According to this linked Skiff article, United will start giving passengers detailed information as to why their flight is delayed. Passengers will receive the info via app, text, and email. Looks like they start testing today! I for one, think that this is a very good idea. Just looking through people's posts on United's Facebook page, it's clear most people have little to no understanding of what is going on. They automatically think they're being lied to. Hopefully this will shut them up a little. It will be interesting to see if people even care... I'm guessing they won't.

P.S. - To any of the frequent United flyers on here, I'd love to see some examples in the following weeks or days of you receive any. I'm curious just how detailed they'll be.

https://skift.com/2018/01/18/united-wil ... ce=twitter

As an AV geek, I love this. As someone who has worked in airline operations for a private jet company, I hate it. My company always told me to explain in detail what was going on with delays to a specific customer. This customer was also a pilot themselves. Everything we told them turned into a debate. The thing this customer didn't understand is there is a difference between manufacturer limitations of our aircraft and company policy limitations which were way more stringent.

I just don't see an average Joe understanding or caring about specific reasons for delays.

I am not sure sharing more info, or more detailed info really matters. Frankly could create more questions or problems United must answer and deal with later on.

Well, luckily it's just being tested at a few airports initially. We'll see how it goes. Phoenix is an interesting choice as it is hardly ever delayed. IAH will be interesting. IMO, a few weeks of testing at ORD would be the best way to break it in.

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

[photoid][/photoid]

RamblinMan wrote:

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

Sure. Proactively fix ATC delays. Ok.

Credit where credit is due I’ve always thought United has done a good job of utilizing technology to keep their customers informed. Personally I find their app the most informative out of all of the majors, especially for aircraft tracking or seat availability. This all having been said I think a very small percentage of customers will actually care about this. Most of the traveling public don’t care why their flight is delayed, they just want to know how it’s going to affect possible connections on the other end.

flyguy84 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

RamblinMan wrote:

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

Sure. Proactively fix ATC delays. Ok.

RamblinMan didn't say anything about weather delays, he was talking about mechanical delays, which are, to some extent, within an airline's control. One of the reasons I stopped flying UA was I got tired of interminable mechanical delays on their contractors' fleets of ERJ-145 aircraft.

As someone else pointed out above, it's a nice gesture, but I don't think it changes a lot. If there's a mechanical problem, or a crew is stuck somewhere, or there are ATC or weather delays at one of their hub airports, the delay is still a delay. Knowing what piece of the engine specifically is broken isn't going to change anything.

That said, I think airlines across the board need to be more proactive with communication and providing some sort of update. Nothing is more frustrating than rushing to board a flight, then sitting there past departure time...and sitting there...and sitting there, with no explanation from the cockpit or ground crew.

RamblinMan wrote:

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

So if you were the head of operations at United you’d tell Oscar that for your bonus this year you’re signing up for a 100% on-time operation irrespective of cause?

UA can’t win can they? Change the title from United to Delta and you’ll have post after post praising the ingenuity and wondering when AA and UA will follow in their footsteps.

How can more information be a bad thing. People don’t trust airlines and the majority think they’re being lied to when there’s a delay. UA is putting it all out, being transparent. Why is that bad?

Meh.

Sometimes keeping things simple is best. Creating “stories” about delays quickly on the fly could lead to its own issues UA must dig itself out underneath from.

I am not sure people really need more words to explain something they probably don’t comprehend anyways.

LAXintl wrote:

Creating “stories” about delays quickly on the fly could lead to its own issues UA must dig itself out underneath from.

That’s what the gate agents do now. This will eliminate that. People can comprehend a message that says there is a mechanical delay. We don’t know when it will be fixed. But we will give an update in 30 minutes. Or, the crew is delayed. They will arrive in 45 minutes. Expect to board your flight in one hour.

