*When* is a misconnect a misconnect?
 

We were flying SFO-DEN-DFW this past Saturday. We were supposed to depart SFO at ~2:30 and have ~1 hour connection in DEN (leaving DEN ~7:00). This was the last flight of the day for all intents and purposes.

We got to the airport very late (SF Bay traffic) and found out that our 1st flight was delayed 2 hours. Since we arrived so late, there were no other United flight combos for us. I assume they would reroute us on AA or something (I have had this same situation before out of DFW and have been rerouted without problem.)

When I asked at check-in, I was told the 2nd flight was delayed an hour. So our 1st flight would get in ~8:00 and our 2nd flight would also leave ~8:00. The check-in agent said he could only give me credit for my UA flight and I could go down to AA myself and buy a ticket from them. He said that they would reroute me in DEN if I misconnected. He wouldn't misconnect me at SFO since the 1st flight was late due to weather (technically not true, the incoming flight was late due to weather, my flight was late because the equipment was not there) and because there was a chance I might make the connection.

So I got to DEN, misconnected, and was transferred to AA. I then had to mess around with getting my bags the next day since they were stuck in DEN.

My question is: should this have happened? Should I have called Premier Reservations/could they misconnect me? Was the check-in agent correct? This was just frustrating since the DFW agents have been much more accomodating in this situation and the SFO agent was not helpful and made life more difficult.

Thanks,
BillJ

While from your perspective it was not, this really was a weather delay. If the flight is delayed due to weather your options become very limited. This does not mean they won't do anything, but more likely means they do not have to do anything extraordinary. This is where an RCC membership may come in handy.

While I don't think the agent did anything technically wrong, he/she did not go above and beyond leading to your frustration.

Bottom line is weather problems mess everything up. At least you did get a flight to DFW from DEN that evening.

Is this a weather delay though? The incoming equipment was delayed because of weather, but this was a new flight number and a new flight. Isn't the delay then because they don't have equipment available?

BillJ

I had a somewhat similar situation happen to me in April (also SFO-IAD) which led to one of my more unpleasant UAL experiences. A letter to customer service did get my wife and I $100 vouchers, though.

I agree with wcj1. from my experience, late arrival of incoming aircraft is not a weather delay. The agent definitely did not go beyond his duty at customer service. What he did was the bare minimum.

Whenever something like this happen (delay at the connection point), I ask to be re-routed at the first point and UA always have complied.

Seems like UA agents will typically do better than this...

I have been rerouted from SAN if the connection at ORD or DEN looks questionable..And the agents have volunteered this without any prodding..

Latest was because my flight to ORD was delayed and I might miss my connection. They happily rerouted me through Denver.

In April, DEN was closed most of one day because of snow. UA voluntarily moved me to AA for a non-stop BNA-LAX flight to get me home to SAN. I was told that I was getting home today because I was a Premex and others were not going to be so lucky..

The delay is because of late equipment. The equipment is late because of a weather delay for the incoming flight. Therefore, the true cause of the delay is weather related.
Granted, this is all my opinion but it is the logical explanation. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Again, I don't think the agent tried too hard to accomodate the passenger.

But if you follow this logic, UA can explain every single delay with "weather." I can be in SFO waiting for a flight to NRT and it can be weather delayed because of fog in LHR.

Any late arrival of incoming equipment or difficulty in crew scheduling is within UA's control. It should be a scheduling issue and should not be classified as weather.

You have to look at what started the delay ball rolling...
Weather delayed the equipment to the flight # starting point. So the delay code is weather.
Last week, an a/c was delayed in IAD due to maintenance. Once the equipment was repaired and flight ready, the flight cancelled due to severe weather. All customers were accomodated overnight in hotels because had the equipment not been broken and departed on-time, it would not have been caught up in the severe weather.
Another point (from a previous post) regarding re-routes: It's much easier to reaccomodate a customer on AA when they're in ORD or DFW (AA hubs) and on TW when in STL, on NW when in DTW or MSP and so on.

I don't see the logic supporting your assertion.
I respectfully disagree. If the equipment, or crew are late in arrival due to weather it is out of anyone's control. It may not be fun to experience, and I'm sure you and I have both been there, but it does happen.

[This message has been edited by JeffS (edited 06-26-2001).]

If UA had more spare aircraft they could use these when an aircraft was late ariving. Therefore delays due to late arriving aircraft are within UA's control if they really want it to be.

I actually agree with seawolf. Theoretically, any delay can be a "weather delay." For instance, if my flight from ORD-BOS is delayed because the plane's wings fell off, it can be construed as a weather delay if 1.) a SFO-ORD flight is delayed by weather and 2.) the last remaining ORD-based spare is used to fly the continuing SFO-ORD-RDU segment, thereby leaving no spares available for the ORD-BOS segment. So, voila! You have a weather delay because had SFO not been fogged in, a spare would have been available to fly ORD-BOS!

Frankly, I think "weather" is used too often by the airlines as a disingenuous excuse to shirk their contractual obligations to passengers. I think if the weather is clear at the origin and the destination, weather should not be an excuse.

Hypothetically speaking, if the aircraft for the SFO-NRT-SIN flight was coming in from LHR and fog delayed that departure by 4 hours, SFO-NRT would be consider a weather delay under what you proposed. Worst yet, NRT-SIN can also be considered a weather delay even thought SFO and NRT could have the most ideal weather. Now of course, this is an extreme scenario. Allowing airlines to consider late arrival of incoming aircraft as a force majeure event can lead to abuse.

What I am saying is that the delay of SFO-NRT is within UA's control because it is a scheduling problem. The fact that they don't have a spare aircraft at SFO is a result of UA's scheduling. Not weather.

