|
Originally Posted by YtravelF
(Post 27060098)
They definitely jumped the gun.
Banking hubs is a sound strategy. But only if the underlying operation is sound. Banking hubs while running two un-integrated airlines is not the smartest idea and the chickens are coming home to roost. The reason to bank is because of the way tickets are sold now is by price and trip time (for most people; FTers are a different breed :cool:). By rebanking, AA tried to set itself up to be at the top of most search engines by having the lowest trip time combined with a reasonable fare, as well as to increase utilization of its planes. But if no one believes the trip time/departure time is realistic because AA's ops suck, then what's the point? ~TG |
Originally Posted by rjw242
(Post 26987311)
Certainly it's reasonable to question why AA's performance is near rock-bottom? Nobody's expecting zero delays, but AA is doing badly even relative to its peers. And there's nothing wrong with demanding better of companies you do business with.
I only flew 3 of the actual 8 flights I booked. All the rest were IRROP changed. First flight was AS to QX. 6 hour delay on the AS flight. Boarded and offloaded. By the time we finally departed, I couldn't make the original QX connection (which had nearly 3 hours cushion) so I had to wait around a few more hours for the last flight op by OO. I got to SFO a little after 10 a.m. and landed in my destination, 800 miles as the crow flies, just before midnight. The return on QX connecting to AS resulted in a cancellation and rebook on WS. Fortunately this one was a non-stop and arrived about the same time as the original plan, so instead of killing time at SEA I ate dinner at YVR. The next trip was a quick SFO-LAX, CP down and mainline back. The CP flight delayed while I was on the way to SFO, so I stood by for an earlier one. This one cleared and I was re-upgraded so net it was a win. Return flight was slightly late but nothing to get excited about. The next trip was an SFO-JFK round trip. The outbound was the one on time flight of the entire month. Unfortunately it was the typical no upgrade situation. The return was a complete disaster. First a thunderstorm opened up as I arrived at JFK. Things weren't looking too bad for us though. AA 85 currently originates in BOS and continues to SFO from JFK, but the plane never got out of JFK to go to BOS so they canceled the first leg and kept the second leg active. They took our plane to use for an LAX flight and assigned us one that was incoming, but were able to board at 9:30 p.m., about 90 minutes after scheduled departure. Then there was a mechanical problem "that shouldn't take too long to fix." About 11:30 p.m. they finally closed the door and we pushed back, only to return to the gate 10 minutes later. There was a different problem. We stayed inside the plane until about 1:20 p.m., when they canceled the flight. The rebook system wanted me to take a flight out of EWR at 7:00 a.m. (which was already delayed to 9 a.m.) and connect in DFW arriving at 5:30 p.m., all in middle seats. I had to play the hang up and call again game. and I finally found a 3:30 p.m. JFK-LAX-SJC connection. By this time it's 2:30 a.m. The hotels around JFK were hopelessly oversold, so I spent $70 on a taxi and $300 on a room in Manhattan to get some sleep. I get back to JFK, line up to board (plane is also coming out of BOS, but is mostly on time) when they announce a mechanical problem. Finally we board and I'm getting nervous about my connection, but at least I scored the one and only gate upgrade. I ultimately made my connection, with enough time to go into the AE Admirals Club and have one glass of liquid before it was time to board. |
So this entire thread has left me intrigued and curious... the claims of flights being delayed "intentionally" by way of late mx calls, has this been substantiated or more so just an assumption and hearsay? Of course I was curious and looked at the departures from MIA tonight and once again flight 56 to LHR has been delayed over an hour for mx reasons, yet I believe the aircraft arrived this morning from EZE at 4am. That does seem like quite a long time sitting on the ground here (at a major hub at that) unable to resolve a technical problem to make an on time 6:15p departure. 🤔
|
Originally Posted by pmanchuk
(Post 27075117)
So this entire thread has left me intrigued and curious... the claims of flights being delayed "intentionally" by way of late mx calls, has this been substantiated or more so just an assumption and hearsay?
|
Regarding the on time performance issues at LAX - have they been primarily on the LAA operation out of T4 and TBIT, or has it been equally bad for LAA as well as the LUS operation out of T6?
|
Originally Posted by pmanchuk
(Post 27075117)
So this entire thread has left me intrigued and curious... the claims of flights being delayed "intentionally" by way of late mx calls, has this been substantiated or more so just an assumption and hearsay? Of course I was curious and looked at the departures from MIA tonight and once again flight 56 to LHR has been delayed over an hour for mx reasons, yet I believe the aircraft arrived this morning from EZE at 4am. That does seem like quite a long time sitting on the ground here (at a major hub at that) unable to resolve a technical problem to make an on time 6:15p departure. 🤔
|
Originally Posted by chicago747
(Post 27069213)
Maybe AA is bad at math or this 737 has a time-machine button...but what gives?
