Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did UAL Use Storm As Excuse To Cancel Empty Flt?  
User currently offlineRcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8948 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

I know that people often claim that weather is used as an excuse to cancel a low lf flight - and usually that is not the case - but this time, I'm not so sure.

My wife was scheduled to fly DEN to YVR on UAL 323 departing at 11:35 today.
Last night at 16:00 - well before the storm even started (the rain started at 6pm ish), they canceled it due to weather and re-booked her UAL829 (18:30) DEN to YVR. UAL is the only airline that runs this non-stop and these are the 2 daily flights - so this was the obvious choice. I didn't really like that option - she would get into YVR quite late - and the storm is worsening - so I got her on UAL339 to SEA and a friend in Seattle who was driving to Vancouver today (  Smile ) is picking her up - her flight just landed at SEA on time (was 30min late into the air in DEN - but left the gate on time - probably de-ice - but made it up in the air  checkeredflag  ).

So why - with the big storm - do I find this suspicious.

1) The cancellation happened at 16:00. I was at DIA at 20:00 and it was just starting to snow - so they canceled 4 hours before the storm and 18hrs before the flight.

2) When I double checked with United for room available on her rebooked UAL829 (trying to ascertain if she would really go on that flight), I was told - oh yeah - there is lots of room on that plane (same type as earlier). Hmm - even though everybody on the earlier flight was bumped and there were no other choices?

3) at 0100 - when I got back home this morning - not many flights had been canceled. This was one of them.

4) The inbound portion of the flight (PHL-DEN) arrived on time in Denver.

5) Her 11:55 flight to SEA departed and arrived on time.

6) Looking at United departures/arrivals for the day - probably 90 to 95% have gone on time.

--------------------
So -

A flight is canceled 4-6 hours before the storm.
The rebook is instant.
The rebooked flight has all sorts of room, even though presumably all the bumped passengers were there.

Sounds to me like UAL323 was very light and United decided to cancel or use the plane somewhere else (mechanical? crew? ....) but by claiming weather, they had no responsibility to do anything.

Not a big deal - worked out fine - but only after many hours on the phone/at the desk (she was traveling with in cabin pet - so it is more complicated than normal).
Was United  liar  ?


rcair1
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1128 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8926 times:

In IRROPS, canceling an empty flight seems like a no brainer to me.

Preemptive cancellations are a tactic to reduce congestion and maintain some sort of continuity and flow of operations throughout the day. Cancelling an empty flight were all the passengers can be reaccommodated the same day vs a full flight where people will get stuck in Denver seems like a good idea to me.

Checko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2848 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8859 times:

I could be that there was a light load, but pre-cancellations due to weather also are due to many other things. If you remember the B6 meltdown, one of the main reasons the airline couldn't recover was because they didn't pre-cancel enough flights, planes and crewes were all over the place and were past their legal time limits.

Pre-canceling allows (in a bigger picture) to also make sure planes and crews stay matched up, and legal, and don't inconvenience the customers at the last minute because of a miscalculation of duty time or aircraft routing. If the flight was pre-cancelled because the storm was going to disrupt operations to that point, it actually falls under weather.



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18686 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8778 times:



Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 1):
.

Preemptive cancellations are a tactic to reduce congestion and maintain some sort of continuity and flow of operations throughout the day. Cancelling an empty flight were all the passengers can be reaccommodated the same day vs a full flight where people will get stuck in Denver seems like a good idea to me.

Well, unless the A/C was scheduled to do a return flight to DEN and that flight was also empty, I can't imagine that this would be a wise move. It would screw up the A/C's placement for future flights.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8738 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Well, unless the A/C was scheduled to do a return flight to DEN and that flight was also empty, I can't imagine that this would be a wise move.

They would probably do their best to reroute those people to places other than DEN due to the storm. Cancelling the flight was actually a smart move by the airline.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8537 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 1):
Cancelling an empty flight were all the passengers can be reaccommodated the same day vs a full flight where people will get stuck in Denver seems like a good idea to me.