I believe the litmus test is this. If flights on other carriers with the same origin/destination are leaving on-time, weather is ruled out as a cause of delay.

My point exactly! How about this. Forget the spares. The ORD-BOS aircraft experiences a mechnical and an incoming SFO-ORD flight is delayed. What's stopping UA from announcing that ORD-BOS is delayed due to weather by claiming that the SFO-ORD aicraft is the ORD-BOS aircraft?

Here are the rules on United from www.OneTravel.com:

Rule: Force Majeure Event – Definition
“Force Majeure Event” means: (1) Any condition beyond United Airlines’ control (including, but without limitation, meteorological conditions, acts of God, riots, civil commotion, embargoes, wars, hostilities, disturbances, or unsettled international conditions), actual, threatened or reported or because of any delay, demand circumstances or requirement due, directly or indirectly, to such conditions or (2) Any strike work stoppage, slowdown, lockout or any other labor related dispute involving or affecting United Airlines’ service or (3) Any government regulation demand or requirement, or (4) Any shortage of labor, fuel or facilities of United Airlines or others, or (5) Any fact not reasonably foreseen, anticipated, or predicted.
DGR-1 / Rule 240 I / 1st revised page UA-16A / March 29, 2000

Rule: Force Majeure Event - Alternate Transportation / Refund / Amenities
United Airlines may, in the event of a Force Majeure Event, without notice, cancel, terminate, divert, postpone, or delay any flight or the right of carriage or reservation of traffic accommodations and determine if any departure or landing should be made, without any liability except to refund … any unused portion of the ticket.
DGR-1 / Rule 240 I / 1st revised page UA-16A / March 29, 2000

In circumstances where customers may be delayed overnight, we will clarify policies and procedures for accommodating them. We will provide customers who request it a copy of this policy. In the event of delays, diversions, or cancellations, our representatives are empowered to offer disserviced customers hand-written certificates good for amenities onboard our flights or for future travel. We will develop information cards that include detailed policies and procedures for handling special-needs or disabled customers.
“Our United Commitment” issued September 15, 1999 / Effective December 15, 1999


From the above, I would say that if there is a "shortage" of "facilities", such as no airplane for your flight, this is a force majeure event that entitles you only to get a refund of the unused portion of your ticket. Which is why we all dread the fact that bad weather in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter), can delay flights nationwide and leave travelers with few options but to ask nicely for help in getting to our destination.

-- SuzanneSLO

Yes, I now remember onetravel's site, and I think the text that fits the situation I described is:

-----

Rule: Schedule Irregularity – Definition
Misconnection occurs at a connection point when a passenger … is unable to use … confirmed space because … carrier was unable to deliver him/her to … connecting point in time to connect with … flight

Schedule Irregularity means any of the following irregularities occurring on the date of departure: (a) Delay in scheduled departure or arrival of a United Airlines flight resulting in misconnection,


and


Rule: Schedule Irregularity - Alternate Transportation or Refund
When a passenger will be delayed because of a schedule irregularity … exceeding 2 hours … (b) If United Airlines is unable to provide onward transportation acceptable to the passenger, United Airlines, will with concurrence of the passenger, will arrange for the transportation on another carrier or combination of carriers with whom United Airlines has agreement

-----

Again, this problem originated because United chooses to use a single aircraft for multiple flights scheduled close together which leaves little room for problems which may occur. I don't deny that this fact happens and is a way of life, but there are rules setup to assist passengers when these problems occur.

Unfortunately, I've had other agent misconnect me at the origin when it was obvious it was going to happen, rather than letting me wait to get stuck at the hub.

BillJ


[This message has been edited by wcj1 (edited 06-26-2001).]

I don't think that's what "shortage" of "facilities" means. I think we all agree a mechanical is not a Force Majeure Event.

But what you are saying is that it is under the "shortage" of "facilities" definition because they don't have a spare part.

Again, I think the test is whether other carriers are operating or not (unless there is a strike, etc).

[This message has been edited by seawolf (edited 06-27-2001).]

Seawolf:

The flaw in your argument is that UA (or any other airline)does not classify all delays as weather-related.
And what does spare aircraft have to do with anything? Wait, don't answer that because you discard that defense in a subsequent post. All of this leads me to believe that you are just being argumentative for argument's sake. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

JeffS

I don't think you have not considered my line of argument at all before provding this response. My point is this: allowing the late arrival of equipment to be classified as weather related can lead to abuse. The LHR-SFO-NRT-SIN is an extreme scenario but it does fall within "late arrival = weather related delay." It is as simple as that.

Now how does your perception of the flaw in my logic tie to this or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.

Futhermore, by allowing late arrival of eqiupment to be classifed as weather, what's stopping an airline from doing what robinhood pointed out? What about what I pointed out on the post posted ast 06-26-2001 06:41 PM?


Next, you have to point out exactly how I discarded the "spare part" defense. Please elaborate.

My point on the spares is that UA's inability to have a spare does not qualify it as a Force Majeure Event. I disagree with SuzanneSLO's definition of "facilities" because if a "shortage of facilities" is referring to equipment, then every single mechancial can then be classifed as a Force Majeure Event and UA would really not have to do anything except to provide refunds for all types of delays.

Then why is there even a Rule 240 if the "facilities" is referring to aircraft? If facilities is referring to aircraft, Rule 240 might have just been written that a Force Majeure Event is any type of delay.

I believe what facilities is referring to is airport and takeoff/landing slots. Shortage of facilities explains how ATC delays are Force Majeure Events. ATC delays are the temporary shortage of takeoff/landing slots.

[This message has been edited by seawolf (edited 06-27-2001).]