HobokenFlyer

Flew HAM-EWR on 11/1, no fuel stop, took 8.5 hours, but the plane was only 75% full...had an exit (reclining) all to myself...ahhhh....the plat across the way had the same deal.

Flight was FULL of German nationals....hardly any US citizens...which means hardly any elites. When they announced pre-boarding it was BF and EA at once and only 12 people boarded at that time; 10 turned left and 2 turned right.

- HF

SDF_Traveler

Greetings -

I flew across the pond the other day and we made the journey right at 7 hours, perhaps a bit less. In the past I would normally use CO via EWR or NW via DTW into LGW for flights to London, or go via AMS for connections.

After this Heathrow experience, I won't be returning anytime soon. LHR is a complete Charlie Foxtrot for connecting pax, give me AMS Schiphol anyday.

Setting this aside, the jet stream was roaring and was well to the north given our flight path. This could explain why BCN has been ok, while the northern European destinations have been stopping.

Flight path took us north out of ORD, over MKE, and from MKE we continued north/northeast-ward and over Hudson Bay, over to Godthab, Greenland, onward to KEF, and landfall over the UK was around Prestwick and we proceeded south down to Glasgow into the LON area. Once we got onto the northern track and turned east, our ground speed was really good.

At any rate, the winds always vary over the winter, but something tells me I probably have a long flight back in a couple of days.

Looking at FlightAware -- and I know the intl flight times are not almost accurate - but can give an indication, the return is easily taking closer to 9 hours on some flights and the flight tracks have been shifting between the far north and a crossing further to the south over the past few days as well.

Last but not least, having flown CO's 757 trans-Atlantic service, it seems to work for them in the summer months. One of CO's 757 services was an option for this trip I am currently on, but I decided against it because of my knowledge of range issues this time of year.

craz

[QUOTE=HobokenFlyer;8669558]Flew HAM-EWR on 11/1, no fuel stop, took 8.5 hours, but the plane was only 75% full...had an exit (reclining) all to myself...ahhhh....the plat across the way had the same deal.

Flight was FULL of German nationals....hardly any US citizens...which means hardly any elites. When they announced pre-boarding it was BF and EA at once and only 12 people boarded at that time; 10 turned left and 2 turned right.



didnt know that the arm rests went up on the 757s. usually if they dont I dont mind if someone is in the window seat (I take aisles), as no way to lie dow across all 3 w/o the arm rests going up.

craz

FWIW, I happen to agree, comes winter time and knowing that most likely the 757s will have to make apit stop. Then CO should sell the flight as such and especially in regards to those who will have connecting flights.

If CO sells say the ARN-XYZ with the earlier connection based on arriving as a non-stop. Then makes the stop and the flights after that persons are either 1 Sold-out or 2- the next flight to XYZ is the next day. Then CO is to Blame.

Especially since had the flight been sold with the fuel stop then that person would have been booked onto a later connecting flight and wouldnt have a prob with having to stand-by. As to knowing in advance that the flight wouldnt make the last flight of that day to XYZ the person could therefore chose to fly on someone else in order to get to where they want to on that same day.

If a fuel stop occurs say 1 or 2 times a month I would side with CO, however some of these Routes have it almost 7 times a week, thats a different case altogether.

Fly the Route but before a person purchases the tkt Make it known to them that most likely the flight to EWR will have to make a fuel stop that can cause the following to occur and the passenger will be on their own dime.

gogreyhound

If you are going to get into risk assessment, then you might as well do it on all flights. The only risk is that you arrive late, and there are plenty of domestic flights with with on-time records as bad or worse as the TATLs . Come to think of it, that's stats are already available. However, I don't think a 20 percent chance of a fuel stop comes close to meaning you will "most likely" have do one.
The real solution is to be honest and treat delayed passengers, once they are on the ground, as though it were a CO ops problem and not weather/ATC.

In New York yesterday, I saw two CO billboards on a building on 7th Ave. between 49th and 50th.
Billboard 1: Who has the most destinations in Europe? (Hint: It ain't Delta.)
Billboard 2: Who has the most destinations in Latin America? (Hint: It ain't American.)
I think there was enough room for a third billboard. Who has the most service to Goose Bay? (Hint: It ain't Air Labrador.)

yad

The shame of this is that if they would just plan this service I'd be heading up to Gander and Goose Bay on purpose. Both of them are fantastic places.

eagle92

Nail. Head.