Lot of assumptions there....

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 4):

They would probably do their best to reroute those people to places other than DEN due to the storm. Cancelling the flight was actually a smart move by the airline.

And even more here...

I'm both a pilot (not commercial) and a very experienced traveler - 1K multiple times - so I'm very familiar with flows and cascades when weather happens. However, this one did not feel right - part of that came from the reaction of the agents. Given the magnitude of the storm, todays UAL flights were not that bad. About 10% canceled (101 canceled of 962 total or 10.49%) - even split on arrival and departures. Over half of those were code share or express (to places like Aspen, Colo Springs, Gunnison - place impacted by weather). Only a few mainline flights were canceled - and none of those this early.

In my experience, it is very unusual for a flight to be canceled 19 hrs in advance, before a storm hits, and before any significant cancellation. Particularly at DIA which is a very robust airport for bad weather operations. (Getting to/from the airport in a car is typically a disaster, but the airport just works).

As for a smart move - absolutely not enough data to make that call. But, in the many years I've been lurking here, I've learned that making assumptions is a key skill here.

I really don't know if UAL used weather as an excuse, and if it saved them some money, that's probably okay. They are a hurtin' unit. They didn't stand to loose any - UAL customer service is not strong now and with "weather" being the reason - they have no requirement to feed or house the displaced passengers - and they flat don't provide vouchers and stuff anymore.

Personally, however, I would prefer an honest - "ya know - we were loosing our shirts on that flight so we moved you." But, some lawyer would probably sue for that....

Anyway - got 2 feet at my house now - and still coming down (see the photo in Denver Snow Time)

[Edited 2009-10-28 16:55:19 by rcair1]


rcair1
User currently offlineCrosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 698 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8451 times:



Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 5):
d even more here...

I'm both a pilot (not commercial) and a very experienced traveler - 1K multiple times - so I'm very familiar with flows and cascades when weather happens. However, this one did not feel right - part of that came from the reaction of the agents. Given the magnitude of the storm, todays UAL flights were not that bad. About 10% canceled (101 canceled of 962 total or 10.49%) - even split on arrival and departures. Over half of those were code share or express (to places like Aspen, Colo Springs, Gunnison - place impacted by weather). Only a few mainline flights were canceled - and none of those this early.

In my experience, it is very unusual for a flight to be canceled 19 hrs in advance, before a storm hits, and before any significant cancellation. Particularly at DIA which is a very robust airport for bad weather operations. (Getting to/from the airport in a car is typically a disaster, but the airport just works).

As for a smart move - absolutely not enough data to make that call. But, in the many years I've been lurking here, I've learned that making assumptions is a key skill here.

I really don't know if UAL used weather as an excuse, and if it saved them some money, that's probably okay. They are a hurtin' unit. They didn't stand to loose any - UAL customer service is not strong now and with "weather" being the reason - they have no requirement to feed or house the displaced passengers - and they flat don't provide vouchers and stuff anymore.

Personally, however, I would prefer an honest - "ya know - we were loosing our shirts on that flight so we moved you." But, some lawyer would probably sue for that....

Anyway - got 2 feet at my house now - and still coming down (see the photo in Denver Snow Time)

Well, in a situation like this, it seems like airlines need to cancel a certain percentage of flights in order to keep the operations going. Given this, it's pretty much up to the airline which flights to cancel. So, which should they choose? The ones with lighter loads where it's easier to reaccom the pax or the ones that are full?

Quoting Rcair1 (Thread starter):
Looking at United departures/arrivals for the day - probably 90 to 95% have gone on time.

Exactly, so that means that UA did its job correctly. By cancelling a percentage of scheduled fights, most of the remaining flights have so far arrived on time. Kudos to UA on a job well done.  thumbsup 


User currently offlineReality From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8328 times:



Quoting Crosswinds21 (Reply 6):
Kudos to UA on a job well done. thumbsup

You might not think it was so well done if had been YOUR flight that had been cancelled.  Smile

Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 5):
In my experience, it is very unusual for a flight to be canceled 19 hrs in advance, before a storm hits, and before any significant cancellation. Particularly at DIA which is a very robust airport for bad weather operations. (Getting to/from the airport in a car is typically a disaster, but the airport just works).

