Quoting United1 (Reply 98): I'm not arguing with you but genuinely curious....can you source that. Here is what I could find in DLs IDB protocol from their domestic CoC.

Our denied boarding SOP.

Quoting United1 (Reply 98): "4) Special Needs Passengers Because of the special needs of passengers with disabilities, unaccompanied children, and aged or infirm passengers, and active members of the U.S. Armed Forces on travel orders, Delta reserves the right to accommodate such passengers without regard to the boarding priorities established by this provision. " Doesn't say that they WONT bump them from the flight it simply gives them an out to not follow the procedure that they outlined in their CoC. Which basically ranks passengers according to FF level and when/where/if they checked in.

This is legal stuff is all I can say. Wording must be right "reserve the right" meaning they can; not that they have to. That's what you're saying right?

All I can say is that in reality, the lawyers aren't the ones on the front-line. That means, no one's looking at the CoC. They're looking at the internal SOP which states in nicer words, "you will not invol these people".

Here's what it says before the list

Quote: Exception - Customers Exempt From Involuntary Denied Boarding

and after

Quote: The "exempt" customers will be accommodated before other customers holding tickets in coach. Deny boarding to another coach class customer to accommodate a customer listed on the above exempt list using the (removed) entry – this will display a list of passengers in reverse order of check-in. Please do all possible to avoid involuntarily denying boarding to passengers impacted by an IROP earlier in the day. The remaining customers will be accommodated in the order they checked in from the HK list. Should it become necessary to deny boarding involuntarily, after all HVC/other exempt customers have been accommodated, boarding shall be denied to customers without a seat assignment.

[Edited 2013-12-07 20:53:56]

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 100): Our denied boarding SOP.

Thanks for explaining...customer service standards can be higher than the minimums stated in the CoC as long as it follows the policy written in the CoC. That paragraph I quoted gives them the option to do that....UA doesn't have that particular clause written into their CoC...and legally they are bound to follow it whats written. Perhaps things will change...

I checked VX and B6...a couple of the more "progressive" airlines.. VX has virtually an identical clause as DL while B6 is flat out based on time of check in.

Interesting....guess things have changed a bit since I looked into IDB a few years ago.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 91): Quote: "Shatz says an agent told him only two customers were pulled from the flight -- and the only other person he saw was a disabled man in a wheelchair."

And yet UA says there were over 40 people impacted in that manner. I'm inclined to believe the airline.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 91): A.netters defending that a 90 year old person is thrown of a flight and you call me trolling.

Hey, if the shoe fits...   

This reminds me of a UA situation I had back in the 80's.

I was on a UA flight IAH-SFO and after everyone was loaded the F/A came on and said that due to weight restrictions they will need 10 people to get off the aircraft and take a later flight. So the announcement went "If any of you are willing to volunteer please come to the front of the aircraft. Nobody came.

Then after a few more pleading announcements the announcement said "We will put you on the next flight in First Class and a free ticket anywhere UA flies in the Continental US. Two people came up.

Then after a few more announcements they still couldn't get anyone else to volunteer. So they made this announcement.
"We are now willing to offer you a free ticket today AND a free RT ticket anywhere UA flies INCLUDING Hawaii". I swear almost half the people on the airplane rushed the front.

Everyone was waiting for the rewards. It was funny.

Quoting jetdeltamsy (Reply 81): You never bump revenue before non-revs. Never ever.

I am sure award ticket non-revs are bumped after staff non-revs, they do hold confirmed seats, but I am sure they are bumped before lowest fares?

Quoting jayunited (Reply 90):

well, the Facebook page is filled with people who read a caption on a website or a tweet and immediately make a post with no facts. My only comment is, engaging at the ticket counter will be more productive and forward thinking than saying, check-in all 154 and then handle at the gate at departure time. That is a recipe for disaster for 5 or 6 people let alone 41.

Quoting malaysia (Reply 104):

award ticket non-revs?

Quoting copter808 (Reply 88):

no one seems to bother that 81 held seats on yesterdays ORD-HNL 777. So, as you point out, even the big boy's have their weight restrictions. Not limited to the 737's as most tend to pick on.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 82):

flight numbers change, but there are still two 738's on the route today.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 4): Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he didn't deserve to get there on time and with all honors, but the moment United, or any airline, starts deciding someone's reason to fly is more valid than someone else's, it becomes a slippery slope with no bottom, and a logistical nightmare to boot!

   Agree completely.

Quoting cschleic (Reply 106): Quoting blueflyer (Reply 4): Don't get me wrong, I am not saying he didn't deserve to get there on time and with all honors, but the moment United, or any airline, starts deciding someone's reason to fly is more valid than someone else's, it becomes a slippery slope with no bottom, and a logistical nightmare to boot! Agree completely.

That is factually wrong, United boots the aged and infirm, Delta does not according to FlyASAGuy2005 reply 95.

So now I know what airline to chose if I book for a aged relative.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 107): That is factually wrong

What is factually wrong is you are again trying to make a point out of the wrong quote. I never claimed United doesn't boot the aged or the infirm. I stated IDBs should never be based on one's reason for flying, in which age plays very little if no role.

