarding come to play. As to why they did it. I didn't ask. Made no difference to me.

They started asking for volunteers early but there were no takers. Each time he sounded more desperate. While listening to it I realized that if I stayed I would get one more evening with people I had met at the event I had attended, Most of them were flying to Europe and the event ended too late for them to fly out that day. I had plans for Saturday afternoon but with an early flight I could do both. That is why I insisted on the first flight and he was apparently desperate enough by that time.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
Out of this entire thread though I think the most bizarre thing is that a planeload of passengers would happily accept that they're not travelling because yesterday's flight canceleld. Crazy talk.

I've never said they would be happy.

Crazy talk is to suggest passengers on the cancelled flight are OK to spend day after day waiting for seats to become available. They are not more responsible than the passengers on the later flights. They are not more responsible than passengers denied boarding because the flight a flight is oversold.

Crazy talk is suggesting airlines will be able to to hold passengers "hostage" day after day.

Quoting etoile (Reply 143):
The task of legislators is (1) to get re-elected and (2) direct as much tax revenue to their constituents as possible, which is closely related to (1). To expect that legislators could visit upon the airline industry a regulatory regime that could effectively deal with flight disruptions is not realistic.

That may be how poor politicians operate. It is the task of voters to not elect them.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: etoile
Posted 2012-07-20 20:57:42 and read 4892 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 142):
But what you're proposing is that the disrupted passengers jump ahead of those who would otherwise not be disrupted.

No. I'm proposing they keep the order the airline confirmed their flights. I don't know how this can be unclear by this point.

This crystallizes the essential difference between the current commonly operated system and the system you propose. In the current system, a passenger buys a ticket to go from A to B at a scheduled time, e.g. SFO-JFK at 7 a.m. on December 24, 2012. Maybe that passenger hopes to be home with family on that date. In the current system, it is more likely than not that the passenger departs and arrives on the scheduled date around the scheduled time. On Cmf Airlines, a passenger is essentially buying a ticket to be the 98,439th passenger, counting from today, to fly from SFO-JFK. (Since you are regularly asking posters to this thread for the detailed math: Assume UA, assume passenger is indifferent to class of service, and assume only 95% of the seats are produced because assume 5% of flights get cancelled, so 157 days (from July 20 to December 24) x 6 flights per day x 110 seats per flight x 95%. No, these are not real numbers, this is only an example for illustration. Yes, I know many passengers are not indifferent to class of service, in which case you can reduce the 110 in the calculation.) The CmfAir passenger might leave later than December 24 if the system's throughput is less than forecast. He might leave earlier if throughput is higher. As the airline starts moving passenger 90,000, the passenger is going to start constantly checking his email, SMS and with his hotel to find out when his number is up.

How much would the CmfAirlines passenger pay to have a confirmation to be the 98,439th passenger flying from SFO-JFK from today?

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
Two flights are scheduled to depart JFK at the same time. One is flying to ATL and the other two TPA. Both are with 737-800. The flight to TPA has 100 passengers and the flight to ATL has 150 passengers. The airplane scheduled for the ATL flight goes tech. One of the two flights will be cancelled. You already have crew for both flights. The only question is who will be on the plane.

So at CmfAirlines, when a flight is cancelled, the system looks for another flight that can fly the capacity required by the cancelled flight but has fewer customers and substitutes crew and equipment from the second flight to fly the cancelled flight. I would have a few more questions. Are you going to move all the people and bags off the TPA flight and put the ATL passengers on the former TPA aircraft? How would that affect timing of connections in ATL? What if most of the passengers going to TPA were connecting and most of the passengers going to ATL were O&D? What's going to happen to the passengers who were supposed to be flown by the crew and aircraft that were supposed to go to TPA? What if the TPA aircraft were scheduled for maintenance in TPA? And which flight are you going to cancel to move the TPA passengers?

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-07-21 08:28:34 and read 4636 times.

Quoting etoile (Reply 145):
On Cmf Airlines, a passenger is essentially buying a ticket to be the 98,439th passenger, counting from today,

No. how did you get that idea?

Passenger buy tickets in the same way as today. They enter the points (airports) and the times they want. They get a list of available options and they select the times and price combination they find best.

As long as there are no canceled flights there is no difference.

The difference is when flights are canceled. Today's airlines say - We know you find schedule important but it is just marketing. The contract of carriage makes it clear that all we sold to you was a flight from point a to b. We have no responsibility for when we send you. It may happen today or it may happen next month. Have a seat and wait until we say it is your turn.

With the legislation I expect will eventually come the process will instead be something like this.

We send a message to Monday's passengers explaining what happened, that they are booked on tomorrows flight and provide them with their new itinerary. If this isn't the first leg of the ticket they get a link where they can get hotel and meal vouchers.

We also explain that Tuesday's flight is mow overbooked and we are looking for volunteers to delay until Wednesday and the compensation they will get for this. They also get the option to cancel the flight for refund.

If someone will not be able to make a connection the message is adjusted to that they will stay until Wednesday and they are informed of the higher compensation.

If passengers show up at check-in all is explained to them and for anyone already checked in we try to also reach them with the message systems at the airport. If at the airport also passengers on the first leg of the ticket have the option for hotel & meal vouchers.

Parallel we send messages to Tuesday's passengers. There are three versions. One for those who are bumped until Wednesday and one for those still on Tuesday's flight.

For those bumped they get their new itinerary, info about hotel and meal vouchers as with Monday's passengers. We also explain that we are looking for volunteers among those currently booked on Tuesday's flight and ask if the passenger is interested in going back to Tuesday's flight if there is an opportunity. They also get the option to cancel.

For those still on Tuesday's flight we ask for volunteers and give them the option to cancel.

