Originally Posted by
ralfp
Were they going to SFO?
Yes. I was sentient enough to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
Originally Posted by
ralfp
UA647 (after 1299) departed 38 minutes late and UA644 departed more or less on time, but it was 1 hour earlier.
According to UA, UA647 departed on time, as did UA644 and UA225. In other words, there were no gate holds for these flights.
While ATC delays might be justifiable speculation in the absence of any other information, here we have specific contrary information from an authoritative source: the pilot in command. Besides, no conduct or announcement suggested a gate hold.
Originally Posted by
ralfp
In the UA world, does ATC vs. weather make a difference (serious question)? IME UA considers both to be valid excuses for delays. I do not see why this would matter.
Agree with your hypothetical, although it is not germane. I posited the difference between WX and MX, which does impact passengers. My comment could be restated substituting ATC for WX. The point remains that it appears that UA shifted an MX delay to WX/ATC.
Originally Posted by
ralfp
One question is whether a 60 min mechanical delay is excused by a 90 minute weather delay that would have occurred anyway.
If there were a 90 minute WX delay, then we would have been delayed 90 minutes and not 60, right? Again an interesting hypothetical, but not one supported by any established facts. I doubt that the cabin would have been made ready for take off and the Smisek/safety video shown if there were any kind of significant gate hold.
Originally Posted by
ralfp
Did you have to watch it twice? That would be something worthy of compensation.
Yes, the HORROR!
Marc