United Cancellations Getting Insane

Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:32 pm
  #76  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,948
-----

Last edited by zombietooth; Nov 3, 2015 at 11:36 am
zombietooth is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:38 pm
  #77  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K 2006-2013
Posts: 334
Talking

Originally Posted by zombietooth
The worst part is that you all are blocking the entrance to the "Food Court"!
The horror!
Hey....I wasnt waiting in THAT line.

But yeah....that is the real tragedy!!

Thanks....needed a laugh after 5 hours hanging out at ORD. The amusing part is that I was running so late today I didn't think I'd make the flight. CTA delays....hot humid and dripping sweat. Was last one to board even.
johnmont is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:40 pm
  #78  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by mitchmu
Has anyone thought to consider that rejecting a faulty aircraft that needs maintenance might actually be saving lives?
Also, would it not be expected that refusals would increase if mx staffing and parts inventories are not being maintained at adequate levels to accommodate the summer schedule?

Another EX:
Recently I was dispatched with an inop inertial system.
My plane has 3. We are "legal" to dispatch with one inop, however we lose our low vis autoland capability.
Mx says it's ok to dispatch. So, I guess I have no reason to refuse?

How about that we were scheduled to fly two legs in the aircraft, thru two airports notorious for low vis and rapidly changing wx?
Airports where that autoland capability might be required.
Also, one of the "good" inertial systems had a hit several days previous for being out of tolerance upon arrival.
Still think it's a good idea to take that plane?
Easy call. I refused it.
Job action? I don't think so!

Of course, a flight ops rep met us to "discuss" the situation.
When I showed him the mx paperwork and the planned airports we were to fly it to he also saw that it was a good call.
Just 'cause Mx says it's good to go doesn't necessarily mean that the aircraft is suitable for a particular leg.

We were at a major United hub, a base for my particular aircraft.
Should have been scheduled to be fixed immediately upon arrival. (Quick swap and diagnostic for this fix)
No parts in stock! Seriously???

We suggested they "rob" the part from a hangar bird, which they did.
Shouldn't have had to wait for US to make the call and then suggest the solution.
Mx should have been all over this one, given the importance of that system.
The line mechanics tell us they WANT to fix the planes.
They are not given the manpower, time, or parts to do the job they way they have in the past.

These are the decisions of mgt.
Didn't their recent announcement of better Jul/Aug performance include mention of better mx staffing? (Sorry, don't remember what thread it was in).
That would indicate that they have FINALLY realized that they grossly understaffed the operation.
Unfortunately it is too late to rectify the pain our pax have had to endure thus far.

The common solution now is "OK to defer" and dispatch the plane. Then the call falls on our shoulders.
This happens day in and day out, across the system.
Of course refusals would increase in this environment.
However, NOT an indicator of a job ACTION.
Just us doing our job, legally and SAFELY!
ualp is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:41 pm
  #79  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 16,900
Originally Posted by johnmont
My second flight in two weeks ORD-LAX cancelled this morning. Problem was a mechanical (rudder), so there apparently wasn't a replacement plane. In fact, on a perfectly sunny day, all ORD-LAX flights from 9am - 1pm have been delayed at least two hours today as well. Three for servicing.

This is a bit tangential to the thread, but the cancellations truly causing problems overall. The things I ran into today were frustrating and must be for those who aren't 1K and don't get to the top of the line.

Cancellations will happen -- fact of life. But what is annoying is the following lack of customer service related items from United. It seems as though a lack of being able to deal effectively with problems is part of the system now, which is not what United was like before.

This inability to deal inevitably trickles down to the front line where I gotta say I'm sick and tired of seeing passengers being treated poorly by crabby agents and flight attendants. Yes...I know the job is hard. My job is hard. I'm not saying it's all their fault, but they do share blame. In my opinion it seems to be the flawed system that seems to beat the United employees down since they have to deal with large number of problems.

No notifications
The 933am flight was cancelled at 11:00 am (2 1/2 hours ago). I still haven't received an update from United regarding this. Last week's notification was received after I landed at LAX.

Got a flight notification from Tripit and FlightTrack on iPhone 2 minutes before the gate attendant announced it. This allowed me to call the premiere line (where the call was answered immediately) and rebook to Orange County in the only confirmable direct flight available.


No auto re-booking
This was probably one of the best things about the previous United IT infrastructure that has been lost. Having no auto rebooking leads to clogged phone lines and huge lines (see below).