The last group is for those passengers we think we will find seats because there are volunteers. We explain the situation. That we still expect them to make Tuesday's flight but it is dependent on finding enough volunteers. They are given the option to volunteer or to cancel.

We track the number of responses and stop accepting volunteers when balance is reached. We also continue to monitor all reservations in the system and offer faster connections when possible.

Quoting etoile (Reply 145):
Are you going to move all the people and bags off the TPA flight and put the ATL passengers on the former TPA aircraft?

It is not what I would do. It is what airlines already do. If the bags are already on the plane then I expect it must be very special circumstances (low load) for it to happen.

Quoting etoile (Reply 145):
How would that affect timing of connections in ATL? What if most of the passengers going to TPA were connecting and most of the passengers going to ATL were O&D? What's going to happen to the passengers who were supposed to be flown by the crew and aircraft that were supposed to go to TPA? What if the TPA aircraft were scheduled for maintenance in TPA? And which flight are you going to cancel to move the TPA passengers?

One of the two flights will be cancelled. All your questions about the TPA flight remains even if there isn't a switch. It is just that it says ATL instead.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 146):
Well, which is it? Will you get a different result or will ALL the passengers be unhappy? C'mon, decide

Answered several time. No-one is happy about being delayed. But the advantage of having no-one screaming they are hostages means it is better with more slightly unhappy.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 146):
Thank you for proving your unclear communications skills. You did not say they were going to different cities. Try to be more careful when explaining a faulty point, would you?

It it bloody obvious they would go to different cities. Try to be logical, will you.

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 146):
So you're entire WN story you chose to share has absolutely nothing to do with proving the viability of a flawed point? Thanks for the waste of time...or maybe just another example of your poor communications skills

I said WN is good at looking for volunteers. The rest was up to you and your friends crazy talk.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: etoile
Posted 2012-07-21 11:04:31 and read 4537 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
No. how did you get that idea?

Based on your prior posts, as reconfirmed by the reply.

Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
As long as there are no canceled flights there is no difference.

Not realistic, as there are always cancelled flights.

Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
We have no responsibility for when we send you. It may happen today or it may happen next month. Have a seat and wait until we say it is your turn.

This is CmfAir, since it will operate on a FIFO system.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: DTWLAX
Posted 2012-07-21 14:22:00 and read 4411 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
Mobile penetration for adult airline passengers is very high. You will be hard pressed to find someone without. Even for kids it is very common. I doubt there is any kid not flying as unaccompanied minor is without one and a parent checking their phone non-stop.

Reality is, you will have very few passengers showing up at the airport without knowing. The few who do are no worse than those who today show up to be told their flight has been cancelled.

Are you aware that CDMA technology phones do not work outside of the respective countries? Your Sprint and Verizon phones do not work outside USA. The GSM phones that work globally require additional plans to be activated. AT&T and T-Mobile charge outrageous rates if you access 3G outside USA. And most of the phones sold in USA are locked which prevent customers from using a local SIM card in another country to avoid the outrageous charges.

Quoting cmf (Reply 134):
Let's try again  

You have two flights departing at 10:00. They use identical equipment. One has 100 passengers the other 150. At 9:00 the plane scheduled to handle the 150 passengers goes tech and there is no way it will get ready soon. Which flight do you cancel?

Your airline may have cancelled the 150 passenger flight but others cancel the 100 passenger flight since 50 less passengers are affected. Of course they consider where the plane would go next before doing this.

Other airlines will try to accomodate 50 passengers from the tech flight on the flight with 100 passengers if they can get them to their destinations via aconnection.
Also if the two planes are departing at the same time, most passengers will be in the gate area for their respective flights. What reason are you going to give the 100 passengers for their cancellation when in a few minutes those passengers will see 150 people board the same plane?

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
Two flights are scheduled to depart JFK at the same time. One is flying to ATL and the other two TPA. Both are with 737-800. The flight to TPA has 100 passengers and the flight to ATL has 150 passengers. The airplane scheduled for the ATL flight goes tech. One of the two flights will be cancelled. You already have crew for both flights. The only question is who will be on the plane.

Do you cancel the flight that actually went tech or do you cancel the flight with lest impact?

Do you cancel the flight based on where the bad luck happened or do you move the bad luck to reduce the amount? If you're cancel the TPA flight you accept to move bad luck.

Get 50 people to their destination via a connection through TPA if possible. Even though it is going past the final destination, passengers may opt for that if there is no other option.

[Edited 2012-07-21 14:24:56]

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-07-21 14:55:07 and read 4388 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 147):
It it bloody obvious they would go to different cities. Try to be logical, will you.

If the flight goes to two different cities then how would you accommodate those who end up in a different city under your plan?

Basically when a flight gets cancelled passengers are accommodated to the best of the airlines power, whether that is on another routing with the same airline or they are booked on a space available basis. If not the passengers will have to wait until there is space available to accomodate them.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: staralliance85
Posted 2012-07-21 19:54:11 and read 4285 times.

United did do their part in reaccomodating their passengers by giving them a refund, $1000 flight credit and the hotel stays. The Continental long haul flights were severely delayed like once in a blue moon. Now since they are merged into United, these long delays and cancellations happen on a consistent basis. I know this because I work at Newark Airport. For example United stated service from Newark- Buenos Aires and that flight has been delayed 15 hrs at least 10 times in the past 3 months. Many other long haul flights like EWR-HKG are delayed a lot. It is Not making United look good at all.

Topic: RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days
Username: srbmod
Posted 2012-07-22 07:12:37 and read 4071 times.

This discussion has veered well off of the original topic, and is now locked.

Any posts that appear after this locking message will be deleted for housekeeping purposes.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/