Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:Well, the past 7-8 days for Chicago and Detroit has been one of the snowiest weeks we've seen in several years. Not so much the amount, but it literally snowed every day and sometimes for 12-18 hours at a time.
They've probably had to apply Type IV on 75% of their departures in the past week.
flyguy84 wrote:[twoid][/twoid]PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:Well, the past 7-8 days for Chicago and Detroit has been one of the snowiest weeks we've seen in several years. Not so much the amount, but it literally snowed every day and sometimes for 12-18 hours at a time.
They've probably had to apply Type IV on 75% of their departures in the past week.
Not an excuse. This is Chicago in the winter....
Bricktop wrote:Sounds penny wise and dollar foolish to me. Heads should roll for that.
ORDJOE wrote:flyguy84 wrote:[twoid][/twoid]PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:Well, the past 7-8 days for Chicago and Detroit has been one of the snowiest weeks we've seen in several years. Not so much the amount, but it literally snowed every day and sometimes for 12-18 hours at a time.
They've probably had to apply Type IV on 75% of their departures in the past week.
Not an excuse. This is Chicago in the winter....
It does not snow as much in the winter in Chicago as people think, to snow everyday for a solid week is very unusual. Plus 90% of MDW is WN so there not really any other airline to buy deicing from
usflyer msp wrote:I think WN tends to be too conservative when they order winter-weather supplies.
They have run out of de-icing fluid several times in several different stations when other carriers have been fine.
One of my co-workers was caught by this in Dec 2016. She was flying PHX-MSP and the plane was diverted to STL because WN at MSP ran out of deicer. From Halloween to May Day, WN should make sure they have plenty of deicer at their northern stations, like double what they think they might need since deicing fluid has no use by date...
flyguy84 wrote:[twoid][/twoid]PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:Well, the past 7-8 days for Chicago and Detroit has been one of the snowiest weeks we've seen in several years. Not so much the amount, but it literally snowed every day and sometimes for 12-18 hours at a time.
They've probably had to apply Type IV on 75% of their departures in the past week.
Not an excuse. This is Chicago in the winter....
Bricktop wrote:Sounds penny wise and dollar foolish to me. Heads should roll for that.
aemoreira1981 wrote:flyguy84 wrote:[twoid][/twoid]PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:Well, the past 7-8 days for Chicago and Detroit has been one of the snowiest weeks we've seen in several years. Not so much the amount, but it literally snowed every day and sometimes for 12-18 hours at a time.
They've probably had to apply Type IV on 75% of their departures in the past week.
Not an excuse. This is Chicago in the winter....
To snow for 9 consecutive days is unheard of---in fact, it's an all-time record.
737tanker wrote:From what I read on another forum the tanker truck delivering the de-ice fluid damage the tank where WN stored there de-ice fluid.
socko wrote:Does SWA Deice their own planes at MDW? In SLC the airport does all the deicing for all airlines. Just wondering
flyorski wrote:socko wrote:Does SWA Deice their own planes at MDW? In SLC the airport does all the deicing for all airlines. Just wondering
Having run a bucket for quantem, I can assure you the airport does not deice anyone in SLC. Each airline either has a contractor or does it themselves.
kiowa wrote:I agree.
gwrudolph wrote:kiowa wrote:I agree.
I heard on the news that SWA did not provide accommodation for stranded passengers, claiming the situation to be weather-related. That's stretching it if you ask me. Not very fair to their customers. I wonder if someone will eventually take them to task for that stance . . .
mcdu wrote:gwrudolph wrote:kiowa wrote:I agree.
I heard on the news that SWA did not provide accommodation for stranded passengers, claiming the situation to be weather-related. That's stretching it if you ask me. Not very fair to their customers. I wonder if someone will eventually take them to task for that stance . . .
If they did not provide accommodation for cancellations due to their issue, then I hope the crafty lawyers are lining up.
