Hi all,

On Wednesday (18th) I took a flight to Europe that left from LGW. As a US Club member, I took advantage of using the lounge there. I had a really interesting conversation with a staff member who told me that one of the flights the day pervious was cancelled as they didn’t have enough people booked on it, and so moved everyone onto the next flight. (I don't remember which flight was cancelled, I think it may have been the one to Charlotte).

Now I find this interesting as reading recent threads, it would seem that US Airways, or the "New US Airways" has their numbers up?

I was honest with the staff member and told him/her that I feel, as a US Gold that it’s simply not worth flying US any more as we lose 50% bonus miles. I've since got a status match with UA and am now flying them. Is it any wonder that people are moving over to other airlines??

Its not un common if the numbers booked on a certain flight are say below 50 or 60 its cheaper to book them on another airline or cancel one of the flights. Its happens to all airlines BA/EI etc... it doesnt mean low loads as you may have a flight on Monday 100% full then Tuesday 90% empty and Wednesday 100% full again .

Wow thats interesting, I never have seen that happen, and I have flown off season many times. Hope my luck holds! If that happens and you have to take an extra leg, do you get the additional miles? Is there any compensation?

Thanks for the heads up, SgtRyan.

But what do they do with the plane that sits there for 24 hours then?

Don't they have to cancel a bunch of other flights then as well?

But what do they do with the plane that sits there for 24 hours then?

Don't they have to cancel a bunch of other flights then as well?


Very good point about the plane sitting for 24 hours.....guess it just sits there.

I don't think that US Air would have to cancel other flights as Im sure they put the people from the cancelled flight onto other ones out of their next hub.....

Very good point about the plane sitting for 24 hours.....guess it just sits there.

I don't think that US Air would have to cancel other flights as Im sure they put the people from the cancelled flight onto other ones out of their next hub.....


US doesn't have spare 330's for TA ops. There are only 2 LGW flights daily. One from PHL and one from CLT. I just don't see US leaving a plane in LGW unless there is a mechanical issue. Too many things would have to happen. Flight crews would have to deadhead to fly the plane back to the US and the crew in LGW would deadhead home. Pax ticketed to LGW would need to be re-routed as would those heading from LGW. I can see a cancellation because of low loads on a route with frequent service and minimal interruption as a result of the cancellation, but not a TA flight.

No airline can cancel a flight because there aren't enough people on it, although many people claim that they think that is the reason. Think about it...if an airline did cancel a flight for that reason then you have knocked that airplane out of commision for an entire day, possibly involving several flight segments. It just doesn't make sense to do it.
In the case of a LGW flight being cancelled, US has been sporadically cancelling flights in and out of PHL to LGW for the last month or so but with plenty of advance notice so that everyone is reaccomodated well ahead of time. I have flown a couple of those flights, and will be flying another one next week. Scheduling called me weeks ago to advise me of the changes so it's not an overnight decision. I think they are rotating an airplane through maintenance, and instead of just cancelling service to a city outright they are trying to make it work this way.

No airline can cancel a flight because there aren't enough people on it, although many people claim that they think that is the reason. <snip>

Doh! I should have known, I know this is maintenance season. Thank you GalleyWench :-)

I'm guessing those TA 330s run those routes exclusively, due to at least 8 hours flying time in either direction. I know that the CLT-FRA 330 just does turn arounds. But to outright cancel a flight, unless the return flight was also incredibly dismal would not make sense. And, the airline had better get you another flight that day, withe another carrier. Some people can't afford another day stuck in Europe (or America) due to jobs and whatnot.

i dont think that was the case, becuase what would US do with the aircraft? they would have to fly it back empty anyways, as the next day there would be 2 more US A330s coming in so that aircraft would have to go back empty!

I do see some 767s on the sched PHL-LGW come Jan. A330 might be in for heavy maintence. So here's the question - Enovy lounge + 767? No Envoy lounge + a330? I'm leaning for the latter.