As for a smart move - absolutely not enough data to make that call. But, in the many years I've been lurking here, I've learned that making assumptions is a key skill here.

I think that's a good assessment.

Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 5):
Personally, however, I would prefer an honest - "ya know - we were loosing our shirts on that flight so we moved you." But, some lawyer would probably sue for that....

I actually had that happen to me in Mexico City on Mexicana. The agent just said very straightforwardly that there weren't enough people on my flight so that I was being put on the next flight to Puerto Vallarta 4 hours later. We probably can't do that in the US.


User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8265 times:

Those are some big assumptions you guys made. Pre-canceling before a storm arrives is not unusual. With the YVR flight, there was protection to the passengers and that is something that is reviewed. This entails more than just your thoughts that this was an unprofitable flight. There could be crew issues, aircraft availability that could have factored into the airline deciding that the DEN-YVR flight with the weather forecast made sense to cancel.

The theory that this was a punitive act to an individual is absurd.


User currently offlineRcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8136 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT



Quoting Mcdu (Reply 8):
The theory that this was a punitive act to an individual is absurd.

What an absurd comment.
Where in the *world* did you get the idea that anybody here theorized that UA canceled this flight as a punitive act to an individual. confused  At most people have suggested that UA canceled it 1) in favor of their overall operations/finances, 2) to minimize the inconvenience of canceling a more loaded flight. And frankly, if it was 1), they probably are forced to lie because some inconvenienced passenger would call their congress critter and lawyer.

There is no way UA would cancel a flight to punish (defn of punitive) an individual and nobody suggested it. I've seen individual agents (gate, desk, etc). at various airlines/airports 'take disfavor' on a particularly obnoxious customer (favorite tact is selecting them for SSSSS special screening), but cancel a flight to punish an individual????

Gah.... (a statement of disbelief)

Indeed, throughout this - the UA agents were quite helpful (of course, both my wife and I were polite - which helps...)

Quoting Reality (Reply 7):
Exactly, so that means that UA did its job correctly. By cancelling a percentage of scheduled fights, most of the remaining flights have so far arrived on time. Kudos to UA on a job well done.   

Kudos - maybe not - but overall I agree. Pretty hard to "prove" that canceling this (or any) particular flight had a material +/- on the 900 or so arrivals/departures UA had at DEN today - but regardless of the reason for canceling this flight, UA did quite well today given the conditions.

I'm quite sure far more car trips to/from the airport were "canceled" (by flying into the ditch) going to/from DIA. As a fireman - I have a lot of experience dealing with those kinds of canceled 'flights'.  Smile

And it appears, from friends and family in Denver - that the weather is worse north - so perhaps tomorrow will be better.

Oh - BTW - the second DEN-YVR flight has departed the gate (30 minutes ago), but has not left the ground yet - de-icing I'm sure. It is scheduled to arrive into YVR 30 minutes late.

I think if anybody deserves kudo's here - it is me. I managed to:
1- Get my wife to the airport safely in spite of the storm (and me home)
2- get her on an earlier flight - despite some issues about the number of "pets" in cabin allowed.
3- Arrange her a ride from SEA to her final destination in Vancouver (she is already there  bigthumbsup  )
4- Plow and shovel the snow.
5- Get into an argument on a.net

Pretty good day....



rcair1
User currently offlinePhelpsie87 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 498 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8063 times:



Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 9):
Oh - BTW - the second DEN-YVR flight has departed the gate (30 minutes ago), but has not left the ground yet - de-icing I'm sure. It is scheduled to arrive into YVR 30 minutes late.

Lucky if it gets off the ground. Last count I got from DEN were nearly 2 hour deice lines...it is crazy down there in Denver!!


