Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NWADTWE16
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:12 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:49 am

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....
I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list!
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15001
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:55 am

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.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
kl692
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:34 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:49 am

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.
A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
 
shaq
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:22 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:22 am

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..
Studying hard, for flying right!
 
abrelosojos
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:02 am

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.
Live, and let live.
 
abrelosojos
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:05 am

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.
Live, and let live.
 
abrelosojos
Posts: 4323
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:48 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:10 am

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.
Live, and let live.
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:38 am

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.
 
tennis69
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:00 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:28 am

There are many worse places to be stuck for 3 days than Shang Hai. I wish I was on that flight!!
 
azstagecoach
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:55 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:19 am

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?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:34 am

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
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:46 am

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!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:02 am

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15619
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:33 am

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.
 
kl692
Posts: 636
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:34 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:37 am

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
A310, A330,A346,B73H, B747,B772,B77W,CRJ
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:57 am

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:27 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:35 pm

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.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
GALLEYSTEW
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:25 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:54 pm

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.
All Posts are my opinions only.
 
GALLEYSTEW
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:25 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:58 pm

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
All Posts are my opinions only.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:23 pm

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!.
 
BHMNONREV
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:17 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:05 pm

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..
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:15 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:23 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
spink
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:24 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:10 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
eaglepower83
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:54 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:10 pm

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.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:59 pm

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??
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:01 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:08 pm

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.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5106
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:17 pm

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..
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:36 pm

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!
 
tymnbalewne
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:06 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:41 pm

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?
Dewmanair...begins with Dew
 
eaglepower83
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:54 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:55 pm

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.
 
User avatar
flashmeister
Posts: 2686
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 4:32 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:39 pm

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.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:17 pm

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.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:17 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
tymnbalewne
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:06 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:07 pm

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.
Dewmanair...begins with Dew
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15001
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:16 pm

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.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:19 pm

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.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
max999
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:05 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:00 pm

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]
All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
 
tymnbalewne
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:06 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:09 pm

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!)
Dewmanair...begins with Dew
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:08 pm

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?
 
tymnbalewne
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:06 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:20 pm

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?
Dewmanair...begins with Dew
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:40 pm

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]
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
tymnbalewne
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:06 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:44 pm

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.
Dewmanair...begins with Dew
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5839
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:09 am

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.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10664
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:33 am

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.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:47 am

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.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15001
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: United Passengers Stuck In Shanghai For 3 Days

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:34 am

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.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos