chinatraderjmr

Not hard to understand or believe. That's what I said had happened to us out if IAH. original reason for delay was "waiting for crew". Crew showed up over 1 hour late at which time we boarded only to sit for another 40 min due to "FLO control". Captain said even had the crew been in time, we still had a wheels up which was 1hr 50 min late. UA changed reason for delay from "CREW" to "WX" picking the best one for them to blame. All the other flights from IAH-LGA were delayed between 1-2 hours that afternoon so I believe there was the underlying problem of ATC or WX or whatever you want to call "FLO CINTROL".

mduell

It can always be both.

johnmont

Actually I can....and I did.

Clearly, this specific incident was not delayed soley because of mechanical issues.

fastair

In the case of multiple things that cuase a delay, the delay is quoted to whatever cause limits th dptr time longest. A mechanical of 30 min and a missing crew of 45 min is a crew issue. A FLO delay of 1 hr ad a 3 hr mechanica isa mechanical. A mechanical of 30 min and a FLO of 90 is FLO.

The only time there ca be multiple delays quoted is on a late arriving aircraft, where the dptr time cannot be achived no matter what. If another thing extends thedelay it is a dual delay. A late turn/whatever else is the delay called.

garkster

It's interesting that we seem to have reached a point where whatever transient information is posted is considered gospel. Also (and I'm by no means an apologist), how far back down the chain is it reasonable to expect a one-liner on the Flight Status page to reflect what caused/contributed the delay? This ain't CSI.

Case 1 - Yesterday UA 587 (sUA) IAH-SFO 'Delayed - Awaiting Inbound Aircraft', technically correct; inbound UA 272 EWR-IAH, same reason, also correct. Root cause: MX on originally assigned 763 EZE-EWR, changed to a different a/c arriving from GVA-EWR as scheduled, only issue being that scheduled arrival was a couple of hours later. So is UA supposed to post this on the website? The crew was quite transparent about the root cause, and because this was also a config change which shrunk coach, there were lots of seat reassignments and volunteers for the $300 vouchers. I was thrilled (relatively speaking) to a) still have an E+ aisle seat, and b) not be cancelled on a flight home.

Case 2 - A couple of months ago, IAH-SFO (sCO), we're on time, we board, we're being served our pre-departure beverage of choice...there are whisperings from the F/A's "flight deck is empty"...10 min. before scheduled two of us get texts announcing a delay of 1:45 before the F/A's are informed; eventually a G/A comes on announcing a crew delay (duh!) and asking for everyone to disembark. Eventually pilots show up, we're on the plane, ready to go, and then the captain comes on the horn to announce that due to ATC (really really cruddy SFO summertime WX), we've been given a new wheels-up of 1:25 AM CDT! -- oh did I mention that it's now 6:00 PM CDT? Fortunately the captain is eventually able to secure a departure slot for 75 minutes later, and naturally once we're in SFO approach there's additional delay because of flow control.

So, all in about 3:15 delay, attributed on the website to ATC. When I looked at other flights arriving SFO in a 4-hr. window, whether from IAH or other mainline non-west coast (including non-UA), there was a range of 1:00 to 5:00 delays, sprinkled with an occasional on-time (the miracle flights!). UA definitely was a party to the crew delay, but I don't think that posting ATC as the (primary) cause was unreasonable.

FlightNurse

Unless you can prove other wise, and show your own data then yes, what ever the airline employees post should be taken as such.

FLL-EWR we were held to await 50 italian curise pax who ship was late arriving, so we waited 45 minutes, we were all told we will make up the time in the air. The italian pax's arrive, we push back and airborne, about an hour into the flight, the captian informs us that we have to slow down becasue of traffic inbound into EWR, we were 2.5 hrs late arriving into EWR (we really slowed down) when we arrived we missed our connecting flight by 5 minutes, but placed on the next fight (3 hrs later.) But the flight was tagged as ATC control issue, not the delay because of the late arriving paxs.

dbaker

It's "flow control," an initiative of of the FAA's traffic flow management system (TFMS).

LaserSailor

I don't understand why people jump to conspiracy theories when information conflicts.

The flight could easily have been under delays from both weather and a mechanical issue. Most apps on phones only address weather issues, ergo that's why that source gave you that info.

Often1

+1 - Passing for a minute the apparent tenor of this thread to the effect that UA's senior management flies around in black helicopters concocting lies to tell pax about the reasons for delays, it may sometimes be helpful to consider:

1. There are many occasions when there are many reasons for a delay. Even the reasons such as WX can have many variations (at depature, enroute or destination). Thus, even the "it's clear and sunny here at xxx and UA is lying because the website says WX" crowd simply don't get it.

2. Delay reasons on the website, GDS and other customer-facing means are limited to a couple of characters. But, all that really matters is that the fact of the delay is known. The "real" reason may be multiple and may not even really be known until after the flight departs and all the pieces are considered.

3. Here, it seems relatively simply based on the few facts (as opposed to who thinks they saw what). A) The aircraft was held due to WX at destination. Alternative is to let the aircraft go on time and hold over SFO. That wastes fuel, creates needless risk and doesn't get the pax to their destination any faster. B) The aircraft also had a MX. But, that didn't cause the delay because it was repaired prior to the permitted departure time anyway. C) Despite the various delays, the aircraft only landed 58 mins. late.

4. So, after all the ranting, we have a TCON on the gate at arrival less than an hour delayed.

Sounds to me that the OPS folks spent their time working on a fix and a reroute which made up for lost time, not on conspiring to lie to OP by making up fake delay codes.

johnmont

+1 Baffles me as well.

I pointed out after a post by the OP that the gate hold was a confirmed delay with the FAA due to weather and that mechanical wasn't necessarily the sole reason. Thought I was being helpful.

Followup post to mine said I was wrong. Whatever. Guess the FAA was involved in the black helicopter conspiracy as well.

Often1

It's not really FAA, but I've seen a conspiracy-theory website where they point to solid evidence that NOAA conspires with space aliens to seed the clouds ahead of certain flights in order to cause WX.

mmayer

Delayed on Friday BOS - ORD because we were "waiting on a seat cushion".

Was up in F, so didn't see what all was involved. Seat cushion was delivered and we pushed ~35 minutes late. Made some time in the air (or the schedule is padded enough) that we blocked in only 20 minutes or so late.

Reason posted for the delay? "Airport conditions preventing departure".

I guess that is what gets so many people riled up. "Airport conditions" has become a non-sense catch-all for just about all delays.

johnmont

+1

This is very true, especially as it does impact performance reporting as well as flyer compensation. In this case, there were clearly multiple reasons for the delay and seems people are in denial about that.

mbluecpa

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...parture-2.html

See post 75. This is an IT shortcoming (and a pretty significant one since customer facing) and not nefarious. Internal systems apparently reflect the correct delay reason.

LaserSailor

I think I've seen those black helicopters, flying at night, sans lights....coincidental with my meds running out....