User currently offlineCWAFlyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8005 times:

Quoting Rcair1 (Thread starter):
) Looking at United departures/arrivals for the day - probably 90 to 95% have gone on time.

Not sure where you got that info from. By 3pm, de-ice delays were well over 2 hours.

With all the backlash from previous storms in DEN that stranded people on airplanes and caused multiple diversions, UA is being a lot more proactive to thin schedules out when a storm is forecast. Waiting to see whether it actually happens before canceling and moving airplanes and crews where they need to be doesn't work. The requests from UA to the Express carriers to thin the schedule for today actually came around 2pm yesterday. Your flight being cancelled 19 hours ahead of time would be consistent with that.

[Edited 2009-10-28 19:13:11]

DEN in spite of it being billed to everyone prior to opening that it would never close, can and does close. We were fortunate today that the snow amounts did not all come at once requiring them to close runways for plowing.

[Edited 2009-10-28 19:24:25]

[Edited 2009-10-28 19:25:06]

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7965 times:



Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 1):
In IRROPS, canceling an empty flight seems like a no brainer to me.

Not really. Read next quoted post.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
I can't imagine that this would be a wise move. It would screw up the A/C's placement for future flights.

Exactly. Aircraft assignments are all part of a big puzzle. Customers don't see anything except their aircraft goes from Point A to Point B and drops them off. For all they know ,after that, it falls off the face of the earth.

But if you cancel that first leg, say ORD-DEN, then what's going to take the leg that was supposed to do DEN-PHX with that aircraft? Then PHX-ORD? Then ORD-ATL? Once that puzzle misses a piece it affect far more than one segment. Or potentially it can.

Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 5):
Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 1):
Cancelling an empty flight were all the passengers can be reaccommodated the same day vs a full flight where people will get stuck in Denver seems like a good idea to me.

Lot of assumptions there....

Actually, not really. Again, read what i wrote above. More often than not, that aircraft isn't just returning to the same airport, i.e., let's say ORD-DEN-ORD. It's going somewhere else, and it will have a domino effect downline.


User currently offlineRcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7926 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT



Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 11):
Quoting Rcair1 (Thread starter):
) Looking at United departures/arrivals for the day - probably 90 to 95% have gone on time.

Not sure where you got that info from. By 3pm, de-ice delays were well over 2 hours.

I miss spoke - should have said "gone" not "gone on time".  ashamed  Also - that data was at about 3pm (local) - could certainly have gotten worse since then. Source - DIA flight status page.

Quoting Phelpsie87 (Reply 10):
Lucky if it gets off the ground. Last count I got from DEN were nearly 2 hour deice lines...it is crazy down there in Denver!!

That is part of the reason I worked so hard to get my wife out earlier...

But, it left the gate at 18:48, at 19:59 flightaware showed it  airplane  at 9200 ft. (local times)
So deice time was about 1 hour. Currently 196 down, 920 to go.



rcair1
User currently offlineMASTYC From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7855 times:

I can say that this is the really slow time of year for DEN-YVR because of the cruise ship travel ending. I would not say that your theory is too crazy but of course everything is due to the weather. Good luck proving otherwise.

User currently offlineDurangoMac From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7727 times:

UA uses a system that analyzes every flight at the effected airport and determines which flights are the best to cancel to maximize revenue and to minimize congestion and other difficulties. I can't remember the name or acronym bu it was developed to help in airports like ORD and SFO during major weather events and other FLOW events. The system is highly complex looking at many variables, I've seen it make decisions like an CRJ-200 being more important than and 747 but at the same time a 777 being more important than a 757.

User currently offlineABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 848 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7628 times:

I cant tell you how many times at the gate I am told by pax "You dont understand! I have a connection to make!" And I have to remind them that others standing around them are in the same situation, and its my job to find another way to get them there. I went through it Monday when the last front blew through the state of TX and wrecked havoc on the system for all 3 airlines that serve CRP. It comes as a relief when XE precancels, knowing IAH is likely to go down, due to WX. The same storm that hit DEN, is now lining up to move thru TX as thunderstorms. So expect AA to likely make some schedule changes at DFW, WN at DAL and HOU, and CO at IAH thursday.
JD CRPXE
PS. I will say this, last Monday the customers were overall very understanding how bad the WX was, and went with it.



