flag stop - san-iad red eye makes "flag stop" in CLE
Oct 6, 2015, 10:20 am
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19,510
I wouldn't mind at all if I got PQS for every 'segment'. @:-)
Oct 6, 2015, 10:35 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
UA has 65 seats SAN-IAD, and that many pax which need to go to SAN-CLE. Not enough to justify an extra section (if you can somehow find the equipment and crew and the repositioning works). If you don't get the pax out, you have to find them all seats the next day and maybe put them all up in a hotel. So you put in a flag stop. Slight inconvenience for IAD pax, getting in at 6:30 instead of 5:30. Appease the IAD pax with drink chits or some miles or $25 vouchers for the inconvenience, you still save a lot versus a bunch of hotel rooms. Doubt that happened except for those who complained.
Important question: if you're on SAN-IAD, can you claim miles for SAN-CLE-IAD with 500 minimum for CLE-IAD?
Apparently the SAN-CLE route has been flown during the holidays as recently as 2013.
Important question: if you're on SAN-IAD, can you claim miles for SAN-CLE-IAD with 500 minimum for CLE-IAD?
Apparently the SAN-CLE route has been flown during the holidays as recently as 2013.
OP here...
CLE passengers were suppose to fly SAN-DEN-CLE. The SAN-XXX went mechanical and they would have missed their DEN-CLE. Instead, UA decided to hold them in SAN and put them on this SAN-CLE-IAD flight.
There was no indication that this extra leg was put on. The only way I realized was when I mentioned that the Dulles flight wasn't on the departure board.
Arrived into Dulles an hour late. We didn't refuel in Cleveland which was convenient. No word of compensation. I did pay $300 extra to fly the non-stop versus a connection on AA.
CLE passengers were suppose to fly SAN-DEN-CLE. The SAN-XXX went mechanical and they would have missed their DEN-CLE. Instead, UA decided to hold them in SAN and put them on this SAN-CLE-IAD flight.
There was no indication that this extra leg was put on. The only way I realized was when I mentioned that the Dulles flight wasn't on the departure board.
Arrived into Dulles an hour late. We didn't refuel in Cleveland which was convenient. No word of compensation. I did pay $300 extra to fly the non-stop versus a connection on AA.
United expects a premium for non-stop fares out of their hubs. Turning them into 1-stops is a disservice to those that have paid extra money. And we are not talking $25 here.
(Same kind of thinking that cancels flights 3 days beforehand to consolidate schedules....There is a thread somewhere about United doing that).
Oct 6, 2015, 11:16 am
#18
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
It has always been a curious question in my mind how much pax are willing to pay for the nonstop or not. (though in this case the question is about a totally unscheduled and unexpected stop)
Specifically, for example, on a route like SFO-SYD where 2/3 of the plane is fuel, imagine how much more cargo capacity and fuel savings they could achieve if they stopped in Hawaii (as I imagine they used to do). Passengers wouldn't have to get out of their seats, but there would be a 45 min stop. Would you be willing to save $100 if UA did this?
I guess it's a tradeoff of many factors, like additional crew time, airplane cycles, schedule, passenger willingness to have speed vs. cost, etc. but you wonder if sometimes it's clearly worth it.
Specifically, for example, on a route like SFO-SYD where 2/3 of the plane is fuel, imagine how much more cargo capacity and fuel savings they could achieve if they stopped in Hawaii (as I imagine they used to do). Passengers wouldn't have to get out of their seats, but there would be a 45 min stop. Would you be willing to save $100 if UA did this?
I guess it's a tradeoff of many factors, like additional crew time, airplane cycles, schedule, passenger willingness to have speed vs. cost, etc. but you wonder if sometimes it's clearly worth it.
Last edited by TA; Oct 6, 2015 at 11:26 am
Oct 6, 2015, 11:47 am
#19
Join Date: Dec 2014
Programs: GS, Marriott Titanium LT, IHG Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 66
OP here...
CLE passengers were suppose to fly SAN-DEN-CLE. The SAN-XXX went mechanical and they would have missed their DEN-CLE. Instead, UA decided to hold them in SAN and put them on this SAN-CLE-IAD flight.
There was no indication that this extra leg was put on. The only way I realized was when I mentioned that the Dulles flight wasn't on the departure board.
Arrived into Dulles an hour late. We didn't refuel in Cleveland which was convenient. No word of compensation. I did pay $300 extra to fly the non-stop versus a connection on AA.
CLE passengers were suppose to fly SAN-DEN-CLE. The SAN-XXX went mechanical and they would have missed their DEN-CLE. Instead, UA decided to hold them in SAN and put them on this SAN-CLE-IAD flight.
There was no indication that this extra leg was put on. The only way I realized was when I mentioned that the Dulles flight wasn't on the departure board.
Arrived into Dulles an hour late. We didn't refuel in Cleveland which was convenient. No word of compensation. I did pay $300 extra to fly the non-stop versus a connection on AA.
Oct 6, 2015, 11:54 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 30,039
flag stop - san-iad red eye makes "flag stop" in CLE
Didn't BA do this years ago on the LHR-SAN flight and stop in phx? Or something similar to that?
Oct 6, 2015, 12:10 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,694
It has always been a curious question in my mind how much pax are willing to pay for the nonstop or not. (though in this case the question is about a totally unscheduled and unexpected stop)
Specifically, for example, on a route like SFO-SYD where 2/3 of the plane is fuel, imagine how much more cargo capacity and fuel savings they could achieve if they stopped in Hawaii (as I imagine they used to do). Passengers wouldn't have to get out of their seats, but there would be a 45 min stop. Would you be willing to save $100 if UA did this?
