craz

For me its sufficent enough that "Continental" is written on the side of the plane. Granted thats not always the case as I can be on a CO code-share (with CO flight#) but say on DL metal.

If I was on a CO flight but DL metal, I wouldnt blame CO unless "Continental" was written on the DL plane

There are times when the RJ being flown is a AA-eagle flight or out West some other company although it says DL or UA on it. But if a Carrier doesnt want to be Blamed then they need to have the company they contract with not put "Continental" on the planes in any shape, manner or form

But CO wants us to think its CO all the way, so now they must pay the price. Im sure theres no problem with Express Jet not putting CO on its planes and not using COs colors. But that wasnt what CO wanted, so now that it hit the fan CO wants to yell, Hey it wasnt us, at least with Me that doesnt fly

Now to be fair , Im sure even if it said Express Jet on the plane and not "Continental" that the Sleaze Buckets (a/k/a Liers a/k/a Ambulance Chasers a/k/a Lawyers) would still sue CO as well as anyone they can think of. Simply since CO sold the person the tkt, but then at least CO can say with clean hands Hey it wasnt us and we will reassess our dealings with that company and see what we can do legally since we do have a legal contract with them

But as long as "Continental" is written on the side of that plane and CO wants everyone to think they are flying on CO they are up the creek w/o a paddle , IMO

seoulmanjr

Right on. The overwhelming majority of people out there see "Continental Express Jet" as a type of plane that Continental flies, not as a separate company, service, employees, etc, etc. Most everyone who isn't a FT flying geek like us thinks of it the same way McDonald's has a Dollar MenuTM. This is absolutely by design on CO's part. Get this crap fixed and own it now and in the future.

peace,
~Ben~

craz

1 min, if you purchased say a EWR-VIE tkt which was CO EWR-CDG & AF CDG-VIE (CO doesnt fly into VIE , yet ) would you blame CO for anything that happened with the AF flight. I wouldnt

So I dont see the need persee for CO to own outright the puddle jumper ops. Just let them sell the tkt as they do the EWR-VIE naming both Carriers and not trying to pull off that its CO all the way. So a IAH-EWR-MHT tkt would be CO IAH-EWR and XX EWR-MHT and the plane flying EWR-MHT shouldnt have any markings that its a CO flight in any way, just as the AF flight from CDG-VIE doesnt have anything that identifies it as a CO plane

seoulmanjr

I didn't mean they should literally own ExpressJet. I meant it in the sense of "own the problem" and "the buck stops here". I agree with what you have to say per my post above. Sorry for the confusion re: colloquial usage of own. Might have made sense coming out of my mouth instead of via the keyboard.

peace,
~Ben~

airships

I do agree with you completely on this. If Continental wants to contract with another company to provide services that Continental would otherwise provide on its own (putting aside union issues, etc.), that's fine; that's Continental's business. But it's not an end-run around responsibility.

makfan

Well, courts of law can determine who (if anyone) has to pay damages, and can certainly sort out all of the contractual relationships.

The court of public opinion, however, will see the Continental logo and will probably not remember much else.

MarkMColo

I for one will certainly look at any future trips via XE as if they were just another carrier with very little to do with CO, just a way to get OnePass miles as with any other "partner". And not just CO/XE, this applies the other mainline/regional carriers as well.

Although I've understood for some time that the regional carriers are separate operating entities, this incident - along with the one in Buffalo - makes me all the more aware that I need to consider whether I want to fly on any given regional carrier - and that their not just an extension of the mainline.

channa

I wouldn't generalize CO's response to this incident to other airlines. I think CO's response is indicative of CO, but not necessarily how the other airlines would have responded.

After all, blaming someone else is part of CO's culture. Just call their WE CARE customer "service" line. Those folks are very good at denying fault and blaming the customer or a third party. This is not the case at other carriers. Like I said, it's part of CO's culture.