A line is evidence that other people exist.
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 784 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7091 times:

The old PSA, as much as I loved them, used to cancel flights all the time on their SFO to LAX shuttle because of so-called tech problems when there were not enough pax to fill the plane. Talking about angry passengers in the 1980s!!!

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6551 times:



Quoting RIXrat (Reply 17):
The old PSA, as much as I loved them, used to cancel flights all the time on their SFO to LAX shuttle because of so-called tech problems when there were not enough pax to fill the plane. Talking about angry passengers in the 1980s!!!

Again, airlines simply do not cancel a leg because there are "not enough passengers on the plane." That's a myth that has endured for ages.

Now, what MIGHT happen is this; say flight A going SFO-LAX is booked to 35 people. At the same time, say flight B, going SFO-LAS, is booked to 124 with the same type of equipment. The aircraft for the SFO-LAS is having maintainence problems, and it could affect if the flight operates. There are no seats on later SFO-LAS flights, but there's plenty of seats to accomdate later SFO-LAX passengers. System operations then could, and often will, swap out the aircraft, so that the fuller flight can depart, and then the SFO-LAX can be cancelled, doing harm to the least amount of customers and the least amount of damage to the operation.

That happens all the time, but you, as a passenger, don't see that behind-the-scene maneuvering hat goes on. As far as the pax is concerned, it was just cancelled because "there aren't enough pax".


User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6404 times:

Personally from a non Av. point of view I would have expected your wifes initial flight to go as scheduled and UA cancel the later flight as there was nothing in the forecasts that suggested the weather would be any better for the later flight and in fact it most likely would have been worse.

User currently offlineRb211tristar From United States of America, joined May 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6097 times:

I'm trying to get back from YVR to IAD, so I feel your pain. That canceled flight killed me too. Everything else is sold out now.

User currently offlineIncitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3964 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5970 times:



Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 5):
I'm both a pilot (not commercial) and a very experienced traveler - 1K multiple times - so I'm very familiar with flows and cascades when weather happens.

So it should come as no surprise that flight cancels have to balance out. Most often, if A->B is canceled, the airline has to cancel one B->A or cancel multiple flights that form a closed loop. Probably United decided to cancel the return YVR-DEN before it looked at the outbound DEN-YVR. Then they decided to whack out the round-trip. If both flights had light loads, that would be a prime candidate for cancelation impacting the fewest number of customers.


User currently offlineRcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5950 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 19):
...your wifes initial flight to go as scheduled and UA cancel the later flight as there was nothing in the forecasts that suggested the weather would be any better for the later flight and in fact it most likely would have been worse.

Depends on the load I guess. If there were 200 on the 1st, and 20 on the second, then get the first one out while you can (which is effectively what I did). Then if the weather stops the 2nd, you only hurt 20. If reversed, then you are flying a plane for 20, and stranding 200 - so preemptively canceling the 2nd would mean overnights for all.

Quoting Jbernie (Reply 19):
'm trying to get back from YVR to IAD, so I feel your pain. That canceled flight killed me too. Everything else is sold out now.

Yeah - I saw that the companion YVR-DEN was canceled too (reason weather in Denver - again????? - at 10am weather in DEN was not that bad). Could it be the YVR-DEN ship was also the DEN-YVR, and was MX - and weather let them cancel w/o responsibility to put people up?

My yardstick is now at the 29" mark (not drifted, just accumulation.)



rcair1
User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1436 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5849 times:



Quoting Rcair1 (Reply 9):
And frankly, if it was 1), they probably are forced to lie because some inconvenienced passenger would call their congress critter and lawyer

UA did not lie to anyone. The flight was canceled due to the IROPS that was planned for the snow event. You are making some serious baseless claims. You personally seem to be able to determine whether or not a flight is profitable based whether it is canceled during a snow event. That is some good info you have

Also, the passengers calling their congressman idea is brilliant. The airline is the operator of the airplanes. It is their choice in what they operate and what they don't. If your flight is canceled you are protected as a passenger by laws regarding air travel. You have ASSUMED you were lied to but have absolutely NO proof to back up that theory.


