Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

UA 53 (formerly CO 53) - LAX-IAH late, IAH-EZE goes out on time???

UA 53 (formerly CO 53) - LAX-IAH late, IAH-EZE goes out on time???

Old Mar 12, 12, 9:15 am
  #16  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering expat
Posts: 40,621
Originally Posted by sbm12 View Post
For an onward flight to ELP where there are multiple flights daily I'm more inclined to take the tight connection as they usually work and when they do the overall travel time really is much better. With a once daily flight to EZE departing at the end of the day I'd be less inclined, though it would depend on my overall schedule.
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.
halls120 is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 9:18 am
  #17  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,159
Originally Posted by belfordrocks View Post
But are SFO-ORD-SNA for example even valid routings? If not, that would be pretty strange for a "direct" flight...
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.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 9:33 am
  #18  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1K, once-upon-a-time NW Gold, BMI Gold, Hyatt Diamond, SPG Gold
Posts: 6,246
Originally Posted by sbm12 View Post
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???

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!
hobo13 is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 9:51 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: UA lifetime gold; Hilton Gold; Marriott/SPG Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,889
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.
keisari is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 10:09 am
  #20  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 69,159
Originally Posted by hobo13 View Post
Worry about customers getting the proper credit???

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!


Thanks for contributing to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by keisari View Post
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.
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.
sbm12 is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 10:15 am
  #21  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Programs: DL-Platinum / AS-MVPG75K / Hyatt - Glob / Hilton-Diamond
Posts: 1,509
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)
steve64 is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 11:43 am
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 11,192
Originally Posted by tarheelnj View Post
Agree - the airline gets value (higher position on flight listings) from a direct flight (even with equipment change) than a true connection, so in return they should have to choose between holding the second flight or paying a fine.

Is UA really running out of flight numbers? If so, then go to 5 digit flight numbers for the EX flights. No one pays attention to their flight number on EX flights anyway, until they actually need the number to check the status.
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.

Originally Posted by sbm12 View Post
The long-haul "direct" flights have virtually nothing to do with conserving flight numbers and nearly everything to do with making the flights appear more desirable to the various booking engines that display "direct" flights higher than connecting flights.
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.
mduell is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 11:53 am
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: 40 41' 45" N - 74 10' 18" W
Programs: UALCO Holdings General Member
Posts: 18,784
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.
rolov is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 12:05 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, LT Gold, UA LT 1K, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,011
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
For an airline as large as United it becomes a matter of conserving flight numbers due to ranges used for codeshares/etc. Thus some of the goofy post-merger "direct" flights that are well out of the way, like SFO-ORD-SNA or EWR-PHX-ORD.
.
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.
cova is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 12:11 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: UA Plat MM, CM Plat, Amex Plat, Hertz CP, Hyatt Globalist, SPG Gold, Vons Club
Posts: 4,291
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..
Flying Machine is online now  
Old Mar 12, 12, 12:13 pm
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Programs: UA Premier Silver, Starwood Gold, Plat AE, CO PP MC, Marriott Rewards Plat, Virgin Elevate Gold
Posts: 1,109
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
caseminole is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 12:20 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: AA EXP, LT Gold, UA LT 1K, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,011
Originally Posted by caseminole View Post
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.
cova is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 12:32 pm
  #28  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: CT/NY
Programs: UA Platinum/MM, Marriott LT Titanium, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 4,431
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.
PTahCha is offline  
Old Mar 12, 12, 2:10 pm
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 22,683
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
craz is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: