Novakht

Two thoughts here-- I have traveled a lot the last 20 years and the last couple connecting through ORD has been horrible.

Delays/Missed connections/Cancelled flights. Most of these issues are blamed on weather-- I am just wondering if over the long run United would have been better off having its main hub in Houston or another location that is not as likely to have weather issues.

Im extremely frustrated- and do my best to avoid ORD but since I am traveling from Iowa I have to usually connect in ORD if I am heading east/

I think weather extremes have been worse, but I also see weather used as an excuse when it seems other airlines are flying.With full flights and Plat status several times I can not get a seat on a later connection.

Would a different HUB help this issue or is the airline so poorly run it would not matter ?

star_world

UA has a large hub in Houston as well as Chicago (and all of the others). They aren't small enough to just operate out of one main hub - not even close.

When you say "blamed" on weather, are you saying that this is a lie? I fly out of ORD weekly (at least) and I certainly have seen a lot of weather this winter - I've seen delays and cancellations there and in many other places, by many airlines. UA has a huge operation there so it's naturally affected more than others.

Given that the objective of an airline is to make money by flying aircraft, what would the benefit be of not flying (for some reason that you don't specify) and using "weather" as an excuse? If it's just an excuse, what does ORD have to do with it?

Sorry, but this complaint really doesn't make sense.

dank0014

Where would you then suggest UA have their hub in this part of the country that doesn't have weather?

username

Move to CLE?

I guess the geography and large O&D traffic mean ORD is a hub - just have to put up with the occassional weather

aacharya

By the OP's logic, we should only have hubs in Arizona and New Mexico. Then our EU counterparts need to connect via RJs from there (versus direct to NY and ORD) through Texas to the East Coast. (Yes, I know the irony - as we are seeing more RJs in ORD/IAH).

emcampbe

Sure, throw the baby out with the bath water. Surely it would be good if airlines could move all their ops to a location with perfect weather. Would you like to suggest one? Unfortunately, connecting in HNL for everywhere would be unworkable due to the much longer travel times for pretty much all of the US.

While you suggest dismantling ORD, what do you propose UA do about EWR? Should DL dismantle ATL (thunderstorms), JFK and MSP. And should AC just shut down all ops with so many airports in Canada having weather issues in the winter?

joethekay

FedEx chose Memphis for their package overnight service.

aacharya

FedEx is not in the passenger as cargo business. They also chose an airport where they wouldn't be competing with as many other planes coming in and out. Cargo doesn't care that it connects at 1:45 am in MEM when going from ORD to EWR. Passengers (except those on ULCCs) do.

GS8101

I'd have no problem dehubbing ORD. I try my best avoiding it. One year all of my connections (6) were delayed due to various reasons I don't care to remember and I can't even blame SMIJ, he wasn't in the picture back then. But this year I am batting 100% again so far.

ryerflyer

Which has nothing to do with passenger service.

Delta is closing it's MEM hub, and they are currently the most astute carrier in the US from a financial and operational perspective.

JSlo

It's a complicated alogorithm, but what can happen in some instances is that it is actually cheaper/better to NOT fly the aircraft than fly it. I'm out on a limb here, but sometimes you start to see this when an airline is struggling financially. So what happens is along these lines-

- RJ is booked to a smaller connecting market ORD-BHM let's say.
- This airplanes stats do not count against UA in the overall "on time" statistics, thus giving the airline kind of a "free pass" on cancelling or lateness.
- Depending on the load factor, and the connecting load factor, once the actual time for departure comes the flight may or may not be above their metrics of profitability.

There are alot of factors. Crew time, level of crew pay, load cross section of ticket price purchase (revenue), the load factor of the next flight at the destination where again revenue load will be weighed against cost.

At some level of load/revenue that is short of target, the airline would deem that the flight is not worth flying. Then sometimes "weather" becomes a culprit. I believe there are only a few categories of cancellations that are in place to protect customers. Some of the categories require compensation to passengers and count negatively in statistics. Some do not. Weather is one of the "its not our fault" categories and thus results in no or less compensation to the traveler.

Common sense would say "but yeah, the customer is not going to be happy and may never fly again next time!". True- and this is the perception of a downward spiral management philosophy that many would oppose at UA for example. All airlines use this strategy at times, but either unwise or more desperate airlines dial up the frequency and pressure on this system as they become more desperate for revenue or cash.