Having worked for AA, there is a thin line between cancelling a lightly loaded flight and cancelling a lightly loaded flight because of aircraft maintenance rotations. I totally agree with Galley on international flights and/or other cities with 2 or 3 flights per day. The airline simply won't cancel lightly loaded flights because they are lightly loaded.

However, suppose an A330 goes mechanical in PHL and you must cancel an overseas flight. If you were the scheduler, which one would you cancel? Well, usually it would be the most lightly loaded flight (and most lightly loaded return flight). If all the passengers can be rebooked on other US flights, then that's the perfect situation. Secondarily, if all the passengers can be rebooked on other airline flights, then that would also be a viable (but more expensive) option.

Now, every airline has been guilty of cancelling lightly loaded flights in high frequency (non-connecting) markets to save crew time and/or fuel. This would be a market where there are, say, 12 flights a day. Suppose there were only 12 people booked on the flight (and return flight) that could easily be rebooked on the next flight. Then, the airline might (could) in very rare circumstances cancel that flight.

Once I was the only passenger on a 50 pas. RJ from PHL-CAE (Columbia, SC) I was surprised they didn't cancel the flight. Especially since IIRC I was on a $200 fare.

Once I was the only passenger on a 50 pas. RJ from PHL-CAE (Columbia, SC) I was surprised they didn't cancel the flight. Especially since IIRC I was on a $200 fare.


You only know 1/2 the equation in this case (your flight). Who was booked on the flight CAE-PHL? If the planes don't make it to the outstations then they can't bring all the connecting traffic in to PHL.

Once I was the only passenger on a 50 pas. RJ from PHL-CAE (Columbia, SC) I was surprised they didn't cancel the flight. Especially since IIRC I was on a $200 fare.
A few years back I was the only passenger on a Dornier from PIT-YOW. It was kinda cool, and I got extra peanuts!! I got to the gate and they said we were looking for you, you're our only passenger. I thought they were going to cancel which would have made it harder to connect to YHZ, but they didn't.

Hi Galley W!

Will you perhaps be on the 12/20 (Wed) PHL>LGW flight? (Or returning on 12/28?)

Jane (now in 2B <G>)

I sincerely hope that low loads as a result of the "security" stupidity in the UK airports (and US airports) cause some flights to get cancelled so that the airlines will finally grow a spine and tell the DfT and the TSA to cram their idiocy where the sun don't shine. I'll be happy to use my shoes, on my feet, to help them out.

The dumbest aspect of UK security is the carry on limitation, which eliminates the ability to carry handbags or briefcases, in addition to the one piece allowed. This can only be an attempt to avoid having to pay for more screeners. Incidentally, I believe some of that cost has always been paid by the carriers themselves, so they have no incentive to push for a change, unless bookings drop, and this process is detected as part of the cause.

I do see some 767s on the sched PHL-LGW come Jan. A330 might be in for heavy maintence. So here's the question - Enovy lounge + 767? No Envoy lounge + a330? I'm leaning for the latter.


Sorry what do you mean by no Envoy lounge ??? I dont understand.

Sounds like the agent at LGW was either ill-informed or lying. US doesn't have the equip in the states to simply not run a TA flight for low numbers. And, as has been said, it's against FAA regs for a part 121 airline to not run a scheduled flight unless weather/maint preclude it, or if they can reaccomodate pax on a closely scheduled flight. Technically US could have done that in this case, but it would only make business sense if the next day they were heavily overbooked out of LGW and needed the equip. *AND* they were able to make up for the loss of equipment in the states that night.

You only know 1/2 the equation in this case (your flight). Who was booked on the flight CAE-PHL? If the planes don't make it to the outstations then they can't bring all the connecting traffic in to PHL.

That's precisely the point, and GW said it best. I get frustrated when supposedly knowledgable people state that airlines cancel flights just becasue there aren't enough people on it. The implications to downstream scheduling, positioning, crew schedules, etc., etc., is a major headache. I flew as the only passenger on an A320 last year. I doubt US had a thought of cancelling the flight and the hundreds of people on the following set of flights on that plane are quite glad they didn't

Sorry what do you mean by no Envoy lounge ??? I dont understand.