I frankly don't care whether United chooses to include 90-year old passengers in their IDB eligible pool or not. As far as the infirm, if they need special accommodation onboard the aircraft or if they have already boarded, they should not be IDB'ed whenever possible. If neither is true, then they can be IDB'ed as well as any other passenger, in my opinion.

And before you accuse me of being an uncaring monster again as you did on a previous thread, let me add I take most of my leisure flights with a companion who does need a wheelchair for all but the shortest distances, we have generally received excellent care from every airlines we have flown with, but when the proverbial excrement hits the dust mover, we don't consider ourselves special. We have been IDB'ed several times, sometimes to our advantage, usually not. Whenever it happens, we deal with it, we don't cry because someone else ought to have been picked.

Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 82): Looking at flightaware, United is now using a Boeing 757-300 at least temporarily on flight 1226.

Just checked the next few days, it is still a 737-800 scheduled everyday on 1226. UA641 is a 777 and UA 1228 is a 757, sure you are not getting them mixed up ?,........

Quoting windy95 (Reply 84): It appears as if no one has read the facts on your posts and continue with the lines they are saying. Even after several of your posts they continue with the winds and wrong aircraft for the flight attacks. This is why I stay out of the aviation threads because there are many who know nothing but try to be experts.

No weather, wasn't even a 737-900ER but they know it all.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 85): And here's mjoelnir for his usual trolling of any post related to people with disabilities. Why do you always assume that if an inconvenience occurred to someone with a disability, it was based on malevolent intent by the airline?

Funny it was a computer program that picked the passengers, wonder if he can comprehend that fact.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 89): Caltech - obviously a post of defend airlines at all cost. It was a flight approved by United (listed both where we bought it and on the United site.

Not at all, but you seem to think your party of 3 was more important than the other up to 47 or more passengers. Many people do not think that way. There is always the rest of the story and was just trying to point that out. You 3 would have been happy, but the rest of the plane would have been upset about the delay.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 89): If an airline can't let you make the transfer when you arrive on time, they shouldn't book it. They could have booked us for the next flight with guaranteed seats, and the option of switching to the earlier flight if time allowed, and seats available. It was from Denver to Rapid City, I doubt that 5 or 10 minutes makes that much difference. I would not have booked the flight, 30 minutes landing to the next flight is not enough time, United evidently does not know that. A friend booked the flight, he knows better now. United customer service stinks. I knew that but it was all that was available, I do not fly them unless there are no alternatives.

5 or 10 minutes makes all the difference in the world. Gate get their numbers all finalized then you guys show up, then the Captain has to agree to allow you on. Have seen Captains deny boarding even though there was time to get the few more passengers on board, have also seen Captains who would take the delay to fill every seat and leave no one behind. And this on multiple airlines, Delta, Southwest included.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 102): And yet UA says there were over 40 people impacted in that manner. I'm inclined to believe the airline.

Sensationalism. With you, believe the airline version in this. 6000Lbs was kept off this flight to HNL.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 103): Then after a few more announcements they still couldn't get anyone else to volunteer. So they made this announcement. "We are now willing to offer you a free ticket today AND a free RT ticket anywhere UA flies INCLUDING Hawaii". I swear almost half the people on the airplane rushed the front. Everyone was waiting for the rewards. It was funny.

There you go, remember people used to book around Thanksgiving and Christmas then with no intent to board just wait for the compensation rewards due to the flights being overbooked. Some people really made out. It was a racket.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 105): well, the Facebook page is filled with people who read a caption on a website or a tweet and immediately make a post with no facts

There is always more with 'The rest of the story,...."

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 105): no one seems to bother that 81 held seats on yesterdays ORD-HNL 777. So, as you point out, even the big boy's have their weight restrictions. Not limited to the 737's as most tend to pick on.

  Spot on.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 105): flight numbers change, but there are still two 738's on the route today.

  Checking the schedule, it is a 737-800 for the next few days. The mechanical problem is what started it all, not weather.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 107): That is factually wrong, United boots the aged and infirm, Delta does not according to FlyASAGuy2005 reply 95.

Please show where it states anywhere that United 'boots the aged and infirm" ? Read the COC, and it does not say that anywhere. Bovine excrement is getting deep.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 108): Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 107): That is factually wrong What is factually wrong is you are again trying to make a point out of the wrong quote. I never claimed United doesn't boot the aged or the infirm. I stated IDBs should never be based on one's reason for flying, in which age plays very little if no role. I frankly don't care whether United chooses to include 90-year old passengers in their IDB eligible pool or not. As far as the infirm, if they need special accommodation onboard the aircraft or if they have already boarded, they should not be IDB'ed whenever possible. If neither is true, then they can be IDB'ed as well as any other passenger, in my opinion. And before you accuse me of being an uncaring monster again as you did on a previous thread, let me add I take most of my leisure flights with a companion who does need a wheelchair for all but the shortest distances, we have generally received excellent care from every airlines we have flown with, but when the proverbial excrement hits the dust mover, we don't consider ourselves special. We have been IDB'ed several times, sometimes to our advantage, usually not. Whenever it happens, we deal with it, we don't cry because someone else ought to have been picked.

I care, and I do not like all this stuff about the airline is always right.
I do not thing you are a monster, but that will not keep me from thinking it highly uncaring to deny a 90 year old from boarding. If the excrement hits the fan it is a different case, we are talking about how a airline chose who to kick off.
And if somebody would have rerouted me, 62 years old, it happens, if somebody would reroute my parents 93 and 91 years without dire need, after I would have taken care to put them on a direct flight I would be angry.
The airlines they are flying do not have the police to boot the elderly before others.

