Originally Posted by
FlyWorld
True. However that thread documents far more than 2 cancelled flights. No point arguing the definition of few.
Do you consider it a fact that Smisek has been quoted as saying there are diminishing returns from seeking on time performance greater than 80%?
Do you accept as fact that United Continental cancelled 1.9% of its flights year to date while DL cancelled 1.12% of its flights?
I take issue with the over-the-top claims that operations are a "train wreck" and an "insult to paying customers." This type of hyperbole is disconnected from the facts (both those you noted and other data points).
Originally Posted by
FlyWorld
What I find most relevant to the conversation at hand is the horrible IRROPS that customer face when things go wrong with a United Continental flight. This, more than anything else, supports the argument that United Continental does not want to compete for business. It shows an attitude towards customer satisfaction that I can only describe using words that are banned from this forum.
The consequences of a cancelled flight are much more severe on United Continental because of the lack of investment in IT infrastructure, staffing, and the general attitude of cost cutting to increase the margin calculations that drive Smisek's annual compensation. If Smisek could live on a bit less than $12,000,000 a year, perhaps some resources could be invested in making the experience a little more comfortable for those impacted. And, that, my friend, is what would reduce the dissatisfaction we see being expressed.
I think a discussion of IRROPS becomes more subjective. I haven't encountered the type of issues with being re-accommodated that are often discussed, but that's not to say they don't exist (particularly since most of my travel is on non-stops). I can't argue that there will always an opportunity to improve the IRROPS experience, or better yet, avoided it in the first place.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
There are many United flights that operate with a less than 60% or 70% OT record. Plug some city pairs into FlightAware and see for yourself.
There are many flights on every airline that operate with less than a 60% or 70% OT record. That's the nature of this business. That's also why people focus on system-wide performance as looking at a handful of flights out of thousands each day is not statistically meaningful, though it could be personally important if the particular flight you take each week is always late (been there, done that).
Originally Posted by
BearX220
It is very common to discover a UA aircraft where wifi / streaming was promised is actually dark, or have it promo'd by the crew but then discovered to be not working. Happened to me on BOS-SFO just a few weeks ago; we sat in the dark for 6+ hours. I should have flown JetBlue.
"Very common" is a gross exaggeration. IFE failures are possible on any airline with personal wireless or permanently installed systems. It happened to me on a 1-month old AA 777-300ER in F.
Originally Posted by
BearX220
The thread on delayed / cancelled international flights is impressively chockablock with actual facts.
Yes, but how many international flights are there each day? Is it accurate or reasonable to extrapolate the experience with a few flights each day into broad-base hyperbole?
Originally Posted by
BearX220
I believe the physical misery associated with the A320 slimlines is actually factual. My lumbar hurt for 48 hours after landing -- fact. We have a Flyertalk poll showing that experience is not individual / anecdotal.
United can compete for my business with better / nominal operational reliability, fewer RJs, removing the slimlines... all the usual things we discuss.
The slimlines are here to stay on every airline.
FWIW, I find these type of expectations to be totally disconnected from reality and counterproductive to more relevant discussion.