As someone who’s worked as a Passenger Service Agent in, not only the world's busiest airport, but also plenty of other airports in North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean, I’d say that this type of information would be more beneficial/appreciated by certain profiles of travellers. Following that, with the proliferation of information everywhere its better for more info than less. Let’s face it, the customers that become the most upset are the ones who feel that they’ve lost control in their particular situation. I’ve tired of having to relay the same message to so many customers because they either weren’t present, paying attention, or just didn’t initially care. If all the information could be automatically delivered to affected customers then that would free up the agents to do their actual job and work on reconnects, transfers, and/or rebookings.

That’s NOT to say, however, that the Agent is absolved of all communication protocols; to the contrary, actually. It’s best to let the Agents get customers to where they need to be and not to have to keep repeating the same info ad infinitum.

I’ll now sit and await the inevitable flames from the airport operations incognoscenti...

Just taking a wild guess here. But I'm assuming they'll just have the dispatcher for a flight type out a few sentences, or fill in the blanks of a generic template, and then that will get disseminated to the people and crew on board that flight somehow. The dispatchers sure as hell know a lot more than most gate agents, as they have direct access to any mx problems, weather phenomena, and operational delays. I will say some gate agents are outstanding, but some have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and will blatantly lie. I'm hopeful that this will put an end to the bad CSRs lying, while at the same time backing up the good CSRs who tell the truth.

Edit: Now that I think of it, this would be really cool to implement the dispatcher. I'd venture to say most people don't even know what an airline dispatcher is, or does. The message could include the dispatcher's name and possibly picture. This would create a personal interaction between the dispatcher and passengers. Always great to be able to put a face to a name. I personally think it would be very effective.

UA is on the right track here. The main fallout from a service provider that can not provide the purchased product according to specifications is usually in the way the malfunctioning is communicated. Providing electronic communication directly to clients with basic details will help handle the fall out that comes from a delay.
"The inbound plane is delayed due to bad weather in upstate New York - We will notify you when the plane departs New York with a new scheduled time of departure. We appologise for the inconvenience but hope that you understand that flight safety must always be UA priority. During the wait please make your way to XX Bar and grill where a drink and a sandwich will be presented to you (please bring your boardingpass and ID for verification) etc etc"

The main customer dissatisfactions tend to come not from an event itself but from not being communicated at expevted level or the perceived handling of said event. (see research for this). I thus think UA is right on track. However, its brave to do this in the US where people tend to love to be argumentative and have a very strong sense of self entitlement just because they bought a $65 ticket between point a and point b.
I would have introduced it in a less argumentative market (say Canada or the UK) and tested it there before I rolled this out across domestic US.

B737900ER wrote:

UA can’t win can they? Change the title from United to Delta and you’ll have post after post praising the ingenuity and wondering when AA and UA will follow in their footsteps.

How can more information be a bad thing. People don’t trust airlines and the majority think they’re being lied to when there’s a delay. UA is putting it all out, being transparent. Why is that bad?

Lets see. Tell my mom that a t a flap on the plane broke and we need to replace it. She would say what about the other flaps. if this one did it, wouldn't they. See where the new problems can come?

ual763 wrote:

Now that I think of it, this would be really cool to implement the dispatcher. I'd venture to say most people don't even know what an airline dispatcher is, or does. The message could include the dispatcher's name and possibly picture. This would create a personal interaction between the dispatcher and passengers. Always great to be able to put a face to a name. I personally think it would be very effective.

Here's an example email I made:


Include a small employee picture under the name and the United logo, and I think they're on to something. If they could link this to the screens in boarding areas, all the better! I made this on my iPad, so unfortunately couldn't figure out how to overlay images, otherwise ai would have done that.

ual763 wrote:

ual763 wrote:

Now that I think of it, this would be really cool to implement the dispatcher. I'd venture to say most people don't even know what an airline dispatcher is, or does. The message could include the dispatcher's name and possibly picture. This would create a personal interaction between the dispatcher and passengers. Always great to be able to put a face to a name. I personally think it would be very effective.

Here's an example email I made:

Include a small employee picture under the name and the United logo, and I think they're on to something. If they could link this to the screens in boarding areas, all the better! I made this on my iPad, so unfortunately couldn't figure out how to overlay images, otherwise ai would have done that.