I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of the LGW route. PHL-LGW turns in LGW and returns as LGW-CLT. CLT-LGW turns and returns as LGW-PHL (I'm talking equipment here). When they substitute the 767 for the 330 it is on the PHL-LGW flight (I believe all 767's are PHL based for pilots) and that plane then turns and returns LGW-PHL. The result is a tighter turn in LGW and in sts603's case I his question is should he fly from PHL and take the 767 but have access to the Envoy lounge or should he fly from CLT and have the regular Club, but get the 330. If it were me I'd go via CLT and take the 330.

No airline can cancel a flight because there aren't enough people on it, although many people claim that they think that is the reason. Think about it...if an airline did cancel a flight for that reason then you have knocked that airplane out of commision for an entire day, possibly involving several flight segments. It just doesn't make sense to do it.
In the case of a LGW flight being cancelled, US has been sporadically cancelling flights in and out of PHL to LGW for the last month or so but with plenty of advance notice so that everyone is reaccomodated well ahead of time. I have flown a couple of those flights, and will be flying another one next week. Scheduling called me weeks ago to advise me of the changes so it's not an overnight decision. I think they are rotating an airplane through maintenance, and instead of just cancelling service to a city outright they are trying to make it work this way.


I don't know if it was the real reason or not but around 7 years ago I was coming back from CDG to DFW (I think Air France). I appologize some of the details are fuzzy. I remember when called to confirm my flight and I was told I had been put on another flight because my orginal flight did not have enough passangers. When I got to the airport I was told again I was being moved to another flight because there weren't enough passangers and I might be rerouted via another airline. That didn't happen and we boarded our plane, but if memory serves me correct it was 777 about 60% empty.

The dumbest aspect of UK security is the carry on limitation, which eliminates the ability to carry handbags or briefcases, in addition to the one piece allowed. This can only be an attempt to avoid having to pay for more screeners. Incidentally, I believe some of that cost has always been paid by the carriers themselves, so they have no incentive to push for a change, unless bookings drop, and this process is detected as part of the cause.

This burned me in September, but on a BA flight from NYC-LHR-BRU. My carry on from NYC to LHR was fine, but upon arriving in Heathrow, BAA decided that my carry on was too large and would have to be checked or left behind (fat chance).

So, I had to clear immigrations (no airside re-check, that God I didn't need a VISA), go to a special check in counter, sweet talk my way into a Fasttrack lane to reclear passport control and security, and make it to my Brussels bound gate literally seconds before the door closed (T4, if anyone is wondering). As a result, NEITHER of my bags made it to BRU until the next day. And (OT), I still have not received compensation from BA for my expenses for that 1st day.

So BAA is on my s*** list.

That's precisely the point, and GW said it best. I get frustrated when supposedly knowledgable people state that airlines cancel flights just becasue there aren't enough people on it. The implications to downstream scheduling, positioning, crew schedules, etc., etc., is a major headache. I flew as the only passenger on an A320 last year. I doubt US had a thought of cancelling the flight and the hundreds of people on the following set of flights on that plane are quite glad they didn't


There is more to this, but its too long. Once I was at the US Club in MAN, and during my conversation with an agent there, was told that as a US Gold I don't get any bonus miles. I didn't want to laugh at him/her, I kindly explained that until recently I was getting 100% bonus miles, but this person was set in her/his mind that this was simply not true......I walked away laughing.

. . . The dumbest aspect of UK security is the carry on limitation . . .

I agree that the one cabin bag rule is a real pain. At least the draconian size-limit has been relaxed to something more reasonable. A business traveler with the usual carry on and a lap top is in a tough situation ( though I've suddenly noticed more folks with ultra compact laptops at LGW ).

Actually the UK airport security situation is much more nuanced than simply being a consequence of cheapness or a dimwitted response to terror. The BAA is the agency which adopts even tougher standards than the government suggests. Looks to me as if the nature/methodology of the planned attack is more sobering than one thinks. Add to this paradigm the discovery that one suspect works at LHR which opens up additional security worries.