The case you are talking about is a completely different case your friend is not travelling alone. And anyway, I thought every airline had a policy to not boot a guy in a wheelchair, do you tell me United does that too?

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 11): You are right, this is getting really old. It's common sense, if you don't have a replacement for the plane, simply don't retire it!

Right, which is why you obviously have no facts about what happens or not, because common sense says that a business of a hundred thousand people with billions in dollars of revenues likely KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU HOW TO RUN ITSELF.

Jesus.

NS

Strange, 5-10 minutes never seems to make all the difference in the world on most of the flights I have been on.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 112): Strange, 5-10 minutes never seems to make all the difference in the world on most of the flights I have been on.

Puddle jumpers migght be like that. 5-10 minutes is all the difference for a on-time bonus check. Been on many flights that left the gate 5-10 minutes late, and then were hit with a ground stop. Strange.

The 757's United is retiring are already SOLD!! None of them area going to the Desert
The airplanes are beig replaced by 737-900ER's , If you want OTHER airplanes on the route you'll just have to schedule other flights becauuse ther ARE larger airplanes to hawaii. This was 1 flight..
The flight Went! Because some had to be rebooked does NOT mean United doesn't care!
It means we have to run a business. and sometimes. STUFF Happens!! We're NOT going to just pull planes Willy Nilly Just so you can feel GOOD! That's not how it works. You want the 757's well they've been sold to FEDEX.
We have an obligation to deliver them and we will Deliver them and in the mean time we're going to FLY what we HAVE to Hawaii!
This isn't Continental management, Or United Management. This is just Business, If you can't grasp that ??
Then you need to not make comments because you Don't know what you're talking about. The guys in the NOC work their BUTTS off and make decisions in an hour that affect THOUSANDS of passengers over the day, since we fly 300K+ per day. Every decision is weighed and prioritized. and second guessed by any NUMBER of people.
I don't work in that field but I affect their work when I'm forced to take an airplane out of service, and I have to make that decision based on whether the airplane is SAFE in my eyes to fly it's Scheduled mission,
The 737 Maint. Controllers are tasked the same as I am. We have to weigh the Crews and Passenger's safety in our decisions with sometimes?? "What IF??" Sometimes? It inconvieniences passengers. and We understand that.
My take on it? I'm paid to make sure you get where you're going SAFELY. Whether you get there on TIME??
when Weighed against safety?? Frankly is of NO Concern TO me.
You'll either get there on United or one of our fine competitors. But Keep one theing in mind.
There's some Guy or Gal There doing EXACTLY what I'm doing. And their oversight is the FAA just like mine is.
I'm not worried or afraid of ANY managment at United. But I'm DEATHLY afraid of incurring the wrath of the FAA!!
So if an airplane is Broke? Chalk it up to "Stuff Happens" and be happy that SOMEBODY Does CARE about your Safety.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 57): Because the site also lists aircraft acquired as well as retired, sold, scrapped, stored and sent to other operators. It gives a running total of the active fleet of each airline broken down by type. According to the site UA did not add two aircraft last week so they had a net loss of two and that's what I based my comment on.

Name an airlines that retires an aircraft as it takes one in. This is a stupid comment.

The 757 that was retired, was it even capable of the flight? Was it an ETOPS bird?

There seem to be some folks in addition to being arm chair CEOs to also be folks who assume the sUA 757s could simply be swapped into this route.

You know what they say about assuming...

I'll step up and say that I "assumed" (based on an earlier post in this thread), that this flight was flown by a "Guppy" -900ER. WRONG. It was flown by an -800 which has a better range profile.

Folks may prefer an a/c such as the 767 to run this route. Others would prefer a 777 or 757. However UA has decided not just on this route but on many routes that they want frequency and they will often slot in an a/c that is smaller and likely working out towards its max operating range. Why? Lower costs and higher yields=more money. More flights but smaller a/c means capacity stays relatively flat.

HA runs widebodies, AS flies the -800 for the most part as well. Toss in DL and AA as well in some markets. UA decided that they will kick folks off/deny boarding in order to run the smaller planes because they decided its better than chancing losing money on that flight over the year with a larger and/or longer ranged a/c.

Smart folks will chose their flight based on not just price but schedule and for folks here, equipment. In the winter especially, folks CHOSING to fly a 738 or 739ER on some segments will be at risk of IDB.

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 52): It's all good. They re-accommodated him on arguably the best airline flying to HNL

I think you misunderstood; he was put on AA to Hawaii.

Quoting United1 (Reply 50): DL

Not for a while. part of the reason the 757-200 fleet will be staying around 75 is for a handful of ETOPS 757s for Hawaii flying.

Quoting United1 (Reply 50): worth it to keep a handful of PW 752s around

Are they not keeping the PW2000 PS birds around?

keeping a handful of the younger ETOPS planes around for Hawaii wouldn't be that big of a deal.


and if the airplane had issues with LAX-HNL.....how in the world can it fly DEN-HNL? 41 PAX at LAX......would the DEN flights have even been able to carry anyone?