Not having it now points out how brilliant it was before. I feel horrible I can't remember the catchy name for it


Lack of proactive info for travelers = cranky agents
In an twist, the next flight to LAX that seemed logical for getting on the standby list was a 1:00 flight at C17. However, this gate was actually previously a cancelled SFO 757 flight. With no notifications visible, customers (quite logically) would come up to the gate and ask what the deal was since the monitors all said the flight was to LAX. I think this is logical when their tickets (and displays) still point them to the gate. This happened at least a dozen times. Yes...12.

But the messed up part was that instead of just telling them, each time she would say absolutely nothing directly to them. Instead, she would get on the PA and make the announcement about the cancellation and that passengers needed to go to customer service. This happened probably a dozen times. Now I can see doing this if a large number of passengers was hanging around, but it was totally clear that passengers weren't congregating in the gate area...they were simply approaching the gate one by one. It came off as really rude (especially her huffing and puffing). I know it's really rough on the front line...I get that. But taking it out on passengers is part of the problem.

In the same announcement, she kept saying it would be 15 minutes before she could assist LAX passengers. So after 25 minutes she started helping people...and I got in line. I was 6th in line and it took about 15 minutes to get to the point where I was second in line. At which point, she disappeared onto the plane for 5 minutes without saying anything...then came back out and said the flight had been moved to B9. She was being reassigned and could not help any more customers in line...I'd need to go to B9 for help.

I refused to go away. I was firm, but polite, explaining I did exactly what she asked me to do (wait and give her time to clear paperwork, etc). She initially accused me of arguing and being confrontational but I stood my ground and did have time to convince her I was being reasonable and not rude. I simply explained what happened and she warmed up and did try to help. And it meant a great deal to me that she did....that's what customer service is about imho.


Couldn't put me on standby to LAX

Because I got rebooked to SNA, she was unable to put me on the standby list for any LAX flight. This is unlike before, where I've been able to do this in the past between SNA and LAX. Must be a SHARES thing...or something I don't understand. This is after the agent on the phone (who was helpful) told me it would be no problem. This type of conflicting information is annoying....


"Customer Service" Line

See attached photo.

Sorry, but it's not customer service when there are 122 people in line trying to get help. Yes, I counted. That's called customer fisting. Even the Red Carpet club had about 25 people in line. That's why I headed to the gate.

It's my hunch that these lines are caused by an inability to quickly do things that used to be very quick in the past, as well as the lack of things like the auto-rebooking. That would save a tremendous number of enquiries I would think...freeing up agents to do other things.

Let's hope the woman at the back of the line was doing as we preach. Get on the phone to UA and THEN get in line! @:-)

One does wonder how many flights left less than full while potential pax were stuck in line. Auto rebook rocked.
milepig is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:42 pm
  #80  
nnn
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Francisco
Programs: All-Around Kettle
Posts: 3,286
Originally Posted by mitchmu
Has anyone thought to consider that rejecting a faulty aircraft that needs maintenance might actually be saving lives?
That sounds to me like a red herring. My question was simply whether UAL pilots are imposing a tougher fly/no-fly standard than they did a year ago. Even if they are, I doubt this tighter standard is "saving lives" -- since I doubt that UAL pilots were accepting aircraft that were truly not airworthy a year ago, even if their standards were looser then than they are today (which I don't know -- that was my original question).
nnn is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:42 pm
  #81  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by zombietooth
The worst part is that you all are blocking the entrance to the "Food Court"!
The horror!
I NEEDED that!
Thanks for the Yuks.


I LOVE Zoots!
Quick sandwiches, hot and tasty.
And smoothies too.
ualp is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:47 pm
  #82  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Programs: SPG Plat (life gold);UA 1K; IC Plat Amb
Posts: 55
I was on the same flight, what is the official party line for compensation for this cluster? (1k)

Originally Posted by milepig
Let's hope the woman at the back of the line was doing as we preach. Get on the phone to UA and THEN get in line! @:-)

One does wonder how many flights left less than full while potential pax were stuck in line. Auto rebook rocked.
fraz2007 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:49 pm
  #83  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Our Nation's Capital
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott BonVoy LT Titanium Elite, National Executive Elite
Posts: 832
Originally Posted by ualp
I NEEDED that!
Thanks for the Yuks.


