Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

flag stop - san-iad red eye makes "flag stop" in CLE

flag stop - san-iad red eye makes "flag stop" in CLE

Old Oct 6, 2015, 8:35 pm
  #46  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: LAX,SNA,SAN
Programs: UA GS, Marriott LP, Hertz Gold
Posts: 861
I was booked on this flight and UPG Friday into F and had to cancel Saturday midday. When I cancelled, seat map showed about 9 open seats and 4 standbys.

Either the 65 CLE folks were already rebooked Saturday or even earlier and UA just MX the DEN connection knowing the CLE fans would not make it to SAN until 6:30 at a minimum or I call shenanigans on this whole last minute rebook. There is no way 65 CLE folks make it on this weekly red eye late notice, no way. I do this glorious route about about 35 weeks a year. It's always full without the CLE folks.
ZZYZXROAD is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 8:48 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA 1k (12 year fallen GS) 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,190
Originally Posted by ctownflyer
At most there were 100 pax booked on that IAD-SAN flight. Perhaps even less, though the seat maps aren't available.

Ignoring the finances, would you rather force 65 customers into an overnight delay situation than delay 100 customers by 1 hour?
Why do so many here insist on debating things as if UA had no choice - UA took the original 65 people they screwed and decided to screw 65 more instead of putting them on other airlines to get home - all so they could keep the revenue....
bmwe92fan is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 8:52 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA/ORD/ADB
Programs: TK ELPL (*G), AS 100K (OWE), BA Gold (OWE), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 7,763
Originally Posted by TA
Not disturbing the planned schedule and expected arrival time of a planeload of passengers? Or is it about getting 65 passengers to Cleveland with less disruption to them? Or are you suggesting there was a better way that would satisfy these both ideals with some cost that UA was unwilling to incur?
There's always the option of flying an extra section SAN-CLE. Or an extra section on IAD-CLE the next morning - UA definitely had enough advance notice to organize that. What it comes down to is that UA is too cheap to consider such alternatives, because it doesn't understand that the revenue premium it commands from offering a nonstop is contingent on the flight actually being flown without stops.
PVDtoDEL is online now  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 9:09 pm
  #49  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA1K
Posts: 4,044
Originally Posted by ctownflyer
At most there were 100 pax booked on that IAD-SAN flight. Perhaps even less, though the seat maps aren't available.

Ignoring the finances, would you rather force 65 customers into an overnight delay situation than delay 100 customers by 1 hour?
we don't know the loads but it obviously wasn't THAT full if 65 people were able to get on. and, i've had flights delayed because the inbound was on a MX. i didn't receive anything. looks like the red eye to ORD didn't have any standbys so that may have been completely full. given the time constraints and the current situation, i feel this is the best option of all bad options.
haddon90 is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 9:39 pm
  #50  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Programs: UA-GS, Hyatt-Defiantly Diamond, Marriott-Platinum, SPG-Platinum
Posts: 499
Originally Posted by bmwe92fan
Why do so many here insist on debating things as if UA had no choice - UA took the original 65 people they screwed and decided to screw 65 more instead of putting them on other airlines to get home - all so they could keep the revenue....
Golly, unusually find your posts balanced and fair, a good mix of critical and positive. But your view on this thread is puzzling. There's so much we don't know here, it's hard to take so hard and firm a stance.

I think that if UA had left the 65 stranded in SAN, the hard-liners would be complaining that UA "wasn't as creative as" [name another Atlanta-based airline] at "recovering from IRROPS by just making a stop in CLE on way to IAD."

I'd not be thrilled that UA made me stop in CLE, but I'd feel like it was a nice thing that 65 of my fellow Buckeyes got home and all I had to do was put my seat up for landing one more time.

First world problems, really.
USHPNWDLUA is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 9:45 pm
  #51  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA 1k (12 year fallen GS) 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,190
Originally Posted by USHPNWDLUA
Golly, unusually find your posts balanced and fair, a good mix of critical and positive. But your view on this thread is puzzling. There's so much we don't know here, it's hard to take so hard a firm a stance.

I think that if UA had left the 65 stranded in SAN, the hard-liners would be complaining that UA "wasn't as creative as" [name another Atlanta-based airline] at "recovering from IRROPS by just making a stop in CLE on way to IAD."

I'd not be thrilled that UA made me stop in CLE, but I'd feel like it was a nice thing that 65 of my fellow Buckeyes got home and all I had to do was put my seat up for landing one more time.

First world problems, really.
I appreciate your response - and usually I guess I'm more forgiving - but after being a victim of UA's "recovery" strategy in the past few months I guess I've grown less patient with how they manage things when they screw up - and as someone who flies many airlines regularly I know first hand that other airlines handle things better - and not by exception....

I will refrain from posting more in this thread - I guess I've been over the top aggressive and need some time to let it pass lol....
bmwe92fan is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 10:04 pm
  #52  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by USHPNWDLUA
First world problems, really.
Indeed. If I were flying Air Koryo I might expect this.

I can't think of another major carrier though that would do this, and do it to avoid the cost of accommodating them on OALs or running an extra section. I pay good money to fly, and my time is valuable. My sleep is even more valuable. I view this as basically theft by United, theft from everyone flying SAN-IAD, theft to prevent revenue leakage to OALs.

I've had medical diversions, and lots of IRROPs, but this is different. United chose to inconvenience one set of passengers on this flight to prevent the loss of revenue (or actual costs) from another.