Saw something interesting on FT....he's flying hom

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 118): Are they not keeping the PW2000 PS birds around? keeping a handful of the younger ETOPS planes around for Hawaii wouldn't be that big of a deal.

They are indeed keeping 15 of the PW powered 752s for P.S. however most of the younger ETOPS planes are part of that fleet. They have other aircraft that can fly the Hawaii missions without having to hold onto another subfleet of 752s. UA just finished putting ETOPS onto all of their 753s and you will see those deployed from domestic routes to GUM and HNL.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 118): and if the airplane had issues with LAX-HNL.....how in the world can it fly DEN-HNL? 41 PAX at LAX......would the DEN flights have even been able to carry anyone?

They won't be using the 737 on HNL to DEN runs...probably keep flying it with a 777/763 year round or worst case use a RR powered 752 on the route.

Quoting United1 (Reply 119): They won't be using the 737 on HNL to DEN runs...probably keep flying it with a 777/763 year round or worst case use a RR powered 752 on the route.

I show 2x 737(mix of 800s and 900ERs) 1x 753 1x 777 on the route now........

Quoting United1 (Reply 119): They have other aircraft that can fly the Hawaii missions without having to hold onto another subfleet of 752s

maybe, maybe not. I'm just saying its not like it would be some huge cost disadvantage. I imagine that at least SFO or LAX will have 757 crew based there, and could be rotated to DEN. A small fleet of younger aircraft could have been kept around for Hawaii.

UA has plenty of government PW2000 work to be able to justify and handful of extra 757s. (and it would reduce the cost of having only the 15 in the PS fleet)


Having said that, I do understand what UA is doing, but my question is the winds are always rough in the winter.....how many times has this happened and will it happen in the future?

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 120): Quoting United1 (Reply 119): They won't be using the 737 on HNL to DEN runs...probably keep flying it with a 777/763 year round or worst case use a RR powered 752 on the route. I show 2x 737(mix of 800s and 900ERs) 1x 753 1x 777 on the route now........

Not sure where you are looking but they don't send the 737 DEN-HNL it doesn't have the range with any usable payload....its a 752s all week.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 120): I'm just saying its not like it would be some huge cost disadvantage. I imagine that at least SFO or LAX will have 757 crew based there, and could be rotated to DEN. A small fleet of younger aircraft could have been kept around for Hawaii.

It works out to be around $2+ million a frame cheaper to operate/own the 739ER vs the 752. Say they need 20 aircraft that works out to $40+ million a year...I don't have the IDB data to run the numbers but I bet it works out to be cheaper to reroute those few flights that take weight restrictions then it is to keep the 752s around.

I know UA probably met its COC requirements (after all, the airlines' legal departments write these things so the airline can hardly ever e found at fault for anything)... I know they probably didn't initially know the reason the bumped passengers were flying to Hawaii... and I know they handled this just like they would any other similar situation.

So... why is it that UA always seems to get the bad press? Are they really operating with that much disregard for their passengers - or is their PR department woefully deficient in heading-off these reports? From viral videos of broken-guitar-flights, to laughable incidents of a passenger getting locked in a plane at the end of the night, to a bad rap for bumping a 90-year old WWII veteran... what are they doing?

Did the whole PR department get fired after the merger? Who's in charge here?

Quoting United1 (Reply 121): It works out to be around $2+ million a frame cheaper to operate/own the 739ER vs the 752. Say they need 20 aircraft that works out to $40+ million a year...I don't have the IDB data to run the numbers but I bet it works out to be cheaper to reroute those few flights that take weight restrictions then it is to keep the 752s around.

I'm sorry, and I know UA keeps tossing that number around, but I simply don't believe it.
I just don't see Delta taking a 150M a year loss, when they could park a lot more 757s than they are planning.......and putting new cabins in all of them (and those cabins won't be cheap. AVOD mods are something that take years to get the ROI)
Its not like Delta has a ton of routes that need the 757.....compared to United.
I have a feeling UA's management is stretching the truth or something. (nothing against you)

Quoting United1 (Reply 121): Not sure where you are looking but they don't send the 737 DEN-HNL it doesn't have the range with any usable payload....its a 752s all week.

*A timetable....

but United.com shows the 752......so i have no clue wtf is going on. More IT issues for UAL i guess?

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 123): I have a feeling UA's management is stretching the truth or something. (nothing against you)

Clearly they are biting off more then they can chew by attempting to retire over 80 757 in the next 2 years. Many routes warrant 757 cargo and passenger capacity including California to Hawaii, EWR-LAX/SFO, BOS-SFO, ORD-LAX/SFO, IAD-SFO/LAX, DEN-HNL (and this is all at the minimum. UA has shown over the last 5 years that 757 can operate profitably on short sectors as well.) They have even seem to found a consistent place on routes like EWR-PBI and EWR-TPA. If you notice quite a few legacy UA mainline routes over the last few years have more E145 frequency (bad) like OMA-DEN and IAD-BOS. At this point there is really nothing good about keeping a massive E145 fleet around for a BS scope clause, as opposed to keeping around a more dedicated subfleet of 757 besides the PS ones.

So I agree -- 41 RR 757 and 15 PS sUA 757 to keep around isn't good enough. Especially when more than half of the RR 757 fleet is needed over at EWR on TATL routes (they still haven't figured out that problem either, with all the recent fuel stops but another thread for that.) And supposedly some of the 753 are headed to Guam, which makes the issue worse.