I LOVE Zoots!
Quick sandwiches, hot and tasty.
And smoothies too.
What about the refusals for a broken coffee pot (seen it) or for dirty windshields (seen it... numerous times)?

I'm not siding with management, BTW. I'm just posting experiences that a lot of agents now have to deal with because of these write-ups.
Sulley is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:53 pm
  #84  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by nnn
That sounds to me like a red herring. My question was simply whether UAL pilots are imposing a tougher fly/no-fly standard than they did a year ago. Even if they are, I doubt this tighter standard is "saving lives" -- since I doubt that UAL pilots were accepting aircraft that were truly not airworthy a year ago, even if their standards were looser then than they are today (which I don't know -- that was my original question).
See post #80.

"Saving Lives" ?
I wouldn't go that far either.

But I would say that it is important not to accept a plane that doesn't give me the tools to get folks SAFELY to their INTENDED destination.
Again, legal to dispatch does not mean the plane is suitable for all routings.
Often pilots will refuse an aircraft and then it will be swapped and flown by someone else, on a more suitable routing.
This does not imply that the initial refusal was not legitimate.

Routers have good reasons why they want planes on particular routings.
Sometimes this is not operationally feasible.
We make the call for our particular flight then routers decide how they want to handle it.
Sometimes this entails a cancellation or delay.
That's the company's call not ours.
ualp is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:53 pm
  #85  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SFO and OAK
Programs: FAF, Hyatt <>, SPG PLT
Posts: 2,240
Originally Posted by halls120
United Express flies to COS, not United mainline.
Now you sound like the crew on my last ORD-LGA flight that thanked us for flying this United mainline flight. Why stop there. Just keep going down the list. United doesn't serve food or beverages on their flights. Its SkyChefs or whatever other company does the catering now. Since United doesn't technically provide the food maybe we should delete all the threads/posts about what order they take meals in since its clearly not United related. Maybe they can start making announcements like This is a United mainline flight powered by Air Milwaukee jet fuel.
Beerman92 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 1:55 pm
  #86  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Benicia, California, USA
Programs: AA PLT,AS,UA PP,J6,FB,EY,LH,SQ,HH Dmd,Hyatt Glbl,Marriott Plat,IHG Plat,Accor Gold
Posts: 10,820
Originally Posted by johnmont
My second flight in two weeks ORD-LAX cancelled this morning. Problem was a mechanical (rudder), so there apparently wasn't a replacement plane. In fact, on a perfectly sunny day, all ORD-LAX flights from 9am - 1pm have been delayed at least two hours today as well. Three for servicing.

This is a bit tangential to the thread, but the cancellations truly causing problems overall. The things I ran into today were frustrating and must be for those who aren't 1K and don't get to the top of the line.

Cancellations will happen -- fact of life. But what is annoying is the following lack of customer service related items from United. It seems as though a lack of being able to deal effectively with problems is part of the system now, which is not what United was like before.

This inability to deal inevitably trickles down to the front line where I gotta say I'm sick and tired of seeing passengers being treated poorly by crabby agents and flight attendants. Yes...I know the job is hard. My job is hard. I'm not saying it's all their fault, but they do share blame. In my opinion it seems to be the flawed system that seems to beat the United employees down since they have to deal with large number of problems.

No notifications
The 933am flight was cancelled at 11:00 am (2 1/2 hours ago). I still haven't received an update from United regarding this. Last week's notification was received after I landed at LAX.

Got a flight notification from Tripit and FlightTrack on iPhone 2 minutes before the gate attendant announced it. This allowed me to call the premiere line (where the call was answered immediately) and rebook to Orange County in the only confirmable direct flight available.


No auto re-booking
This was probably one of the best things about the previous United IT infrastructure that has been lost. Having no auto rebooking leads to clogged phone lines and huge lines (see below).

Not having it now points out how brilliant it was before. I feel horrible I can't remember the catchy name for it


Lack of proactive info for travelers = cranky agents
In an twist, the next flight to LAX that seemed logical for getting on the standby list was a 1:00 flight at C17. However, this gate was actually previously a cancelled SFO 757 flight. With no notifications visible, customers (quite logically) would come up to the gate and ask what the deal was since the monitors all said the flight was to LAX. I think this is logical when their tickets (and displays) still point them to the gate. This happened at least a dozen times. Yes...12.