I guess it's a tradeoff of many factors, like additional crew time, airplane cycles, schedule, passenger willingness to have speed vs. cost, etc. but you wonder if sometimes it's clearly worth it.
Specifically, for example, on a route like SFO-SYD where 2/3 of the plane is fuel, imagine how much more cargo capacity and fuel savings they could achieve if they stopped in Hawaii (as I imagine they used to do). Passengers wouldn't have to get out of their seats, but there would be a 45 min stop. Would you be willing to save $100 if UA did this?
I guess it's a tradeoff of many factors, like additional crew time, airplane cycles, schedule, passenger willingness to have speed vs. cost, etc. but you wonder if sometimes it's clearly worth it.
Just using the planning sheets it doesn't make much sense to split a 6500nm sector into a 4400nm sector and 2100nm sector to save fuel:
Assuming a 150t empty 77E with a 38t payload yields about 113t fuel load for the 6500nm sector. Same plane same load 4400nm needs 75t fuel, 2100nm needs 38t fuel, for a total of... 113t fuel. You can reuse some fuel (reserve, contingency) from one flight to the next, but there's no big savings, maybe 10%.
There's some revenue opportunity there, since you can't take a full 65t payload out to 6500nm, you're restricted to about 50t. But the nonstop also gives you a revenue premium so it would require a closer analysis to see if there's a worthwhile advantage there.
Last edited by mduell; Oct 6, 2015 at 2:11 pm
Oct 6, 2015, 1:30 pm
#23
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
In the 1970s, the Australia-USA routes did stop in Hawaii. Many passengers would take a several day stopover to minimize jet lag at their destination. I'm thinking especially of QF flights. [In fact, I know people now who will routinely do a stopover at SIN between the USA east coast and Australia.]
Oct 6, 2015, 2:14 pm
#24
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
You're pretty far off on your "2/3 of the plane is fuel" estimate, it's more like 1/3.
Just using the planning sheets it doesn't make any sense to split a 6500nm sector into a 4400nm sector and 2100nm sector to save fuel:
Assuming a 150t empty 77E with a 38t payload yields about 113t fuel load for the 6500nm sector. Same plane same load 4400nm needs 75t fuel, 2100nm needs 38t fuel, for a total of... 113t fuel. You can reuse some (reserve, contingency) from one flight to the next, but there's no big savings, maybe 10%....
Just using the planning sheets it doesn't make any sense to split a 6500nm sector into a 4400nm sector and 2100nm sector to save fuel:
Assuming a 150t empty 77E with a 38t payload yields about 113t fuel load for the 6500nm sector. Same plane same load 4400nm needs 75t fuel, 2100nm needs 38t fuel, for a total of... 113t fuel. You can reuse some (reserve, contingency) from one flight to the next, but there's no big savings, maybe 10%....
But regarding your second point -- would not splitting the legs into 2 allow an increase in payload? (for a relatively small increase in total fuel required?)
Oct 6, 2015, 2:24 pm
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
All about best for the most. The alternative was overnighting 65 people (at the cost of hotel + food) and still having to find seats the next day (not a guarantee) vs. mildly inconveniencing the rest.
IAD pax who write in will likely get a few miles tossed their way as a customer service gesture, but there is no compensation due for a relatively short delay (which might be even less if the winds are better than generally calculated for).
IAD pax who write in will likely get a few miles tossed their way as a customer service gesture, but there is no compensation due for a relatively short delay (which might be even less if the winds are better than generally calculated for).
Oct 6, 2015, 2:35 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,694
So you can carry an extra 10t on the 4400nm+2100nm mission vs 6500nm mission, in exchange for burning 25t fuel.
Oct 6, 2015, 2:54 pm
#27
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: NYC / TYO / Up in the Air
Programs: UA GS 1.7MM, AA 2.1MM, EK, BA, SQ, CX, Marriot LT, Accor P
Posts: 6,322
Love this thread and how it demonstrates that UA will absolutely do what is better for itself financially then do the right thing - for all those apologizing for UA doing what's right for passengers i lol at you - they did what they could to save money without any regard for any passenger....
Oct 6, 2015, 3:12 pm
#29
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 6km East of EPAYE
Programs: UA Silver, AA Platinum, AS & DL GM Marriott TE, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,582
OK back to UA.
The SAN-IAD used to be a very frequent red-eye route for me. If I had booked a trip and got to the airport to find out that my one stop connection to the East coast via IAD was now a two stop I'd be a little red. Maybe because it's a red-eye and it's not a flight where I'm going to read a little more of my book, or watch another episode of what ever but I'd be annoyed. Hopefully IAD passengers receive some type of compensation and those connecting had the option to connect via CLE.
Oct 6, 2015, 3:29 pm
#30
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
Love this thread and how it demonstrates that UA will absolutely do what is better for itself financially then do the right thing - for all those apologizing for UA doing what's right for passengers i lol at you - they did what they could to save money without any regard for any passenger....
Not disturbing the planned schedule and expected arrival time of a planeload of passengers? Or is it about getting 65 passengers to Cleveland with less disruption to them? Or are you suggesting there was a better way that would satisfy these both ideals with some cost that UA was unwilling to incur?
"The right thing" is not always clear cut?