I would be both pleased and impressed if I received something with such a simple - yet complete - explanation.

rbavfan wrote:

Lets see. Tell my mom that a t a flap on the plane broke and we need to replace it. She would say what about the other flaps. if this one did it, wouldn't they. See where the new problems can come?

That’s not the kind of detailed information UA is letting people know. If it’s a mechanical delay they will call it a mechanical delay. If it’s a crew delay they will call it a crew delay.

And if a flap breaks you’re not delayed, you’re cancelled.

I applaud this idea and hope that it is implemented with the kind of information ua1763 provided.

Anyone who travels a lot has heard things that make no sense. My best example (personal experience) after being asked to deboard a flight that originated in one city, had a stop at a hub, and then continued to my destination city (I had flown it many times both ways - never having ever left the aircraft (perhaps the following wording is not exact - but it sure is close): "Mr... X....; the reason your flight to ZYX was canceled was that the aircraft it was on never arrived due to the weather." "Excuse me, I was on it... it originated in CBA and was on time, and I was asked to deboard when it landed with no explanation," I replied. "Oh, let me check.... (several minutes later); it appears you are correct that it did arrive and you were on it. It had a mechanical problem and cannot continue." A few minutes later I saw it was being boarded en-route to another city.

It took me 2-3 months to get the Airline to admit that they had rerouted the plane due to passenger loads and get any compensation for that (which did not cover the day of missed wages I incurred); which only occurred after I FEDEX'D a letter addressed specifically to the CEO of the company and the "Executive Response Team" became involved.

I hope this works well. I for one would really appreciate such information.

Have a great day,

I think some background would be helpful.

Right now, all airlines delay flights using simple codes. These are fictitious, but examples would be "MX" for maintenance, "CC" for connecting crew, "AT" for ATC, "WX" for weather, and so forth. The codes actually get fairly involved. For example - and again, fictitious - you might have "WX1 - weather at origin", "WX2 - weather at destination" and so on. Some of the codes are rather bizarre: catering delay, delay printing the paperwork, delay due to handicapped passenger needing assistance, the list goes on.

Until recently, United has not had a system in place to communicate additional information. So, gate agents - and customers - have simply had to take whatever that code says and run with it. The person who actually delays the flight - the dispatcher - has had little responsibility. When the dispatcher selects a flight and posts a new departure time, s/he has to choose the appropriate code ("WX") and a new departure time, and voila: the gate agent sees a new time pop up on the board, you get a text, and so on.

United now has an intranet system that allows all persons involved with a flight - the dispatcher, the gate agent, operations personnel, and so on - to put in free text remarks for a flight. Now, when the dispatcher selects a flight, posts a 45-minute delay, and chooses "WX", s/he can (and is supposed to) also add a remark: "Heavy snow at destination; looks to be a squall line that should pass soon." Maintenance delays are a big one. Where we once had just "MX", we can now easily communicate, "Left main tire gashed; needs replacing. Mx estimates 30 minutes to do the work." The gate agent can add remarks as well, like, "30 minutes past STD, still no mechanics working on the tire." The dispatcher can then investigate and add, "Mechanics wrapping up at gate C22; will work flight #### next."

And so on.

The goal of all this is that the gate agent simply can answer people's questions. S/he can say, "It's just a tire - they can change those pretty easily, so it's not a big deal." S/he can say, "Air traffic control has issued a 'wheels-up' time; they won't allow the flight to take off until 1:30 p.m., so we're not going to starting boarding until about an hour prior." It makes life easier for them, since they know why the flights are being delayed. The practical implications of a flight leaving late remain basically the same, but the end result - in theory - is that the customer feels that they're not being lied to, that they can trust the airline, that there is some semblance of customer service at hand.