From a pax perspective, the new 739 are horrible. These new frames are coming online with no IFE of any kind and according to FT, DTV installations have been suspended. These aircraft are commonly on transcons, like EWR-SFO.

DL seems to have it right. Reconfigure around 70ish modern 757 with a heavy Y configuration and scaled back F. I think we all know by now that CO management at UA just isn't very creative anymore. The mentality seems to be bare bones 739ER, do or die.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 107): That is factually wrong, United boots the aged and infirm, Delta does not according to FlyASAGuy2005 reply 95.

Do you have the facts for that? Do you have a source? I´m not the source police at all, and I kind of don´t like it when someone asks me that, but what you are stating is very, very serious.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 109): Please show where it states anywhere that United 'boots the aged and infirm" ? Read the COC, and it does not say that anywhere. Bovine excrement is getting deep.

Exactly. Please show us.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 123): I have a feeling UA's management is stretching the truth or something. (nothing against you)

I don´t think they can, being a public company and all. Probably different assumptions and methods for valuation.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 125): I don´t think they can, being a public company and all. Probably different assumptions and methods for valuation.

ehhhh accountants and all I guess?

or maybe UA has that big of a cost disadvantage on the 757 compared to DL? I just can't see both airlines having the type and one going along with 150M a year in losses to keep a fleet around when they could replace them. (or the bulk of them like UA)

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 124): Clearly they are biting off more then they can chew by attempting to retire over 80 757 in the next 2 years.

I don't see that. It's not rocket science......739 comes in, 752 goes out. If they truly save the company 2M per airplane United would be foolish to keep them around. (outside of places like TATL where they have to have them.)

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 124): BOS-SFO,

BOS-SFO/LAX are probably the only routes that need the range of the 757. (outside of Hawaii)
Even then they could just as easily use the 738 on the route and bump up frequency.

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 124): (they still haven't figured out that problem either, with all the recent fuel stops but another thread for that.)

I'll be happy to explain this now.....want to see UA outsource its TATL flying like they did before the merger and like Delta is trying to do now? complain about the issues with the 757. Europe's economy is crap and the US economy isn't much better. Most of UA's 757 routes wouldn't be profitable on something larger in the best of times......much less now. (ex EWR-LIS or OSL or some of the small cities in the UK)

No 757, no flight. Look at what Delta had with the 757s that are now mostly flying T-cons......the vast majority of it is gone. (or in some cases like CPH has caused them to cut an ATL flight to save the JFK flight)

Quoting AR385 (Reply 125): Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 123): I have a feeling UA's management is stretching the truth or something. (nothing against you) I don´t think they can, being a public company and all. Probably different assumptions and methods for valuation.

...the dollar amount is filed in their SEC filings....it's an accurate number at least as far as accounting rules go.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 123): Quoting United1 (Reply 121): Not sure where you are looking but they don't send the 737 DEN-HNL it doesn't have the range with any usable payload....its a 752s all week. *A timetable.... but United.com shows the 752......so i have no clue wtf is going on. More IT issues for UAL i guess?

I'm not sure what you are looking at but per the Star Alliance timetable...its flown a single daily 752.

UAL.com, the pdf UA timetable, Star Alliance online and pdf, flightaware and flight stats all show the same thing.

On UA DEN-HNL is a single daily 752 and has never been flown by a 737...full stop.

Quoting United1 (Reply 101):

Thank you for your explanation and as a employee myself your explanations make sense and are correct. But I have a question if this situation arises again what will UA do differently in order to avoid the negative publicity and negative press UA received when this story went viral? When customers are saying never again will I ever fly United Airlines someone should listen and at he very least ask the these very basic questions first is why? The second is what could we have done better? A buddy of mine told me today (and this analogy is comparing apples to oranges) United is kind of like Boeings 787, no body cares that Boeing has more than 50 of these jets in the air flying people around the world safely but let an indicator light come on in the flight deck or have a 787 make an emergency landing and it immediately becomes news around the world despite the fact that hundreds of other aircraft had indicator light come on and/or made emergency landings as well. The same is true of UA no one cares that UA is flying hundreds of thousands of passengers every day but let 41 passengers get bumped off one flight and social media explodes and it makes news headlines from coast to coast. And the reason is United's image and brand has been tarnished meaning United has to work harder and go the extra mile because negative press is not good when your brand is already tarnished.

Having your customers say on the news they will never fly United again has more of an impact on people than a poster saying "Fly the Friendly Skies" ever will. What I believe all United employees need to understand our daily actions speak louder than any Fly the Friendly Skies" campaign ever will. Yes I will concede that United followed the rules but just because we followed the rules doesn't mean we couldn't have done things better. Sometimes going the extra mile won't get you publicity but there are times when no news is good news. As a company we can not continue to have our name and our brand in the news or in social media with our customers sharing their negativity experiences it makes the "Friendly Skies" campaign look like a joke.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 122): So... why is it that UA always seems to get the bad press? Are they really operating with that much disregard for their passengers - or is their PR department woefully deficient in heading-off these reports? From viral videos of broken-guitar-flights, to laughable incidents of a passenger getting locked in a plane at the end of the night, to a bad rap for bumping a 90-year old WWII veteran... what are they doing? Did the whole PR department get fired after the merger? Who's in charge here?