User currently offlineRcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5637 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT



Quoting Mcdu (Reply 23):
The flight was canceled due to the IROPS that was planned for the snow event. You are making some serious baseless claims.

Good Lord man - lighten up. Apparently you were one of the folks I talked to at UA on the phone yesterday, because you clearly know everything that happened. Oh wait... They were all polite, helpful and accommodating despite being slammed due to the weather - so I doubt it. I'm not making a claims, I proposed a hypothesis. There has been good info regarding that- and maybe some people learned thing or two. You are certainly a lot more hot and bothered about it that me (or anybody else here).

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 23):
Also, the passengers calling their congressman idea is brilliant.

Today people call their congressmen about the most inane and stupid things. All to often the congressmen respond..



rcair1
25 Flyinryan99 : As others have said, where was that plane supposed to go downline? It may have been able to do YVR-DEN that morning but they didn't want that plane s
26 Rcair1 : Ah - I get it. I see from your previous posts that you work for United - and I think you are a pilot. If we'd gotten off on a better footing - I'd as
27 Mayor : I can remember, several years ago, when I worked at SLC, that DL pre-cancelled a large number of flights, inbound and outbound at SLC, because of a se
28 Mcdu : You made an allegation that UAL lied. If I accused your company of lying when it was not the case would you be defensive? Sorry your wife's flight wa
29 Post contains images Rcair1 : Been there (exactly - accused by technical reporter at a press conference that my company was lying...) - so I can understand. It is very difficult s
30 Moek2000 : One thing i've always been suspicious of and feel like the airlines use to their advantage, is by using the weather card anytime they can. Some friend
31 A318 : Am I the only one who thinks a big deal is being made over something so minor? Her flight was canceled because there was a massive snow storm on the r
32 UA772IAD : As you may know, weather related issues do not always occur at the destiation, but often enroute. Flow and traffic directed by control centers enrout
33 Iairallie : I wrote my thesis on delays. Rcair1- Preemptive cancellations are one way to mitigate the impact of a weather event. Instead of taking several days f
34 MSYPI7185 : Not necessarily. When we would cancel flights in advance due to weather the following day we would then reposition flights. We would not run the norm
35 Rcair1 : Thanks to the many posts - but mostly to these two - I think the answer is clear UA did not . Weather was a factor - but the larger weather and load p
36 Soxfan : It's a fact that UA is not alone in deciding to preemptively cancel flights due to weather. It's happened to me multiple times on other airlines. Also
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did UAL Retire This 757 Due To Scary Association? posted Tue Dec 25 2001 16:42:07 by MEA-707
Any F/As Apply To UAL..what Did You Get/ posted Sun Nov 13 2005 09:26:31 by N587NK
Since When Did AA Use 737-800s To Las Vegas? posted Sat Sep 13 2008 21:15:28 by LASOctoberB6
Why Did BA Opt For The Trent895 As Opposed To 892? posted Sun Aug 12 2007 01:26:17 by EA772LR
Emirates To Use Hamburg As Hub posted Sun Mar 4 2007 14:53:08 by LHStarAlliance
Airbus To Use Cork As Future Insulation Material. posted Mon Jan 22 2007 18:47:22 by WINGS
What Equipment Did JAT Use To YYZ In 81? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 17:03:37 by Duke
JetBlue To Use BOS As 4th Home Base posted Fri Mar 24 2006 14:54:01 by Cpos
UAL Likely To Cancel Pension Plans posted Sat Jul 24 2004 00:19:42 by Speedport
Glass Cockpits? What Did They Use To Use? posted Wed Nov 7 2001 01:52:45 by 174thfwff