trk1

with a stop arriving 30 min. late--whow a huge big deal.

also arrived at 6:30am and all connections leave after 8am.

This was good planning and loved a problem for 65 people and added
30 min to others. Looks like a good plan to solve a problem with
min. inconvience. I have had this happen on AA and DL as well
to do pick ups rather than drop off due to irrupts

JC5280

Yeah, they would have flown them to ATL and let them wait there all day, being booked a few at a time on flights throughout the day, so they would have arrived several hours late.

I couldnt agree more. Decisions like this are made hundreds of times a day in their operations. Hold a flight, or push on time. Things like this occur often with the complexities of air travel. They are all tough decisions to make. I would be happy with only a 30 minute delay on some of my flights. Thats relatively nothing when a plane breaks down or weather hits.

But for a bunch of armchair CEOs on this forum to wonder why an "extra plane" wasnt brought down from LAX or SFO, I wonder how they had the insights of the maintainance and RON schedule to detemine that a spare aircraft was just sitting around.

buckeyefanflyer

Maybe a better option would be keep the SAN-IAD nonstop routing and put a extra section flight IAD-CLE. I wonder how often does this flag stop option.

cbn42

Having your reservation canceled at a restaurant is nothing compared to being stranded at an airport thousands of miles from home. The two are not even in the same league. A restaurant reservation is not a contract of any kind, and the restaurant has no obligation to get you a meal, unlike the airline that has an obligation to get you to your destination.

Before you say "not what you signed up for", go back and read the contract of carriage, which will tell you exactly what you signed up for.

exerda

While I agree that UA was "creative" and probably did the best they could be expected to in getting everyone to their destinations with minimal disruption, the issue I still have is that UA has charged a significant premium for most nonstops. Had I specifically paid for a nonstop on this route, yes, I'd be annoyed, particularly with UA not proactively offering anything to make up for the inconvenience.

haddon90

you have some flights that leave before 8am...

HoyaSFOIAD

Putting myself in the decision-maker's seat, I can only come to the conclusion that this is as elegant of a fix as one could ask for given the reality of the cards on the table. We can rant and rave all we want about how UA should have another plane available in a reasonable amount of time, but that seems like a tough putt. Their issues exist, whether we think they should or not.

On the other end of the spectrum for the CLE passengers is rebooking on OAL or boarding them overnight and putting them on morning flights. Feels like a slow trickle of doom, frustration and anger given it's 65 passengers. Even if they trotted out a new plane the next morning (not impossible, but not extremely likely) that sets them back a whole night.

Tacking on an hour to an early-arriving redeye and thus solving the problem? Feels like a pretty clean solution to me.

Those dealing with this problem had to make decisions based on reality, not hypotheticals such as "well if UA managed x correctly"

spin88

I think that had UA proactively offered compensation to those on the N/S flight, infact done anything to make up for taking away what they paid for, I think 90% of us (perhaps 100%) would think UA did right by everyone.

But the "I'll steal from these people who paid for a N/S, take away their time and sleep, so I can [accommodate/ avoid paying OAL] for them" attitude rubs people the wrong way, its too much what this airline has become.

So a creative approach that would have gotten an A in my book (and probably the SAN-IAD passengers) gets a F in my book for failing to offer compensation.

coplatua1k

Restore CLE SAN and problem solved.

entropy

Exactly.

fly18725

Since we don't know what compensation, if any, United offered to SAN-IAD passengers, why is United being attacked for not compensating passengers? Perhaps this thread should get a F for insightful assumptions.

haddon90

OP was on the flight and has not indicated compensation was offered.

however, the F on assumptions i agree with. reinstating SAN-CLE for this? blame UA for not having a spare 737 around? so many variables that we are not aware of, and given the time constraint and circumstance, UA made the best choice.

since the OP said UA was not proactive for the n/s customers on this flight in terms of notifying and/or compensation, UA gets an F in this regard.

dmurphynj

steal? Really?

If I had gotten on that flight and they told me 'hey we're going to make a stop so these people can get home' ... I'd think 'Cool, good job, these people care and are going out of their way to get folks home.'

I'd chalk up the very minor inconvenience to me to good karma and move on.

Sometimes I do things in life, not because they benefit me, but because they benefit others. And the best I can hope for is that some day, some good luck comes back my way when I need it.

Asking for "compensation" for helping people get home to their families is just being a jerk, in my personal opinion. Sometimes you just have to be a good member of society.

I've learned to hate that word "compensation" as it's used around here.

ctownflyer

If someone paid an extra $200 to fly nonstop then why are they not owed compensation?
I'm sure they'll get if they ask, but it definitely should have been proactive.

gengar

It works both ways. Asking people who booked a nonstop - and who likely paid significantly more for a nonstop (like OP, who paid $300 more) - to take a stop just to get me to a destination a couple hours early might be viewed as pretty entitled, too. Your post shows it's easy to be self-righteous but change the perspective around and things look a lot different.