   My point exactly this bad press has to stop and it is up to UA and the employees to put an end to this.

For me the news in this story is how on earth an airline can schedule an aircraft type for a specific route that can result in having to bump off 40+ out of 150 passengers?

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 129): For me the news in this story is how on earth an airline can schedule an aircraft type for a specific route that can result in having to bump off 40+ out of 150 passengers?

Because a vast majority of the time, they don't need to bump off anyone...

All airlines flying from the West Coast to Hawaii in the winter deal with stronger winds which can cause airlines to bump off cargo and/or passengers. This case was only unusual for two reasons: 1) the number of folks who had to be bumped and 2) the Pearl Harbor vet who was bumped and the resulting furor which resulted.

UA can certainly do better than this from a P.R perspective alone. Unfortunately, they were caught out and HA took advantage of it.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 128): But I have a question if this situation arises again what will UA do differently in order to avoid the negative publicity and negative press UA received when this story went viral? When customers are saying never again will I ever fly United Airlines someone should listen and at he very least ask the these very basic questions first is why? The second is what could we have done better?

There stories and statements have very short lifespan. In this day and age of social media customer facing employees have to little bit more careful, use common sense and compassion, because they may be the scapegoats(even if they acted by the book) if the story spins out of control. Granted there are unions to represent after the fact. A computer may see this passenger as a single male(I am guessing that is one of the criteria, along with several others) , who is a perfect pick for IDB, only a human can find another single male.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 130): Because a vast majority of the time, they don't need to bump off anyone...

I would agree if we are talking about the risk of having to off-load 5 or 10 people. But one has to question the wisdom of scheduling an aircraft type that can result in having to bump of more than 25 per cent of a full passenger load depending on the weather situation. To me, it shows that the aircraft type is really used on the fringes of its capabilities. You could accept such a risk on a regular transcon on which flights can depart with a full load and be refueled en route. But Hawaii is different of course...

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 132):

but even refueling half way isnt the best option, and often is done. usually take the IDB at origin.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 116): There seem to be some folks in addition to being arm chair CEOs to also be folks who assume the sUA 757s could simply be swapped into this route.

That's very true. the majority if the 757's are 54XX nose numbers, they are Not ETOPS capable though with some mods they could be. the 53xx are PS airplanes the rest of the -222's are ETOPS or overwater capable. I have NO idea about the 224's or the 324's I haven't worked with those airplanes at all as we're not fully integrated as of yet.
Downsizing any trip is not taken lightly because of the Ramifications. (with all of this noise? It might have been better to CANCEL the trip altogether and re-route the original airplane ater it was repaired,, though I KNOW that's not the "Continental way" )
The trouble with A.netters is they have mostly NO idea what the situation WAS NOR what the availability WAS either.
If the replacement airplane Isn't at the station where the original bird went out of service?? You're going to use what's available.
I would also venture to say that this one isolated incident was "sensationalized" by somebody NOT in the airline industry,
with little to NO knowledge of the logistics involved WITH an AXE to grind.
Now I will bet GOOD money there will be a lot who protest. But we fly 300,000 people Daily so We MUST be doing something right and all of these Armchair Airline CEO's Probably couldn't have solved the problem ANY better than it WAS handled !!
I'd like to know where THEY work and what THEY produce if anything on a daily basis. I'm Sure the airline business is TOO operationally complex for them looking at thise comments.
And having a Degree doesn't mean actual Production!! So there's no NEED in anyone extolling their academic record.
I have my degree as well, and it isn't any "BIG deal". I'm STILL working for a living..
I know of college professors in Aviation we didn't hire because they didn't KNOW anything.
One of them was an instructor of mine in College.
Thought he should have been hired as a DIRECTOR of maintenance with NO actual airline or commercial aviation experience for that matter. Didn't even have Military time !!
Had I not already had my Licenses? I might NOT have gotten them had he a say in it.. Lucky for HIM??
I was there for the credits toward my Degree and NOT for his "outlook" on the industry, as the majority of what he professed wasn't factual in daily operations. Just as a LOT of what is said HERE wouldn't hold water in actual operations.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 129): For me the news in this story is how on earth an airline can schedule an aircraft type for a specific route that can result in having to bump off 40+ out of 150 passengers?

Because sometimes the conditions change and airlines have to use what hey have. WN does the same thing at EYW, when it is raining at EYW they have to bump about 40 pax before departing foe EYW. That is the major reason why WN is pulling out of EYW, and people are complaining about that decision.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110): the airline is always right.

The airline isn't always right, I strongly dislike the very concept of overbooking (if a non-refundable fare is paid, the seat is owed), scheduling hub operations as if every single day is wind-less clear blue sky or frequent flier perks so hard to attain as to amount to deceptive advertising. However when an airline has in place a procedure to select passengers to be bumped, it is right that this procedure be followed and it would be totally unacceptable that United deviate based on the purpose of travel, as others, not you, have argued. I'd have no problem if a 90-year old passenger is exempt from IDB per company policy based on age, as Delta does, but I would not accept that an airline gets to make a judgement call based on someone's reason for flying. It is profoundly unfair, none of their business, and frankly impossible to implement fairly unless each and every single passenger is interviewed at the gate for the purpose of their travel.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110): I thought every airline had a policy to not boot a guy in a wheelchair, do you tell me United does that too?

