Cancellations due to Maintenance
Dec 18, 2016, 9:40 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 56
Cancellations due to Maintenance
Was flying IAH>LGA yesterday (where there was some snow/rain so delays) and my first flight was delayed a couple hours, then cancelled due to "Maintence", rebooked on the next LGA flight and a couple hours later it was cancelled due to "Maintence".
I just find it pretty suspicious - so the question is why cancel the flight under the guise of a maintenance issue as opposed to just saying it's cancelled due to weather/crew/scheduling etc...
I just find it pretty suspicious - so the question is why cancel the flight under the guise of a maintenance issue as opposed to just saying it's cancelled due to weather/crew/scheduling etc...
Dec 18, 2016, 9:45 am
#4
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,140
Maintenance cancellations are 100% in favor of the customer, not the airline. Basically, the airline doesn't have to do anything in the event of a weather cancellation, but they're completely on the hook for compensation in case of maintenance.
Dec 18, 2016, 9:45 am
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 56
That's exactly what I don't understand - I suppose it could have been a coincidence, but it felt more like an operational decision - but was wondering what if any upside there would be
Dec 18, 2016, 9:47 am
#6
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,454
None. It is a negative for UA. Maintenance delay sparks all sorts of contractual and customer service obligations for UA, whereas weather creates basically none.
The incentive is for UA to characterize a true mx as weather to dodge the obligations that arise when a cancel is due to mx.
That's why this theory makes zero sense.
The incentive is for UA to characterize a true mx as weather to dodge the obligations that arise when a cancel is due to mx.
That's why this theory makes zero sense.
Dec 18, 2016, 9:49 am
#8
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,140
Unless you have proof that the airplane was airworthy, why is it necessary to assume the airline is lying?
Dec 18, 2016, 10:22 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,886
Realistically speaking is a different story, as they're is more leniency under the COC, and they will generally do more to get you on your way or compensate you when necessary, even if they don't do it voluntarily, they almost always will when you ask (I.e. Hotel/meal vouchers, put you OAL when it'll get you to your destination faster then UA can on heir own metal, etc.).
Dec 18, 2016, 10:22 am
#13
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,852
Dec 18, 2016, 10:33 am
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,969
We are probably not going to see any new regulations for a few years 
but I wonder if they should standardize the delay/cancellation reasons across the industry and hold the airlines responsible for coding the delays/cancellations correctly.
but I wonder if they should standardize the delay/cancellation reasons across the industry and hold the airlines responsible for coding the delays/cancellations correctly.
Dec 18, 2016, 10:35 am
#15
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,454
Weather is Force Majeure, mx is not. A Force Majeure Event is governed by CoC Rule 24(D), which basically obliges UA to do nothing, whereas IRROPS are governed by Rule 24(E), which is much more passenger friendly. Further, IRROPS give rise to a duty of care under Rule 24(F), which does not exist in case of wx. Finally, while not covered in the CoC, mx gives rights under UA's internal policies concerning customer service compensation which do not exist in the case of wx.