But the messed up part was that instead of just telling them, each time she would say absolutely nothing directly to them. Instead, she would get on the PA and make the announcement about the cancellation and that passengers needed to go to customer service. This happened probably a dozen times. Now I can see doing this if a large number of passengers was hanging around, but it was totally clear that passengers weren't congregating in the gate area...they were simply approaching the gate one by one. It came off as really rude (especially her huffing and puffing). I know it's really rough on the front line...I get that. But taking it out on passengers is part of the problem.

In the same announcement, she kept saying it would be 15 minutes before she could assist LAX passengers. So after 25 minutes she started helping people...and I got in line. I was 6th in line and it took about 15 minutes to get to the point where I was second in line. At which point, she disappeared onto the plane for 5 minutes without saying anything...then came back out and said the flight had been moved to B9. She was being reassigned and could not help any more customers in line...I'd need to go to B9 for help.

I refused to go away. I was firm, but polite, explaining I did exactly what she asked me to do (wait and give her time to clear paperwork, etc). She initially accused me of arguing and being confrontational but I stood my ground and did have time to convince her I was being reasonable and not rude. I simply explained what happened and she warmed up and did try to help. And it meant a great deal to me that she did....that's what customer service is about imho.


Couldn't put me on standby to LAX

Because I got rebooked to SNA, she was unable to put me on the standby list for any LAX flight. This is unlike before, where I've been able to do this in the past between SNA and LAX. Must be a SHARES thing...or something I don't understand. This is after the agent on the phone (who was helpful) told me it would be no problem. This type of conflicting information is annoying....


"Customer Service" Line

See attached photo.

Sorry, but it's not customer service when there are 122 people in line trying to get help. Yes, I counted. That's called customer fisting. Even the Red Carpet club had about 25 people in line. That's why I headed to the gate.

It's my hunch that these lines are caused by an inability to quickly do things that used to be very quick in the past, as well as the lack of things like the auto-rebooking. That would save a tremendous number of enquiries I would think...freeing up agents to do other things.

Originally Posted by ualp
Also, would it not be expected that refusals would increase if mx staffing and parts inventories are not being maintained at adequate levels to accommodate the summer schedule?

Another EX:
Recently I was dispatched with an inop inertial system.
My plane has 3. We are "legal" to dispatch with one inop, however we lose our low vis autoland capability.
Mx says it's ok to dispatch. So, I guess I have no reason to refuse?

How about that we were scheduled to fly two legs in the aircraft, thru two airports notorious for low vis and rapidly changing wx?
Airports where that autoland capability might be required.
Also, one of the "good" inertial systems had a hit several days previous for being out of tolerance upon arrival.
Still think it's a good idea to take that plane?
Easy call. I refused it.
Job action? I don't think so!

Of course, a flight ops rep met us to "discuss" the situation.
When I showed him the mx paperwork and the planned airports we were to fly it to he also saw that it was a good call.
Just 'cause Mx says it's good to go doesn't necessarily mean that the aircraft is suitable for a particular leg.

We were at a major United hub, a base for my particular aircraft.
Should have been scheduled to be fixed immediately upon arrival. (Quick swap and diagnostic for this fix)
No parts in stock! Seriously???

We suggested they "rob" the part from a hangar bird, which they did.
Shouldn't have had to wait for US to make the call and then suggest the solution.
Mx should have been all over this one, given the importance of that system.
The line mechanics tell us they WANT to fix the planes.
They are not given the manpower, time, or parts to do the job they way they have in the past.

These are the decisions of mgt.
Didn't their recent announcement of better Jul/Aug performance include mention of better mx staffing? (Sorry, don't remember what thread it was in).
That would indicate that they have FINALLY realized that they grossly understaffed the operation.
Unfortunately it is too late to rectify the pain our pax have had to endure thus far.

The common solution now is "OK to defer" and dispatch the plane. Then the call falls on our shoulders.
This happens day in and day out, across the system.
Of course refusals would increase in this environment.
However, NOT an indicator of a job ACTION.
Just us doing our job, legally and SAFELY!
Two superb posts from two very different perspectives detailing specific examples of what is going wrong. Thanks to both of your for taking the time to write these up.
Thunderroad is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 2:04 pm
  #87  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
I side with the pilots in this matter. I've seen too much management bungling in every other part of the business to believe that they didn't SNAFU this one too.