Regarding the discussion of dispatchers: They're already the ones doing this. The "more information" comes from them in the first place. Given how busy a dispatcher is, however, especially on a day when delays are weather-induced, it is impractical and basically impossible to ask them to write up individual emails or even complete sentences. The remarks are succinct and to the point: "Inbound flight #### had to deice in Buffalo; arriving 30 minutes late." "Lavatory service truck broke; ramp getting new one." "Captain forgot ID at home, had to go back to get it." "Flight attendant somehow ended up with First Officer's bag leaving the hotel, have to meet in Terminal B to swap bags back."

What the gate agent does with that information is up to them...

I seriously doubt the dispatchers are going to want their name and face plastered all over the internet. Especially with upset passengers involved.

ual763 wrote:

Include a small employee picture under the name and the United logo,

And John Doe is a real name and real dispatcher - would love to see his picture!?

According to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe:

such names are often used to refer to a corpse whose identity is unknown or unconfirmed. Secondly, such names are also often used to refer to a hypothetical "everyman" in other contexts, in a manner similar to "John Q. Public" or "Joe Public".

BTW easyjet is using this system for many years now - without any problems: https://www.easyjet.com/en/flight-tracker

debonair wrote:

ual763 wrote:

Include a small employee picture under the name and the United logo,

And John Doe is a real name and real dispatcher - would love to see his picture!?

According to wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe:

such names are often used to refer to a corpse whose identity is unknown or unconfirmed. Secondly, such names are also often used to refer to a hypothetical "everyman" in other contexts, in a manner similar to "John Q. Public" or "Joe Public".

You must have missed the part where I said this is an example I typed up...

747-600X wrote:

I think some background would be helpful.

Right now, all airlines delay flights using simple codes. These are fictitious, but examples would be "MX" for maintenance, "CC" for connecting crew, "AT" for ATC, "WX" for weather, and so forth. The codes actually get fairly involved. For example - and again, fictitious - you might have "WX1 - weather at origin", "WX2 - weather at destination" and so on. Some of the codes are rather bizarre: catering delay, delay printing the paperwork, delay due to handicapped passenger needing assistance, the list goes on.

Until recently, United has not had a system in place to communicate additional information. So, gate agents - and customers - have simply had to take whatever that code says and run with it. The person who actually delays the flight - the dispatcher - has had little responsibility. When the dispatcher selects a flight and posts a new departure time, s/he has to choose the appropriate code ("WX") and a new departure time, and voila: the gate agent sees a new time pop up on the board, you get a text, and so on.

United now has an intranet system that allows all persons involved with a flight - the dispatcher, the gate agent, operations personnel, and so on - to put in free text remarks for a flight. Now, when the dispatcher selects a flight, posts a 45-minute delay, and chooses "WX", s/he can (and is supposed to) also add a remark: "Heavy snow at destination; looks to be a squall line that should pass soon." Maintenance delays are a big one. Where we once had just "MX", we can now easily communicate, "Left main tire gashed; needs replacing. Mx estimates 30 minutes to do the work." The gate agent can add remarks as well, like, "30 minutes past STD, still no mechanics working on the tire." The dispatcher can then investigate and add, "Mechanics wrapping up at gate C22; will work flight #### next."

And so on.

The goal of all this is that the gate agent simply can answer people's questions. S/he can say, "It's just a tire - they can change those pretty easily, so it's not a big deal." S/he can say, "Air traffic control has issued a 'wheels-up' time; they won't allow the flight to take off until 1:30 p.m., so we're not going to starting boarding until about an hour prior." It makes life easier for them, since they know why the flights are being delayed. The practical implications of a flight leaving late remain basically the same, but the end result - in theory - is that the customer feels that they're not being lied to, that they can trust the airline, that there is some semblance of customer service at hand.

Regarding the discussion of dispatchers: They're already the ones doing this. The "more information" comes from them in the first place. Given how busy a dispatcher is, however, especially on a day when delays are weather-induced, it is impractical and basically impossible to ask them to write up individual emails or even complete sentences. The remarks are succinct and to the point: "Inbound flight #### had to deice in Buffalo; arriving 30 minutes late." "Lavatory service truck broke; ramp getting new one." "Captain forgot ID at home, had to go back to get it." "Flight attendant somehow ended up with First Officer's bag leaving the hotel, have to meet in Terminal B to swap bags back."