We've been IDB'ed on United and other airlines before boarding. The few times (1 each on CO, LH and UA) we were IDB'ed after boarding turned out to be to our advantage because someone had noticed we would not make our connection and made alternative arrangements instead of us being stranded in a hub.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 128): When customers are saying never again will I ever fly United Airlines

Most of the times, they forget to add "...until United is the cheapest by a penny then I'll jump on board!" Besides, other than a.net, who is talking about this still? The vet and his comrades, probably, but they're most likely the once-a-year flier type with little to no brand loyalty.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 132): I would agree if we are talking about the risk of having to off-load 5 or 10 people. But one has to question the wisdom of scheduling an aircraft type that can result in having to bump of more than 25 per cent of a full passenger load depending on the weather situation.

For one thing, it wasn't due to the weather. It was due to APU malfunction that required using bleed air from one of the engines, which in turn reduced MTOW.

For another, would it be wiser to schedule a bigger plane that would not have to bump passengers ever but that would go out with 50 empty seats on most flights?

In the end, United is a profit-seeking business. If offloading a third of the plane once or twice a year is cheaper than running a bigger plane that will fly with empty seats most of the time, offloading is the correct option.

Quoting TonyBurr (Reply 38): You NEVER offload a 90 year old pax, no matter what !!!! Inhuman !!! How many non rev's were in First ! Never take off a 90 year old person.

You are lying to yourself if you think that any nonrev pax made it onboard. In situations like this (or any oversell/W&B situation), nonrevs are the first to go. I would bet my life on the fact that there was not a single nonrev onboard that aircraft.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 107): That is factually wrong, United boots the aged and infirm, Delta does not according to FlyASAGuy2005 reply 95.

Please provide specific evidence of UA targeting "aged and infirm" passengers. Just because DL has a policy of not denying certain passengers doesn't mean that every other airline DOES have a policy of denying certain passengers. If you are going to make such a serious accusation, please provide adequate proof of that accusation.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 126): ehhhh accountants and all I guess?

Hence why I tried to explain myself, unsuccessfully, apparently:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 125): I don´t think they can, being a public company and all. Probably different assumptions and methods for valuation.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 105): award ticket non-revs?

Maybe not same category, mileage award tickets (did not really pay for seat, just taxes or charges and redeemed mileage) I think they would be first to go before actual customer who booked lowest Y class fare

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 124): From a pax perspective, the new 739 are horrible. These new frames are coming online with no IFE of any kind and according to FT, DTV installations have been suspended. These aircraft are commonly on transcons, like EWR-SFO.

They're terrific and everybody loves them and nobody cares about IFE.

NS

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 132): I would agree if we are talking about the risk of having to off-load 5 or 10 people. But one has to question the wisdom of scheduling an aircraft type that can result in having to bump of more than 25 per cent of a full passenger load depending on the weather situation. To me, it shows that the aircraft type is really used on the fringes of its capabilities. You could accept such a risk on a regular transcon on which flights can depart with a full load and be refueled en route. But Hawaii is different of course...

I think it would be helpful to you if you read the entire thread. Bumping 41 pax on ONE flight is not the same as bumping passengers on every LAX-HNL flight, eh?

41 passengers were bumped due to an maintenance issue and that issue was repaired in HNL. The 737-800 can normally operate from the west coast to HNL without weight restrictions - OTHER airlines do it, too.

Again, this was a single case, not a regular occurrence as you seem to believe.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 142): 41 passengers were bumped due to an maintenance issue and that issue was repaired in HNL. The 737-800 can normally operate from the west coast to HNL without weight restrictions - OTHER airlines do it, too.

MX issue in LAX and bump 41 people? Simple, just FIND ANOTHER AIRCRAFT THAT IS CAPABLE. There is no defense here -- it was a stupid move.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 118): and if the airplane had issues with LAX-HNL.....how in the world can it fly DEN-HNL? 41 PAX at LAX......would the DEN flights have even been able to carry anyone?

Please read up on this forum, it was not the capability of the airplane in weather or some fantasy headwinds, it was a one time mechanical issue that hit the 737-800 aircraft with a 6000 Lbs penalty.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 123): I'm sorry, and I know UA keeps tossing that number around, but I simply don't believe it. I just don't see Delta taking a 150M a year loss, when they could park a lot more 757s than they are planning.......

Then why has Delta also ordered 100 737-900ERs to replace 757s and other narrow bodies then ?

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-amp-en...a-expected-announce-737-900-9-deal

Quoting United1 (Reply 127): I'm not sure what you are looking at but per the Star Alliance timetable...its flown a single daily 752. UAL.com, the pdf UA timetable, Star Alliance online and pdf, flightaware and flight stats all show the same thing. On UA DEN-HNL is a single daily 752 and has never been flown by a 737...full stop.

The misinformation on this site is troubling, out of LAX the aircraft resemble what the poster is claiming, but DEN-HNL, a 737 at this time configured as United has them, can not happen.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 128): Yes I will concede that United followed the rules but just because we followed the rules doesn't mean we couldn't have done things better.