IF this gets pushed the tech operations section why didn't the ATL power outage and the NYC snowstorms get placed here also? Weren't those "Operations" issues?
tjwgrr wrote:It was interesting to see the odd ops to position crew and a/c. For example here in GRR:
TPA-MEM-MDW-GRR ran TPA-MEM-GRR
TPA-PHL-MDW-GRR ran TPA-PHL-GRR
MCO-GRR-MDW-FLL-SJU ran MCO-GRR-FLL-SJU
gwrudolph wrote:mcdu wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
I heard on the news that SWA did not provide accommodation for stranded passengers, claiming the situation to be weather-related. That's stretching it if you ask me. Not very fair to their customers. I wonder if someone will eventually take them to task for that stance . . .
If they did not provide accommodation for cancellations due to their issue, then I hope the crafty lawyers are lining up.
IF this gets pushed the tech operations section why didn't the ATL power outage and the NYC snowstorms get placed here also? Weren't those "Operations" issues?
If I were one of those customers, I would file a complaint with the DOT, pointing out that it was a logistics issue or equipment issue limited to one airline--skies were sunny, runways were clear and dry, and everyone else operating. Guessing the DOT would agree!
Agree--why isn't this an n the general forum?!?!?
mcdu wrote:gwrudolph wrote:kiowa wrote:I agree.
I heard on the news that SWA did not provide accommodation for stranded passengers, claiming the situation to be weather-related. That's stretching it if you ask me. Not very fair to their customers. I wonder if someone will eventually take them to task for that stance . . .
If they did not provide accommodation for cancellations due to their issue, then I hope the crafty lawyers are lining up.
usflyer msp wrote:mcdu wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
I heard on the news that SWA did not provide accommodation for stranded passengers, claiming the situation to be weather-related. That's stretching it if you ask me. Not very fair to their customers. I wonder if someone will eventually take them to task for that stance . . .
If they did not provide accommodation for cancellations due to their issue, then I hope the crafty lawyers are lining up.
There is no law or dot rule stating that airlines ever have to pay for accommodations so such a lawsuit would not go very far....
usflyer msp wrote:mcdu wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
I heard on the news that SWA did not provide accommodation for stranded passengers, claiming the situation to be weather-related. That's stretching it if you ask me. Not very fair to their customers. I wonder if someone will eventually take them to task for that stance . . .
If they did not provide accommodation for cancellations due to their issue, then I hope the crafty lawyers are lining up.
Le
There is no law or dot rule stating that airlines ever have to pay for accommodations so such a lawsuit would not go very far....
mcdu wrote:Didn’t DL pay hotel bills for customers affected by the cluster they had at JFK last month?
flyorski wrote:...and I can assure YOU that you’re incorrect. Ever since the new de ice pads opened a couple of years ago, Integrated De-icing Solutions (IDS) has been the sole provider (on behalf of SLC Airport) of all Air Carrier de-icing except Delta.socko wrote:Does SWA Deice their own planes at MDW? In SLC the airport does all the deicing for all airlines. Just wondering
Having run a bucket for quantem, I can assure you the airport does not deice anyone in SLC. Each airline either has a contractor or does it themselves.
C525C wrote:Ever since the new de ice pads opened a couple of years ago, Integrated De-icing Solutions (IDS) has been the sole provider (on behalf of SLC Airport) of all Air Carrier de-icing except Delta.
IPFreely wrote:mcdu wrote:Didn’t DL pay hotel bills for customers affected by the cluster they had at JFK last month?
No, they didn't. They may have provided hotels for a small number of their platinums but perusing the tweets and replies on their twitter account it's clear that ordinary customers got zip.
mcdu wrote:IPFreely wrote:mcdu wrote:Didn’t DL pay hotel bills for customers affected by the cluster they had at JFK last month?
No, they didn't. They may have provided hotels for a small number of their platinums but perusing the tweets and replies on their twitter account it's clear that ordinary customers got zip.
I wonder how many “elites” did WN compensate for hotel rooms.
I do hope this gets better front page coverage in the media versus this Easter egg hiding of this by the forum moderators.