But, having said that, I'm gone. AA baby. If United ever wants me back, they will have to "say it with flowers."
Brian is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 2:06 pm
  #88  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by nnn
That sounds to me like a red herring. My question was simply whether UAL pilots are imposing a tougher fly/no-fly standard than they did a year ago. Even if they are, I doubt this tighter standard is "saving lives" -- since I doubt that UAL pilots were accepting aircraft that were truly not airworthy a year ago, even if their standards were looser then than they are today (which I don't know -- that was my original question).
Fair enough. And, my question is whether $mi$ek, with his ruthless focus on cost cutting, is also cutting the safety margin. He's cut absolutely every single thing that I can see. I can't see maintenance and safety but it's becoming increasingly hard for me to believe on faith that maintenance and safety hasn't also come under the knife so he can make more money faster. So, perhaps the planes are becoming less safe, and the pilot refusals are reflecting that. This hypothesis is not difficult for me to believe. And, it's a cause of great concern. If you don't believe that management greed and incompetence can kill people, just review the case of AK 261.
FlyWorld is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 2:08 pm
  #89  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BRU (Belgium)
Programs: UA
Posts: 318
Also UA973 out of BRU to ORD was cancelled today. After the plane left with a 70 minutes delay it suffered a bird or rabbit strike while it took off. After the plane had climed to a safe altitude the engine was shut down and the plane (Boeing 767-300ER) dumped fuel over the North Sea before returning back to BRU for landing. After landing dented fan blades were discovered which suggested that the plane came in contact with a hard object, most likely a bird or a rabbit.
Bralo20 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 2:19 pm
  #90  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by ualp
... "Saving Lives" ? I wouldn't go that far either. ...
Think like a risk manager for a moment.

Whether we live or die on an aircraft is ultimately determined in large measure by an enormous array of probabilities and magnitudes. These produce a range of possible outcomes, which can be further influenced, in a good or bad way, by pilot skill and luck or lack thereof.

Put another way, every decision that's made about aviation safety is based on probabilities. We know that a failure of type x has a probability y of occurring over z period of time. And, we can measure the expected impact of such a failure. Based on the expected occurrence and magnitude of each failure type, we can build in additional margins of safety (i.e. it's OK if failure type 1 occurs because system 2, 3, and 4 will mitigate it) but we know that if failure type 1 occurs and systems 1, 2, 3, and 4 all fail, then there is no mitigation, and people die. The standards that govern what's required and what's allowable are determined by this matrix of probabilities, outcomes, and mitigating controls.

Over years of experience, the regulators and the industry have refined acceptable standards based on study of outcomes. Sometimes those outcomes involve failures that don't result in loss of life and are never known to the flying public. Other times, they result in catastrophes. We learn from each one, and we improve year by year.

Fortunately, a lot of this is controlled by federal regulators, so no matter how greedy $mi$ek or his kind might be, their hands are tied, there are limits to how hard they're allowed to push the limits in exchange for more profit, faster.

But, ultimately, only $mi$ek and his regime know what changes they have actually ordered, and it's not unheard of for airline executives to cut corners to the bare minimum, or even to violate the law, in the name of making more money and making it faster.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I've got no facts. But, what I do see is an airline that's cut everything I can see and is failing in every way I can measure and I've seen individuals posting credible theories on here that increased cancellations are due to shortages in equipment and maintenance and these comments make sense to me. Taken in the larger context, they appear entirely credible to me.

And, for me personally, this raises alarming questions about what's really going on behind the scenes and to what extent decisions might have been made that increase the probabilities of certain types of failures in order to make more money faster or eliminate compensating controls that would protect from such failures.

Since I'm not an airline person, this thinking and these concerns are based on a layperson's analysis, and I fully expect to be smashed by anyone with deeper industry knowledge who doesn't agree with what I've written. But, I will say this, I am truly afraid for my safety to fly on UA metal after what I've seen happening, what I've read here, and thinking it through. And, this is a feeling I never had before.

So, are pilots saving lives by rejecting faulty planes? It all depends on how tightly Jeff and his regime are pushing the envelope. If pilots are rejecting aircraft that are worthy to fly, and are properly maintained, and that have the right compensating controls in place for any items that are broken, then probably not. But, what if a 1 in 1,000,000 external event occurs, and that combines with a failure of a part that should have been maintained but wasn't maintained to save money, such that an airplane crashes whereas it wouldn't have crashed fi the 1 in 1,000,000 external event didn't occur? In that case, on that flight, the pilot rejecting that plane saved lives.

Just because an event is rare doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it.
FlyWorld is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.