drseagrass

BWI to SFO #753, 11/14/2011. Connecting non-stop flight to YYJ missed, United's position is that this is a weather (headwind) related delay and they owe nothing to passenger, e.g. meal vouchers, transfer to another airline such as Air Canada with seats available to get to final destination in same day (based upon internet search of AC website), passenger can pay for overnight accommodation personally at Vancouver Internat'l Airport. Of course, United chooses to fly an Airbus 320 on a cross-country route, and they must derive some financial benefit from using a single aisle medium range aircraft for a cross-country flight. When the wind blows too hard from the west, the connecting passengers pay for the risk the airline undertook. Or is my analysis off-target?

CDKing

Sounds like weather issue to me which would mean no special compensation.

mduell

Transportation to your destination, as described in the contract of carriage.

1111

Within 90 days, or is it 60?

The people working on future air traffic concepts (e.g., NextGen) are obsessed (maybe too weak a word) with making sure there's no way airlines can "game the system". Hopefully someone is watching out for the way airlines assign airframe/payload combos to scheduled flights to ensure they're not gaming the system.

LeviFlight

The OPs point is the it is not the weather but poor planning to be able to deal with non extreme weather. How many other airlines were grounded because of this? No other? If not Then at very least it is embarrassing for the company. "Our planes might make it if it's not to breezy". On the other hand the could market the Golden days romantic angle "hey we turned the radar off too". Or hey, lucky we weren't TATL. What a bummer for the customers. I am perhaps overly snarky but feel for anyone left to deal with being dumped off mid flight.

Allan38103

"When the wind blows too hard from the west, the connecting passengers pay for the risk the airline undertook. Or is my analysis off-target?"

Not off-target.

Now that you know, next time you can factor in the unplanned stop and plan accordingly.

DBCme

Didn't take them long out of BWI to figure out fuel was going to be an issue...

Flight 753
Arrived at Gate
More details Baltimore, MD (BWI)
Mon, Nov 14
Scheduled: 6:19 AM
Actual: 6:14 AM On Time
Reason: Airport Conditions
pier d upper level
Gate: D15
Des Moines, IA (DSM)
Mon, Nov 14
Scheduled:
Actual: 8:05 AM Extra Stop Reason: --
Concourse A
Gate: A4
Baggage claim: 4
Flight 753
Arrived at Gate
More details Des Moines, IA (DSM)
Mon, Nov 14
Scheduled:
Actual: 8:36 AM Extra Stop
Reason: Operations
Concourse A
Gate: A4
San Francisco, CA (SFO)
Mon, Nov 14
Scheduled: 9:35 AM
Actual: 10:53 AM Delayed
Reason: --
Gate: 73A
Baggage claim: 4

mduell

Were you at the CACR/CTOP seminar last week at WJHTC? Concerns about gaming the system accounted for about half of the audience questions.
I don't understand what your second sentence is saying/implying.

1111

My point is, if they really rarely divert because of strong winds, that's one thing; if they plan an aircraft that will have to divert a substantial amount of the time, and each time it happens say, "oh, gosh, gee, it was just the very unusual weather", that's similar to the kind of gaming that all those audience members were so concerned about. Given how much people think airlines will take such actions in one domain, probably people should be keeping an eye on them in other domains. Maybe in this case it's completely innocent, and if the completion rate for this flight is very high, we can stop being so paranoid (and if not, then not).

FlyingDiver

The diversion to land to refuel cost them way more money than anything they could have gained by "gaming" the system. That extra stop probably added 20% to their fuel cost for the run. There's no way they would plan an aircraft/route combination that would need to do that on a regular basis.

joe

FL5000

15-Oct-2011 United/Continental flt. 1294 non-stop flight from BOS to SFO was "relisted" as BOS-DEN with continuation to SFO due to "high winds forcing a fuel stop in DEN." Final delay to SFO was 3 hours.

At the gate at Logan I pointed out that the high winds would not be a problem if they were flying a plane designed for trans-continental flights. Their response: "We fly this plane on this route all the time and this has never happened before!" which is like saying "I drive with low tire pressure all the time and this is the first time I've gotten a flat tire!"

The 737-800 was not designed as a trans-continental aircraft. Maximum range is 3000 nm which is only 300 nm over the nominal 2700 nm from BOS to SFO (Compare United's 757-200s at 3900 nm). Eastward with the jet stream is okay, but obviously Westward is always going to be dicey. I suspect the A320 has the same problem.

Thus this is NOT a weather problem - it's an equipment choice by the airlines and they know it. They'd rather fly the 737's and A320s, save fuel, and take their chances with the winds.

I emailed United customer service, gave them this argument and they gave me 7000 (non-eqm) miles for my troubles. Fair enough - I didn't miss any connections, but a lot of other people sure did.

Daggett76

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the current situation is that passengers are entitled to compensation for being denied boarding due to oversold flights, but any compensation for delays is entirely voluntary. So the airline sets the rules here, and United can interpret their own policies in any way they see fit.

Under European law though (if that ever makes it to the US), United would have a hard time weaseling themselves out of paying, because I would assume strong headwinds don't qualify as "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". A reasonable measure would have been to depart with a sufficient amount of kerosene for example.

davidsfo

On a normal day, a 320 should easily be able to do BWI/SFO nonstop. Op should check other 320's from the East Coast for that day and see if extra stops were necessary. Truth be told, an 1 hour 15 minute delay isn't much. You can get that type of delay simply for low clouds in the SFO area. I doubt compensation will be awarded unless you're one of the privileged class (GS, 1k etc.)

ual1960

I was on UA710 today, A320, PDX-SFO. It left over and hour late because it got in from SFO over an hour late because (!) the flight it came in from EWR had to stop in MSP for fuile because of today's high winds - which as we see from OP affected more than one flight today. So many of the EWR-SFO flight's pax were screwed by the late arrival in SFO and I know that on 710, there were a lot of people having their connections blown at SFO, especially several going to Hawaii (which would especially suck).

Contracts of carrieg and other small print issues aside, in this I come down with pax due compensation as the airline has chosen to use equipment whicvh has limitations that lead to this sort of inconvenience. The savings for the airline should be balanced by proper care of customers. Of course, I don't rerally think they'll come through - still I go with the pax in this one.

davidsfo

I just checked on ual.com. None of the IAD or PHL nonstops to SFO on 319/320's made an extra stop. The EWR-SFO flight did stop in MSP. No doubt strong head winds today; extra 20 minutes on most east to west flights. If UA can go IAD or PHL nonstop today, why not BWI. If I was the OP I'd email CS and make the argument. Have low expections and be pleasantly surprised.