However from a practical point of view, these new screening procedures/restrictions are impositions upon an already strained UK security system. The government does not provide funds for screeners or security in the UK ( not even the airport police ), this is the responsibility of the airport. The latest terror threat simply adds to the burden.

From my own point of view of knowing that US-bound flights from the UK remain a prime target of terrorists, a bigger worry is a lack of a unified and consistent screening policy/rocedure across the EU for flights connecting into the UK ( and more important, non-EU originating flights).

Travelers who originate their US-bound travel in the UK have the unpleasant distinction of enduring the brunt of all of these new security procedures/worries when we board our home-bound UK flights. But so too, do all of the Brits and others who fly out of the UK to America or Europe. Hopefully the Government and agencies will work to make the system function more smoothly.

This article from the London Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/27/nterr27.xml) speaks to some of these issues and sheds at least a little light upon the breadth of the problem on the other side of the pond.

Barry

I was one of 5 passengers on a mid-week late night PHX-SFO RJ once. The GA boarded the plane by just opening the door and yelling "all aboard."

As GW so eloquently put it, flights aren't cancelled for lack of passengers, but when a cancellation is necessary it just makes sense to cancel the one that'll affect the least number of people (considering aircraft type, aircraft & crew routing, etc). It is entirely possible that your flight may be cancelled because it has a light passenger load and it's good airplane used on another route with higher bookings but a broken airplane. Hence, the agent could honestly say that your flight was cancelled due to light bookings, but that's only half the story.

As for the RJ's with only a handful of passengers, remember that there are only two owned Express carriers - one of which operates RJ's. All the other RJ Express operators are paid on a "fee for departure" scheme where they aren't paid unless they fly. Needless to say, they don't cancel unless they have to. Filling the seats is US' problem, not their's.

Jim

I was one of 5 passengers on a mid-week late night PHX-SFO RJ once. The GA boarded the plane by just opening the door and yelling "all aboard."

And I was on an Express RJ flight, last flight out of TRI on evening, and there were the crew and TWO passengers, me and someone else. The FA said the drinks were on the pilot and the two of us were given free WINE! :)

In spite of reading everything on the BAA website, concerning carry on, packing my briefcase in an extra bag I bought, and making sure what I had left met the requirements, both my wife and I ended up being unable to fully squeeze our two carry bags, because they had either straps or, in my case. a small set of wheels, into a specially built sizer box. We missed by a "nano inch", and probably, by damaging them, could have forced them all the way down into it. It took another 20 minutes to transfer the contents into other bags, during which time, we managed to damage one of our other bags (not their fault, but clearly a victim of rushing). We were told this was all for the best, since security would resize everything, and it would al have occurred later, anyway. It was not until after we headed for the boarding area, that I realized nobody ever looked again, and that we could just have put it all back in, or replaced it with duty free goods (which of course the BAA, who run the airport, have no issues with selling to you). Security is run by BAA, who have contracts to run airports all over the world, includng PIT. The British government apparently lets them set the rules on screening levels, insofar as implementation. Ryanair, the feisty European discount carrier, has already threatened to sue the BAA, for disrupting their business. Lest there be criticism of this post, for not respecting the needed security, in light of what's out there, I simply say, nothing I experienced, which created a situation where I arrived at Gatwick at 9:30AM, and didn't get to the gste until 11:45 AM (with no stops at lounges, duty free shops, etc.) persuaded me that it contributed to additional safety. If you are worried about carry on, then ban it completely. What difference would an additional handbag or briefcase make? The only thing I can conclude is that this "for profit" company (and by extension the airlines, who also pay for security), faced with additional levels of scrutiny, is unwilling to hire extra staff. Unitl they wake up, this will impact travel to and from those UK airports, certainly high yield. As it was, we had many empty chairs on that A330, including over a dozen in Envoy, even though this is a busy travel time to London.