My ELP flight that day was the last one out. But you are correct, where there are other opportunities to make it to my destination, I'm more tolerant of a tight connection.

In some cases it actually makes more sense to do it that way (i.e. not a valid routing) as it means you are less likely to run into issues with folks not getting the proper credit or such since virtually no one will book it as a direct flight. And when the routing rules are not particularly well written, it becomes quite lucrative as a MR. ;)

Worry about customers getting the proper credit??? :confused:

Given the mile-shaving scheme that COdbaUA implemented last week, that seems to be the last thing they'd be concerned with!

You make me laugh, Seth!

The other issue with those flights is that the mileage is calculated as LAX-EZE and not LAX-IAH and then IAH- EZE. Is that the case with this UA flight? I know DL calculates the mileage using the starting and ending point and considers the aircraft change just a regular stop.
In some cases it is a large difference.

:rolleyes:

Thanks for contributing to the discussion at hand.

Yes, this appears to be the policy for the combined systems. It is a step backwards from what the sUA systems offered and it is not particularly customer-friendly, just like most other aspects of "direct" flights.

Back on topic to the flight that didn't "hold for itself" ...

Even flights that aren't scheduled to "change equipment" could end up departing on-time when the inbound plane (same flight number) is late.
From the airline's perspective, why delay 100+ passengers (everybody on the outbound) for only a handful (the few passengers traveling "thru" on the flight number). And as already mentioned, there may be operational considerations needing the outbound to depart on time.

If you ever hear ATC referring to an airline flight with an "alpha" after the flight number (ie: United 53 Tango), then this is what's happened. The outbound left before the inbound arrived but you can't have 2 flights calling themselves "United 53".

Right or wrong, all airlines do this. If you'd like to complain then go to DOT, not FAA. The FAA is concerned with airline safety and couldn't care less. To the DOT, I'd bet your letter would just become another statistic. Another complaint about an airline sacrificing a few to serve the many.

Steve (ex Operations AAgent)

The way most people buy tickets makes direct flights completely irrelevant from a display/search perspective. Anyone using the decades old systems that put them at the top should be well aware of direct flights by now.

I don't know that 5 digit flight numbers are supported by the GDS or other airlines or anyone else who has to interface with United. I've never seen one used for ticketing.

This statement completely ignores the way most people buy tickets now. I suspect the long haul direct flights are mostly kept that way for historical purposes and flight number conservation.

I had a similar situation a few year ago, then CO got smart and changed the flight numbers.
CO51 used to be EWR-IAH-EZE same equipment, EWR flight was delayed all the time causing IAH-EZE delays.

They changed EWR-IAH to CO511 and then I started taking an earlier EWR departure in order to avoid misconnect. I think it was CO405 from EWR that would sometimes be the actual 762 that would operate the IAH-EZE flight that night. There was a time when it would be a 764 or even 772 on thursday nights only.

It is a marketing item - not a shortage of numbers.

For years PMCO marketed direct flights from DCA-EWR-Europe - and many, many times the DCA-EWR flight is held or delayed and the EWR-Europe left on schedule and passengers missed their flights. This was so common that CO staff at DCA recommended people took earlier flights and staff would rebook you on the next available flight when you arrived at the airport - if you got there soon enough.

Calling it a direct flight puts the flight number at the top of the list for flights.

Say you want to go LAX-EZE - the direct flight number will be at the top of the list above - flights that go LAX-IAH-EZE or competitors flights that might go LAX-DFW-EZE.

My view - mandate that flights be held or stop using direct numbers for marketing reasons.

Hi there, I fly LAX--IAD-EZE on UA all the time. I have flown thru IAH as well ( weather issue iand was protected ) I NEVER take the direct flights. Normally take an earlier connecting flight, go to the LH Senator Lounge drink, eat, drink. Same in IAH, take a shower before the EZE flight as well.. You get more mileage vs the direct flight, have fun and avoid the connection issues to boot. Soon IA0 will change to EWR so IAH looks like it will be my connection point. Issue is, there is very little opportunities to get Protected in the event of a missed connection so beware. As to the OP's AA friend, sorry that it worked out that way! I'm curious to know what compensation did your friend receive due to this issue. Safe travels..

FWIW, I heard from my cousin today.

There were 20+ passengers inconvenienced on that flight, not just a few - many off to EZE, and some to Sao Paolo

The Rio flight was delayed 45 minutes, so anyone flying to Rio from LAX were OK

He said UA told him (after waiting an hour in "customer service") that because the delay was weather - he got absolutely no compensation for hotel or meals!?!?!

This just doesnt sound right to me... being a 2P, perhaps I might have gotten better attention in IAH

That is the way PMCO worked. So better get used to it. Everything is weather and they mostly don't hold flights - even for last flight out - where nobody is connecting at the destination.

Unfortunately, if the LA flight was delayed due to weather or ATC (i.e., beyond UA's control), then UA is not required to provide hotel. Although, for your cousin, this is the same policy for AA, even for EXP.

maybe CO doesnt have another flight before the 24 hrs pass, but I cant believe that that no other carrier or doing a stop or 2 wouldnt have gotten the OPs cousin there sooner then simply blowing 24 hrs in IAH