All I can realistically think is the plane they were going to use went mechanical somewhere and this was the best they can do. I've seen this issue with this flight a few times though and am wondering if this leisure route is the first one to be thrown under the bus when a plane goes mechanical. You can use flight aware and see the entire history of tails assigned to your trip if you go to the event timeline view. I've had a trip where five different tails were assigned along the way. I've also had a trip with a couple of tail changes. The one we finally used was parked on a stand just a few hundred feet from the gate at DFW, but we still could not get out on time because it took something like 40 minutes to have it towed into the gate so we could board. It was obviously an operational spare (it was a Saturday when the schedules are lighter). At any rate, when a plane has a serious problem I don't think it is fair to say that leisure routes are more likely to get screwed than business routes. It really is done on a case by case basis, with factors like connections, crew hours and downstream use of the plane. If this particular flight has few connecting passengers with a crew that has plenty of legal hours remaining and will stay overnight, then it is a good candidate for taking the delay. The plane originally assigned then gets used to save a flight from cancellation due to a legal hours issue or to avoid 50 people missing their connections. |
Originally Posted by pmanchuk
(Post 27075117)
So this entire thread has left me intrigued and curious... the claims of flights being delayed "intentionally" by way of late mx calls, has this been substantiated or more so just an assumption and hearsay?
|
|
Originally Posted by AANYC1981
(Post 27078394)
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by AANYC1981
(Post 27078394)
dead. last.
As I've mentioned, complete shakeup in full effect right now, of course some sage cynics will understandably say: "When a car gets a flat tire, what do you do? Rotate the tires and keep driving." But, regardless, much action/attention on this with AA. |
Originally Posted by pmanchuk
(Post 27075117)
So this entire thread has left me intrigued and curious... the claims of flights being delayed "intentionally" by way of late mx calls, has this been substantiated or more so just an assumption and hearsay?
Here's what I posted about this issue most recently on July 10:
Originally Posted by FWAAA
Part of the problem is that AA's mechanics are extremely angry. The ground employees (mechanics and fleet service (baggage handlers/pushback)) are the only employees who have not received large raises since the merger. Parker bought labor peace with the pilots and FAs and showered both with generous pay increases. Agents negotiated their joint contract (LAA agents' first union contract) and received modest raises.
The mechanics and fleet service: Nada. Their anger does not translate into unsafe aircraft - it results in delays. Delays of old 757s and 763s and delays of new 787s and 77Ws. They're working to rule and following work cards to the letter - as they say - "in accordance with." They're in no hurry to fix problems and deliver airworthy aircraft to the pilots. Delta flies more older planes than does AA, and it has not seen the same maintenance delays, as its mechanics are happy with their hourly pay and the giant profit sharing payments (over 20% of W-2 wages paid out in February). The reasons for the contract delay are two-fold: the ground employees permitted both unions to form a non-accountable joint "association" between the TWU and the IAM and short-sighted management. Had Parker recognized the importance of happy mechanics in 2012-13, when he was negotiating with AA's pilots and FAs, he would have made a deal with AA's mechanics. You sow what you reap, and Parker's unreliable airline bears the scars of his major weakness: "know the price of everything and the value of nothing." Unlike Smisek, Parker hasn't engaged in any bribery/corruption and he didn't immediately declare war on frequent flyers, and so Parker isn't in any danger of being shown the door by the board. But make no mistake - Parker is in over his head, and is going thru the motions of CEO, without actually knowing what it takes to run a high-yield, on-time airline. Instead, he gives marching orders to slash premium cabin meals and to stuff more economy seats (and fewer premium seats) in aircraft than any foreign competitors. Cheapness and seating density are his specialties, and neither strategy has resulted in higher yields or unit revenues, both of which have tanked since his takeover.
Originally Posted by FWAAA
No disagreement here. Everyone at LUS was low-paid prior to the merger; Parker and Kirby convinced the US employees that US could never pay its employees the same wages as AA, DL and UA because US didn't attract the yields and unit revenues of the big three (and he was correct). For more than 20 years, the TATL yields and unit revenues of CLT and PHL lagged AA, DL and UA. US has always been the low-fare, low-yield airliine across the Atlantic.
Nevertheless, the US mechanics were relatively highly paid (compared to US pilots and FAs). AA's mechanics were relatively lower-paid (compared to the AA pilots and FAs). Along comes Parker, and buys labor peace with the pilots and FAs; giant raises for LUS pilots and FAs and large raises for LAA pilots and FAs. Parker's giant failure: No pre-merger agreement with ground employees. No prompt post-merger agreement with those ground employees. Today's unreliable AA was entirely preventable. jetBlue mechanics make far more money than AA mechanics. So do the non-union mechanics at Delta. AA's mechanics are now the lowest paid among the majors, and negotiations are proceeding at a snail's pace. Blame for that massive failure, IMO, rests at the feet of the incompetent CEO. There will be various people who disagree. IMO, they'll be wrong. It's not hearsay; it's authoritative. Now that the busy summer season has nearly ended, management has attempted to rectify the situation with raises in advance of a new contract. We'll see if it works. |
Originally Posted by AANYC1981
(Post 27078394)
|
Originally Posted by AANYC1981
(Post 27078394)
|
Anytime you are below Spirit in on-time performance things have truly gone south...
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:12 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.