wxguy

So here's an issue many of us have seen, and it's still bewildering.

Today's UA1024, SFO-PHX, is showing a late departure at 1:55pm, 65 minutes late. But the inbound aircraft is now in-flight, due in at 1:27pm. Why would Operations post a 28 minute turnaround for a 737-800? It takes at 50 minutes, if not 60. Inevitably the departure time for 1024 will be pushed back five or ten minutes at a time until they find one they can hit.

Why not just be honest the first time?

PV_Premier

common "problem"

meanwhile at AS on my last delayed flight i was notified by text of a 2+ hour delay more than 4 hours in advance of the flight. i live >1 hr away from the airport, this gave us the opportunity to sleep in a little bit and take a leisurely pace with chores before heading to the airport. it was a real breath of fresh air after these shenanigans at UA for the past couple years.

steveman518

UA 205 LAX-SFO originally scheduled for 3:57pm, delayed until 5:03
you'd think that UA could run that route on time...

wxguy

And.... as predicted, the rolling delays included: 2:05, 2:08, 2:20, then finally 2:45 -- though we eventually left "early" at 2:39. Somewhere in the mix there was a mx delay too, while a part was fetched from across the field at SFO.

flyingnosh

Over the past few months I've noticed an improvement in the turnaround time when the inbound aircraft arrives late. There doesn't seem to be quite the same lag between last passenger off and first passenger on. My best guess is that the flight crew now does their preparation while the aircraft is still being cleaned.

But even so, if UA were "honest the first time" you would have people walking away from the gate, going to a nearby restaurant, potentially holding up the flight even longer.

kranabargar

Here are some more to add to the tally:
Jan 1 641 (LAX to HNL) - 767 cancelled due to MX

Jan 2 - BOTH LAX flights to LIH severely delayed
297 - 5:20 delay - interesting that swapped a 757 to a 767 on this one
785 - 3:22 delay - root cause MX to the plane at the beginning of the day out of SFO

Boo_Radley

761 ORD-SFO 1/5, arrival was only delayed about 10 minutes since we made up time in the air, but I got a chuckle out of the posted reason. Before pushback, the tug skidded and hit the front landing gear due to ice, so we had to wait for a ground crew to check for damage. The posted delay reason:

"Delayed due to severe weather conditions in our route network"

Again, since arrival was only delayed 10 minutes, I'm not annoyed. I just thought it was funny, especially since the first thought in my head when the captain announced what had happened was "I bet this one is getting posted as a weather delay".

goalie

Bolding mine: Well ice is caused by "weather"

jjmoore

UA6239 DEN-FAT yesterday arrived 2 hours late... main reason was the baggage handlers in Denver are a new contractor ($8/hr hourly workers)... total mess... so many flights delayed, and quite a few of them were for baggage issues. It took over 2 hours to get the bags to the plane? Really?

fgirard

Or there could have been a thunderstorm in DEL and therefore was a "severe weather condition in our route network"

Hite

Received a 12 am text from United that my 4:36 PM flight from GSP to ORD on 1/8 was cancelled due to air traffic control conditions. Darn being on a small plane that is a low priority.

JVPhoto

1/8 MTJ-ORD CRJ700
Scheduled 12:35 boarded and taxi. Rolling ORD ground hold delays for almost 2 hours. Went back to gate as our new wheels up was 1:05 later. Got fuel, MTJ staff had snacks/drinks waiting and protecting people.
Now 2:55 and boarding again with a scheduled departure at 3:15 and 7:00 arrival. Cpt said good tail winds and should only be 2:05h in the air.

Scheduled for the 6pm ORD-LGA which now says on time but I'm protected on the 8:30.

COSPILOT

Our DEN-COS flight Tuesday evening was showing something like a 30 minute delay initially, which is no big deal, until I looked at the inbound aircraft and saw that it was over central Iowa at the time. I mentioned to the GA that our departure time would never happen as shown, as the inbound would take longer than 45 minutes to make it to DEN.

Crap like this seems to be the new norm, as I would rather sit in the club a bit longer than hang out at the gate, especially the UX gates at DEN. When its obvious that the departure will be much later, especially with late inbound aircraft, why not pick a realistic time for the next departure? My only guess is that UA's software only looks at when the aircraft pushed back from the gate, and doesn't look at real time data of the flight. So many things can allow a plane to leave the gate, but keep the aircraft from actually taking off for a while, but apparently UA isn't aware of that...

dmurphynj

Especially at a hub like DEN, you should never trust the 'where is this plane now?' Function and draw a correlation to your delay.

It's VERY common for UA to swap your flight to a different plane and - just like magic - that plane over Iowa has nothing to do with you.

I applaud UA for getting us access to as much information as possible - the downside is when people misinterpret it, like this.

I'm not saying YOUR plane was swapped to another one but it happens all day, every day, all over the system. 'Where is this plane?' is a nice function but very much NOT a reliable indicator of anything.

JVPhoto

55 min now sitting on the ground at ORD coming in from MTJ waiting for the gate to open.