I seriously doubt that any other major airline would do something like this.
spin88 is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 10:32 pm
  #53  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,481
Originally Posted by spin88
...
I can't think of another major carrier though that would do this, and do it to avoid the cost of accommodating them on OALs or running an extra section. ...
I seriously doubt that any other major airline would do something like this....
Hmm, I certainly can see some examples of this happening at other carriers:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/south...assengers.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...-still-do.html (older example)

I don't know why UA is being criticized so hard, unless it's happening much more frequently? Or is it the build up of other issues leading to harsh criticism for this one incident?
TA is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 11:19 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oakland CA
Programs: DL Gold, AS MVPG, Globalist
Posts: 1,007
Originally Posted by TA
Hmm, I certainly can see some examples of this happening at other carriers:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/south...assengers.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...-still-do.html (older example)
I had this on AS a while back. SEA-SFO went mechanical, so they put everybody on my SEA-OAK flight and we went SEA-SFO-OAK.

That second segment was a lot of fun. The pilots goofed around with the announcement..."Welcome aboard our new non-stop service from San Francisco to Oakland. Our flying time today will be six minutes, with a cruising altitude of 3,000 feet. The weather in Oakland is pretty much what you see out your window."

No 'compensation' per se, but drinks were on the house from SEA-SFO for all pax.
dordal is offline  
Old Oct 6, 2015, 11:22 pm
  #55  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,576
To those suggesting that UA should have accommodated the misconnects on other airlines, 65 passengers is a lot to accommodate. If UA booked every available seat on any other airline from SAN to CLE with a stop anywhere, it might have taken a day or two to clear the backlog. Delta, especially, flies very high load factors these days. Notwithstanding the financial cost to UA of hotels, this would have been disruptive to the passengers.

Also, it probably wasn't just passengers going to CLE that were affected. There may have been people flying SAN-DEN-XXX who also missed their connections. They would have to be accommodated as well.

Given what we know, I think UA acted reasonably to minimize disruption to passengers as a whole. An hour delay for a group of passengers is better than an overnight delay for another group. Of course, they could have avoided this by maintaining their planes properly, but that's a different issue.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Oct 7, 2015, 2:14 am
  #56  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by spin88
Lets add UA SAN-IAD-CLE to the mix, so 4 options, and United could have upgaged IAD-CLE to address the issue, problem solved.

But seriously, do you think its more likely that (a) United could not fit any of these folks impacted by its own MX onto OALs, and this was the ONLY option, or (b) that UA did not want to pay OALs to take them, or pay to upgage, and it was cheaper to just badly inconvenience the SAN-IAD folks?
Where is the larger plane to upguage IAD-CLE supposed to come from?

I can also guarantee it cost quite a bit to make the stop. Whether it cost more than rebooking everyone on OAL is tough. What is undebatable is that the IRROPS recovery for the CLE pax was outstanding.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Oct 7, 2015, 2:50 am
  #57  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
This is the first time I've heard about this as a tool for IRROPS recovery. And assuming the 65 PAX is true, UA made a brilliant decision that was the best compromise for its passengers and itself. I researched the flights and times of UA and others Monday, and this was by far the best option for them. It can throw the IAD passengers a bone for the inconvenience, but I bet very few passengers would be too upset. They know what it's like to be in those shoes. Good to see UA do something like this.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Oct 7, 2015, 7:36 am
  #58  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,067
Originally Posted by cbn42
An hour delay for a group of passengers is better than an overnight delay for another group.
That's ridiculous.

Imagine if that happened in any other industry. Go to a restaurant, and hey, some of our tables are broken, so instead of canceling reservations, we doubled up parties. Everyone being able to eat is better than only some people being able to eat. Oh and you still pay full price. That's not what you signed up for.

Or maybe you booked an Uber ride for a $40 ride into town, the car shows up, and there's already a passenger in it. We're going to swing across town first to drop her off, since her driver's car broke down, and there's no other drivers. Should only set you back 20 minutes. Better to inconvenience you for a little than her for a lot. Not what you signed up for.

If we had stronger consumer protections in this country, United would not have tried this. United marketed, sold, and likely charged a premium for, a nonstop flight. United chose not to provide it. United should compensate everyone affected, period.

Not to mention how many blown connections were there on the IAD side? The impact could be more significant than an hour.

Unfortunately, our consumer protections in in the U.S. are rather weak. This reminds me of when CO got in trouble with the German authorities for all their 757 fuel stops on TATLs ex-Germany. Basically they German authorities said it was a deceptive practice to market and sell nonstop flights and then not deliver them. CO had a choice to upgauge or pull out. They upgauged.
channa is offline  
Old Oct 7, 2015, 7:38 am
  #59  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA for now. Hopefully LIS for retirement
Posts: 13,637
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
In the 1970s, the Australia-USA routes did stop in Hawaii. Many passengers would take a several day stopover to minimize jet lag at their destination. I'm thinking especially of QF flights. [In fact, I know people now who will routinely do a stopover at SIN between the USA east coast and Australia.]
How on Earth does stopping in SIN on the way from the US to Oz minimize jet lag?
Bear96 is offline  
Old Oct 7, 2015, 7:39 am
  #60  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA
Posts: 1,281
My two cents, I think UA did the right thing here....came up with a plan to actually deal with IRROPS as quickly as possible with minimizing the impact as much as possible - this alone is quite unusual for UA.

Also look at the plus side, you only got in an hour late which in UA books is actually on-time the majority of the time anyways since they are usually always delayed....at least they didn't use the weather excuse this time
dank0014 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.