That is the dilemma faced. It was a MX issue with the APU Bleed being inop, with that the 737-800 takes a 6000 Lbs payload hit.
The 737-700 takes a 3800 Lbs hit for the same issue, and a 737-900ER surprisingly, only takes a 4500 Lbs hit.

120 people made that flight and were happy, we'll just hear from the ones who were bumped, it is always that way. They could have just cancelled the flight, but they carried 120 people over to HNL safely.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 128): As a company we can not continue to have our name and our brand in the news or in social media with our customers sharing their negativity experiences it makes the "Friendly Skies" campaign look like a joke.

Well, now you might understand a bit of what sCO employees went through for 10 years under 10 different CEOs. It took a Mr. Bethune to turn things around at Continental. We were still the same employees, just a new CEO and some new policies and Continental rose from the bottom.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 128): My point exactly this bad press has to stop and it is up to UA and the employees to put an end to this.

One can not stop the bad press. It sells and makes people listen. Did the press during this story also say that 120 people arrived in HNL from LAX on United safely and happy? No, they just concentrate on 1 individual, and that is 1 too many, who was bumped but made his flight as United sent him to another airline.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 129): For me the news in this story is how on earth an airline can schedule an aircraft type for a specific route that can result in having to bump off 40+ out of 150 passengers?

It was a mechanical issue. The aircraft type has no problem making the flight.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 130): This case was only unusual for two reasons: 1) the number of folks who had to be bumped and 2) the Pearl Harbor vet who was bumped and the resulting furor which resulted.

And third, a aircraft that had a MX issue that hit the flight with a 6000 Lbs penalty.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 132): I would agree if we are talking about the risk of having to off-load 5 or 10 people. But one has to question the wisdom of scheduling an aircraft type that can result in having to bump of more than 25 per cent of a full passenger load depending on the weather situation.

Had nothing to do with the aircraft type, it was a mechnical issue that started the mess.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 142): 41 passengers were bumped due to an maintenance issue and that issue was repaired in HNL. The 737-800 can normally operate from the west coast to HNL without weight restrictions - OTHER airlines do it, too.

Thanks FlyHossD, believe so many are misinformed about the events that day. Even on a.net, that's sad.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 143): Irrelevant to him; if it involves anything remotely close to a disabled person being impacted in any way, he's here to troll like there's no tomorrow, facts be damned.

Kinda like the other one who thinks a 757 passenger cabin is wider than a 737, and the aisles too. The misinformation is stunning.

What an idiotic lot of fuss over nothing. The man was re-booked and from all accounts made it in time.

It's time we got rid of this "The entire machinery must stop to cater to the needs of anyone who ever wore a military uniform" mentality.

you cant just say, oh hey, lets grab that other plane that is bigger and fly it. If it was that easy, it coudl have been done, but its not a realistic option.

Tell me how those 737 pilots in HNL would be able to take back the big plane you are demanding?

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 146): And third, a aircraft that had a MX issue that hit the flight with a 6000 Lbs penalty.

Simple math doesn't add up.

Assuming that the plane (in ferfect shape) was already stretched to the last oz of payload, and the last yard of range, then a 6000 lbs MTOW penalty wouldn't bump 41 pax. It would have bumped a lower number. There are plenty of people on this forum who can calculate the exact number.

I'm not arguing about other aspects of this incident, I'm only telling that simple math tells that those 41 bumped pax must have been specially selected featherweight pax. Which of course isn't the case, so there is something more in this story, something which we don't know.

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 135): WN does the same thing at EYW, when it is raining at EYW they have to bump about 40 pax before departing foe EYW.

But in EYW it's a infrastructure; with the sole runway being 4,801 feet in length.
EYW/Key-West-International-Airport" target="_blank">http://skyvector.com/airport/EYW/Key-West-International-Airport

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 151): Simple math doesn't add up. Assuming that the plane (in ferfect shape) was already stretched to the last oz of payload, and the last yard of range, then a 6000 lbs MTOW penalty wouldn't bump 41 pax. It would have bumped a lower number. There are plenty of people on this forum who can calculate the exact number. I'm not arguing about other aspects of this incident, I'm only telling that simple math tells that those 41 bumped pax must have been specially selected featherweight pax. Which of course isn't the case, so there is something more in this story, something which we don't know.

Simple math does add up. If you had read the previous posts, you would see that this is a 6000 lbs enroute limited weight by dispatch. If the passenger weight is a average of 180 lbs, it comes to 33 passengers for just the passengers. Plus maybe a bit of extra fuel for some weather enroute or at the destionation, and 41 passengers is easily attained. The math absolutely adds up.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 95): Quote: Delta will never involuntarily deny the following customers: (HVC) Customers: First/BusinessElite/Business Class, Diamond (DM), Platinum (PM) , Gold (GM), Customers with a disability or their attendant, Unaccompanied minors (may not volunteer either), Delta Crew members (deadhead) U.S. Military traveling on orders (deployment / leave), Aged or infirm customers, Delta Employees on emergency/urgent company business, Through customers who boarded in a previous city, Customers traveling on a One Great Team pass

Should Delta be blamed in light of the tragedy that befell this Delta passenger ? Should they change their policy ? Poor young man, may he rest in peace. Bless his family. Oh, and no, Delta shouldn't be blamed for this tragedy.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...on-after-takeoff-from-seattle?lite