There two basic ways to look at it, and of course other factors as well as I have not been directly related to the airline industry for years- but the first is:

1. When an airline is struggling financially, they begin to value cash and the bottom line of survival over the idea of customer goodwill. It may not be intentional as in "let's hose the customers" but it is bottom line related where the "beancounters" start making the calls, and not the customer service division. In this case cancelling a flight and then loading all the passengers onto another flight at a later time allows the airline to condense/combine revenue for a better revenue profile- although it frustrates and inconveniences passengers. Most airlines eschew this strategy most of the time for obvious reasons. Repeated frustrated customers = less customers over time, reduced capacity, dehubbing, loss of market share, etc etc. Downward spiral.

2. How does this help $$ to the airline?
-Some customers will be rebooked with no compensation, allowing the airline to rebook into a flight that fits their revenue profile.
-Some will just bail on the trip and keep a voucher allowing travel for a year. UA in this case keeps the cash paid until redeemed as credit. Some % never redeem, some wait a full year. Time value of cash.
-Some will believe it or not actually do nothing and just rebook another airline. Stress of life, busyness, forgetful- but believe it or not sometimes the airline just keeps the cash even though the flight never went, as no one used or claimed it.

There are other benefits as well but I'm trying to not write a book here.

It is a part of the "Use RJ's everywhere possible" strategy because they are cheaper to fly outsourced, the 'crews' have far less union power or wage power as they are outsourced- ie when the flight is cancelled UA is not on the hook for much, as much as they would be for a mainline crew/pilot at much higher wages, etc etc. When it works the airlines financials look can look good, the customers are unhappy, and the mgmt takes the credit for the results even though somewhat manipulated (cancels/lateness don't count against them, attractive revenue load profiles make the numbers good). It's almost like shooting free throws and the misses don't count but the makes do- and then saying "I shot 9 out of 9". And then as the frustrated customer goes elsewhere, the airline mgmt actually uses that data to prove they need "capacity control" and even more RJ's come on line. Over time the airline shrinks or goes out of business?

Ok this is already a long post, but in short sometimes YES the airlines do lie about "weather". The interesting thing is that this strategy is old/outdated/less used because of the more readily availbility of information to average passengers. There was a day when it wasn't so easy to find out information about the entire system in terms of weather, upgrades, alternative flights on the same or other carriers, etc etc. Years ago when a GA or CSA told you "Im sorry there aren't seats available on that AA flight to rebook you"- they were taken at face value and moved on. Now I have actually seen people in CSA lines in the UA Club have other flights loaded up on their mobiles and after being "lied" to by the CSA, hold up their phone and say why am I booking this right now through my own phone? Ok thats a different topic.

But suffice to say its a negative end game. The strategy of "weather" cancels only "works" in captive fortress hubs where competition is not really robust...ie the frustrated passenger will be back 90% of the time anyway giving perceived validity to the strategy. In highly competitive markets/hubs the customer just flies another airline this time and the next, and the next, etc. Which then leads to lighter loads on airline A, which then gives the airline the opportunity to use even more RJ's, and the cycle continues.

I know its a complex annoyance, but it's not so simple as to say the airline "makes it up so they don't have to fly". But first the understanding that not all flights make money has to be accepted as a given. But yes, to protect their bottom line they will "lie" to cancel a flight. I think there are layers of protection about what they can/can't say but lots of slip between the cup and the lip there in terms of being able to manipulate.

ryerflyer

So, based on two mis-connection experiences, you think ORD should be de-hubbed? Whatever.

jasonp622

Will never be dehubbed

walkerci

Going by similar criteria - dehub EWR? @:-)

Novakht

When I say "blamed" on weather, I dont necessarily think they are lying, but it seems the last few years there have been far more weather delays/problems etc.

My point is that it costs a lot of money to de-ice,plow snow and Chicago has been hit with some extreme winter weather in recent years. In the long run would it be less expensive to have Houston or somewhere else south expanded and made a larger hub and less of the issues related with weather

<<So, based on two mis-connection experiences, you think ORD should be de-hubbed? Whatever.>>

Based on many,many many mis connects, delays,cancelled flights, I think that in the long run United may be more efficient, save money and have better customer satisfaction if they consider it.