Over the years, I've dealt with customer service at all the major airlines at one time or another. Of those carriers, all the carriers except CO treated me in a manner where I felt they took my issue seriously and tried to make right. Despite having status, CO was the only one that ever made me feel like they don't accept responsibility, don't think it's their fault, and frankly don't give a d&mn.

craz

Man you have been very lucky, I have runned into it with most every Carrier, UA helps it out by throwing a Compensation form at you, but if you dont ask you dont get 1.

Nope I usually get the Buck being passed which usually ends with how its my fault and we arent in that biz we are in the Transportation biz and getting you from Pt A to Pt B

US did a much better job of ducking and passing then CO and for a while so did B6. But you are Right CO is right up there with them, unfortuantely

I feel the others will listen and side with you but will file it just as CO does, just they will let us think they are on our side. I prefer COs being honest and up front how they dont care , then to put me to sleep with that they do

apuruc

Exactly! I wish it was that simple. I've purchased tickets on a CO mainline flight before where there was a later "equipment change" that resulted in my being changed to an XE flight. It was a market that had mixed mainline and XE flights servicing it. I chose a mainline flight intentionally to avoid the kenjet. After the equipment change there was no choice given for a refund.

So I guess we'd have to avoid booking on these mixed serviced itineraries as well. Or actually, we can't even predict when they might make a change on a routing that is at this point purely mainline.

MarkMColo

You both make good points, especially about the routes that mix the big planes with the kenjets. However, I wasn't really trying to say that I won't fly on XE or the other regionals anymore, just that I will be more aware than ever that I'm basically flying a different airline, regardless of whatever mainline carrier has their name plastered on the kenjet.

channa

If you pressed it with CO, citing the carrier change as the reason, they would've refunded. There's no law, but there's a DOT opinion letter that a carrier change should result in a refund, and carriers will nearly always refund a non-refundable ticket in this situation.

LarryJ

Nothing wrong with speculation but context is important. My speculation is based on nearly 30 years as a pilot and 20 years as an airline pilot. I've evaluated diversion options hundreds of times so I'm well qualified to offer educated speculation on the issues that would have been considered. In all my years of flying I've never seen a diversion decision made as lightly as your speculation suggested. That's why I asked on what your speculation was based. I wanted to know the context.


I have not yet seen anything yet which indicated the level of experience of this particular Captain. Have you seen this listed or are you just assuming that all regional Captains are novices? I'd like to read the info if it's been made available. Gives more context.

It's quite logical to me. In a similar situation, my primary goal would be to reach my destination. Getting off the airplane greatly increases the probability that my ultimate arrival will be more significantly delayed.

This stuff would be easy if we knew in advance that a departure will not be possible for six or eight hours. We'd deplane, relax and prepare for the rescheduled departure. 20/20 hindsight is not available when the decisions are being made so you have to evaluate incomplete information and make an educated guess as to what may happen. You proceed through a delay such as this in 30 or 45 minute increments as you wait for a storm to move, a fuel truck to arrive, a de-ice queue to clear or an ATC update time to arrive. You hope that you'll be on your way but sometimes you're not. If you go back to the gate and deplane you lock in the much longer delay that you are trying to avoid.

dkul

Exactly LarryJ.....well put. As a matter of fact XJT has not had any captain upgrades for the last 2 years.....and TMOliver...some make it a career...XJT has captains that have been there for 15+ years.....don't just assume that a regional pilot is less qualified than a major airline pilot.


+1....very well explained.....unfortunately most pax don't see this side of it.

Sankaps

I think most pax get this, they are not stupid. The point is at which point does the waiting become excessive? The general consensus seems to be 3 hours should be the cut-off.

Comments made by the majoirty of airline employees on this thread are very operationally focused, and indeed would be very logical and sensible if the aircraft were carrying cargo, not people. At some point most pax would prefer to get off the aircraft and reach their destination a few hours later, rather than spend 6-9 hours sitting on the ground on an aircraft in the hope of reaching a couple of hours sooner.