psarwal

Today I was booked on DUB --> ORD --> MCI flight with a 1:15 layover in ORD (you pre clear customs and immigration in Dublin so in some sense this is like a domestic flight). Due to mechancial problems on the inbound aircraft the flight was delayed by about 55 minutes and they updated the arrival in Chicago to 1:08 PM and my flight to MCI was at 1:35.

I tried to remain on the original flight arguing that the flights typically make up time, but the agent refused to keep me on the original flight (I did have a checked bag) and moved me to the 5:35 flight. I can understand that there are connection rules but my feeling is that they should apply to original booking and not when there is a delay, especially due to mechanical problems (ready for the flames on this comment )

Sure enough the flight from Dublin made up about 15 mins and I was at the MCI gate at 1:00 PM, so would have easily caught the flight and my bags would also have made it. Also since I had checked bag I could not standby and now will spend the next four hours at the flagship lounge.

The bag is just a little bigger than the maximum allowable (and I had carried it on the flight from MCI to DUB) and I could have probably carried it on but that would have not made a difference as the flight to MCI was completely full.

MiamiAirport Formerly NY George

To a certain extent I think you should have been allowed on the original flight (you had 27 minutes to essentially make a domestic connection) and then been backed up on the later flight if so needed. I've had the EXP desk do this for me a number of times when making my connection looked iffy but yet I knew I would have a seat if I needed on a later flight.

gemac

EXP agents used to protect EXPs by creating a reservation on the later flight while leaving them on the earlier flight. As I understand it, the AAgent then had to go back later, see if the EXP made the earlier flight, and if so remove them from the later flight so that seat could be used by somebody else if necessary. Again as I understand it, AA has instructed its AAgents not to do this anymore. Some AAgents still do it anyway, some not. If OP is complaining that the AAgent would not do this, then he really doesn't have a complaint, the AAgent was doing what they are supposed to do.

If the OP is complaining that the AAgent would not let him stay on his original flight, unprotected, a lot more variables come into play. If OP missed his original flight and that resulted in an overnight stay, would AA have had to pay for hotel and meals? Personally, I am in favor of AA allowing its passengers to choose to do something silly (or something that AA views as silly) as long as it doesn't cost AA anything and they have advised the passenger that it is a silly thing to do.

brp

We had this happen recently on MCO-DFW-SJC. We were delayed out of MCO to the point where DFW-SJC was questionable. We were kept on that, and protected on a morning DFW-SJC. The agent made no indication of any special effort or issue. She just asked that, if we made the original flight, we let the GA know so that they could remove the hold. We did make it by several minutes, and I asked the FA to let the GA know as we boarded hurriedly.

I have a feeling that being EXP helped this.

Cheers.

swag

I can only imagine the chaos if every connecting passenger who had a minor delay posted that resulted in a connection dropping a bit below the MCT was rebooked with no option to stick with the original flight.

psarwal

I did have this discussion with the agent and I told her that I will risk the 5:30 PM flight not being available if the DUB --> ORD flight gets delayed further and she did not have to protect me on the 5:30 flight.

Dave Noble

What I see is that the agent did the correct thing; the flight departurre changed and connection was now "illegal" and so she made sure you had a valid connection

Gamecock

Indeed.

Threads blaming AA for one's own stupidity are generally quite amusing!

gemac

Since you were willing to do this, and bear any possible consequences, I think you should have been allowed to do so.

Dave Noble

Except of course, once arrived in destination and if missing the flight, the passengers that have said "i'll take the risk" are likely to be singing a different tune to the staff at the arrival airport

The MCTs are there for good reason

brp

I'm assuming that part of the time built into the MCT is to allow for slight delays on the inbound. Certainly, if things are on time, it doesn't take anywhere near the MCT to actually get from one aircraft to the other. Thus, if one of these delays is actually in progress, and reduces things slightly under the MCT, well, that's what it's there for....or should be.

I was very happy that the agent both kept us on our original flight, and protected us. We arrived definitely under the MCT. While we ran to get to the second plane, we really did have more time than that, and could have made it more easily (but running is more fun).

Cheers.

Dave Noble

In the case of the OP, the flight was rescheduled due to it known to be being late and the connection became invalid. The MCT is based on the expectation that the flight will depart on time or close to it ; in the case in this thread the flight was known to be going to be 55 minutes late and was retimed which with the new arrival time allowed a connection of 27 minutes.

iirc, AA's requirement is that passengers be at the gate 15 minutes before departure , leaving a 12 minute buffer even if the flights were adjacent gates

with such a short connection it is unsurprisingly to me that they rebooked

I also am fairly sure that even if a passenger claimed to be ok about not being able to get on the later flight if they didnt make this v tight connection, that in most cases their claims would change

mvoight

NONSENSE. The new planned departure time made the connection below MCT.
There is no guarantee you are going to make up time on the flight. You might have been held on the ground waiting for clearance. You could have been delayed at arrival. If MCT isn't the deciding factor, what would you like it to be? I agree with another poster on the changes in atitutuded with the "I'll takre responsibility" passengers. Would you really not tried to get compensation from AA if you had missed that flight and had to spend the night at the connecting point? Even if you are not THAT passenger, I believe the agent did the right thing, and I suspect all they did was follow policy, which makes sense.

brp

Same with mine. We had weather in MCO, and they couldn't even bring the plane into the gate for a while. When they did, and the weather had passed, they knew just how late they were going to be. We had about 22 minutes to get from A37 to A17 (or something like that). They actually held it even a few minutes longer for some other late-arriving folks. So, yeah, there is the 15 minute thing. But, when they know there are enough late connectors, they can let people board after that.

Oh, and we got to SJC about 10 minutes early

And do you truly believe that MCT reflects the actual time to get from one aircraft to the other, without any room built in for possible delays? Given how generous the MCTs are, this clearly can't be the case.

Cheers.

Dave Noble

The MCT allows for unplanned delays indeed. In this case the flight was actually rescheduled with a new departure time rather than just departing a bit late

That it was now scheduled for 13:08 doesn't mean that it could not arrive late against its new schedule. The 75 minutes allows time to connect and a buffer for unexpected delay; this was not an unexpected delay

Plus the airline has to unload the baggage and get it to the new flight

If he had no baggage and the flight arrived with time to spare and if standby is permitted on the domestic leg of an international itinerary, he could have stood by. With the onward flight being full, at 15 minutes before departure the gate could well have been dropping passengers who failed to appear to clear any standby passengers