What the gate agent does with that information is up to them...

Thanks for the explanation! That would make sense.

Here's an example someone from Flyertalk received yesterday:


Out of curiosity, who types up these messages and disseminates them to passenger? Or is it still the dispatcher, now just with a lot more options to choose from in the delay reasons?

Regards

They will be automatically generated from stock chunks of text with the time either manually selected or "inferred" from the nature of the delay.

I don't have airline examples handy but along the same lines as 747-600X mentions, dispatch systems already have categorisations that are applied to delays so that operations staff, and FIDS can be kept current, as well as for later investigation and revenue recovery later on.

The delay reason given and the timeframe, if also applied, will cause the selection of the appropriate message.

Dispatchers and operations controllers may well have the ability to customise them, though, or to replace them with fully-manual messages.

An example of the coding systems that I do have to hand is that used by Network Rail in the UK, allowing them (as the owner of rail infrastructure, along the same lines as ATC in an aviation example) and also train operators to have a standardised platform for sharing delay information with passengers and also for determining the penalty payments that may or may not be applicable:

http://nrodwiki.rockshore.net/index.php ... tion_Guide

SFOtoORD wrote:

RamblinMan wrote:

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

So if you were the head of operations at United you’d tell Oscar that for your bonus this year you’re signing up for a 100% on-time operation irrespective of cause?

If I were head of operations I would be working on reducing delays whether there's a bonus in it for me or not, because that would kind of be my job. But I suppose you think coming up with a friendlier way of making excuses should suffice.

RamblinMan wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

RamblinMan wrote:

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

So if you were the head of operations at United you’d tell Oscar that for your bonus this year you’re signing up for a 100% on-time operation irrespective of cause?

If I were head of operations I would be working on reducing delays whether there's a bonus in it for me or not, because that would kind of be my job. But I suppose you think coming up with a friendlier way of making excuses should suffice.

Nice answer, but you missed the point. No Ops person is getting to 100% on-time. So if your solution is only to focus on-time without a plan to deal with delays you fail.

RamblinMan wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

RamblinMan wrote:

I'm all for transparency but I'm more for actually proactively fixing problems and running an on-time operation.

I was one of US Airways' biggest haters because of how often they left me in a jam, but I will say that they were very detailed when announcing a delay. Usually unnecessarily detailed. Didn't change the fact that their poorly-maintained plane had now gone tech and I was going to miss my connection.

So if you were the head of operations at United you’d tell Oscar that for your bonus this year you’re signing up for a 100% on-time operation irrespective of cause?

If I were head of operations I would be working on reducing delays whether there's a bonus in it for me or not, because that would kind of be my job. But I suppose you think coming up with a friendlier way of making excuses should suffice.

Um... United has improved its operational reliability a ton over the past year... Every month they seem to set some kind of "best ever" record for UA, or are best among their peers. Sure, they're not quite to the level of reliability and consistency as Delta yet, but give credit where credit is due. They're doing one hell of a job improving their operation.

SFOtoORD wrote:

Nice answer, but you missed the point. No Ops person is getting to 100% on-time. So if your solution is only to focus on-time without a plan to deal with delays you fail.

Oh, seriously, sometimes shit happens outside their control? What would I do without you around to tell me these things?

It should be obvious from the original comment that I'm not referring to ATC or weather or random acts of god.

RamblinMan wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Nice answer, but you missed the point. No Ops person is getting to 100% on-time. So if your solution is only to focus on-time without a plan to deal with delays you fail.

Oh, seriously, sometimes shit happens outside their control? What would I do without you around to tell me these things?

It should be obvious from the original comment that I'm not referring to ATC or weather or random acts of god.

You post like sometimes stuff doesn’t happen and as if United hasn’t worked on improving delays. United isn’t a one person company that can focus on one thing at once so they can improve Ops and get more transparent at the same time. Your original point is still off base.