This, I think, would be the best solution all around. If Continental is willing to take the "knowing" risk of utilizing aircraft that have a high chance of diversions during strong headwinds then the least they could do is take into account the "knowing" risk of having to accomodate passengers who will most likely be stranded or miss their connecting flights.

J.Edward

Sorry for not being able to chime in earlier but I've in the middle of exams and as such my time for FT takes a hit.

That said at the past DO Larry and I talked about this and here's what I took away from it:

I argued that fuel stops for a 752 should not be classified as weather (or at least not in the traditional sense) as at the end of the day:...and as such, CO should not penalize customers through limited rebooking options under the weather delay mantra.

Larry agreed with this but he did throw in one caveat - if the winds were strong enough to delay a widebody than he'd still consider it a weather delay but if the widebody could make it and a 752 stop than he would call it something else besides weather delay (or if it was still classified as weather the customer would not be penalized in terms of the rebooking options.)

Afterwards he asked me to send him a follow up email, which I did, and I presume he forward it along to the correct individuals within Continental.

Again my apologies for not familiarizing myself completely with this thread before commenting but do we have any reports as to how CO's treated a customer(s) who have been misconnected due to a 752 fuel stop - and if so - what did Continental sight as the delay and how did they re-accommodate the passenger(s)?

LAexNY

Yes, and I remember when CO first got the 777, riding it LAX-IAH. Easy elite upgrades, lots of empty BF seats. I also remember the FA's being excited about the espresso machine and encouraging me to try one.

CO 1E

I remember one FT'er who last winter was ticketed in full J TXL-EWR-DFW. The TXL flight had to make a fuel stop, and by the time they made it to EWR and the passenger cleared customs, either the last EWR-DFW flight of the day had left or was totally full/overbooked. CO blamed the delay on the weather and refused to put the passenger on the last AA EWR-DFW flight of the day, even though the passenger was traveling on a full J fare. I cannot recall whether the passenger bought his own ticket on AA or just waited until the next morning to fly CO back to DFW. Not sure how they have changed the policy for this season, however.

cruisr

LOL....

redtailshark

J.Edward, good work. Yes, CO taking ownership of the situation at EWR would really help them out with CS issues.

I suggested to one of the Hub Ops panels at the DO that CO should track service recovery for OP Elites using their internal info. Send emails to Elites who were affected by these issues to gauge the quality of handling. I don't know how far that one went. But I'd be willing to spend five minutes on an email to evaluate service recovery after such an event. I bet many OPE would too.

Another component of the issue here is CO's almost complete reluctance to rebook customers on other carriers, presumably with revenue leakage as the backstop argument.

I was talking with an NWA manager on the way out to HNL yesterday. She told me that until recently, NW also didn't rebook on other carriers. However, in the past few years, this policy was relaxed with significant and immediate benefit. I've routinely been booked proactively on other carriers IN ADVANCE OF IMPENDING MISCONNECTS! Conversation at WC: "MrShark, you will misconnect at DTW because of late inbound a/c. However, US Air will get you to CLT at XXXX, would you like that option?"

This beats by a large margin the FUD on board CO and then having to deal with reluctant/difficult/non-empowered gate agents at EWR. You already know your fate, the die is cast once the 752 starts descending into eastern Canada.

In this respect, NW compares very favorably with CO. In my experience, NW irops handling has been really excellent. This is primarily caused by NW Elite line agents taking ownership of the customer's problem and trying to find solutions rather than quoting company policy or the irops manual which in CO's case is clearly authored by YieldManagement.

I think these policies - not the fact of tech stops at YQX or wherever on the 752 - come home to roost in the form of diminished high-yield custom. It doesn't take many bad CS experiences for such pax to move carriers.

Xyzzy

Looks like CO123 diverted to Gander today. I found out because I looked where the aircraft for today's CO110 is coming from. CO.com says this:It's interesting to see that it "overflew" the originating city!

Bonehead

Ha ha...check FlightAware. 2-28 and 2-29 CO110 operated Goose Bay-EWR.

rkkwan

Also today, CO69 from ARN went to YYR, and CO97 from TXL went to BDL.

Having said that, there are fewer fuel-related diversions this winter than the last 2, so the blocking of seats on the longest flights seem to be working, somewhat. And this thread hasn't been bumped basically all winter. Which is a good thing.