bizarre experience
 

I flew United (actually the shuttle, now run by Sky West) from PHX to OAK last Sunday. It was supposed to be a direct flight.

I arrrived and saw the board behind the desk said Los Angeles. Double checking my ticket, I saw I had the right flight number, and checked in. Nothing else said.

Smaller plane, so had to check my bag at the gate. They wrote "OAK" on it. Again, nothing else said.

Arrived at LAX (late, due to fog there), watched everyone else deplane, and two of us for OAK are left. The stewardess said we had to get off, that the plane was going back to PHX. We pointed out that we were going to OAK, showed her our tickets, etc. The plane was parked in the boonies, far from any gates.

Soon, a van shows up, drives us and our luggage around the outside of the airport to an empty gate, where another plane with the same flight number had already left for OAK. The people at the desk said they wondered where we were when they loaded the plane (!?!). Finally got another flight to OAK, arrving there 10 hours after I had left home for a 2 hour flight.

Lost several hours, and was astounded that nothing or no one said anything about changing planes in LAX, or even going there. Also--it's apparent that United had two flights in the air at the same time with the same flight number.

Needless to say, United has lost my confidence and will receive a note from me later this week. I would be interested in your comments.

Never heard of that one before !!! and God knows United can pull surprises on you !!!
Sorry about your hellish experience on the new United !!!

Flight 7989, service from PHX to OAK via LAX is a regular United Express flight. It's not uncommon for a carrier to have a "direct" flight via an intermediate location. In some cases there is a change of plane at the intermediate location too. According to the schedule, your flight would have had 52 minutes on the ground. If there was to be a change of plane, the Sky West people should have assisted you in quick transportation to your new aircraft.

If you do write United, keep in mind that all services provided to you were by Sky West. UAL had nothing to do with your experience that day. I am sure they will send your comments to Sky West, but expect that to result in some additional time to get a response.

If it is helpful, the contact information for Sky West is:

Customer Relations
444 South River Road
St. George, UT 84790
435-634-3400

Thanks for the info. It was booked through United, so I feel they need to be filled in.

It really wasn't the delays that bug me--it was the complete neglect of anyone telling myself and the other OAK bound passenger what was going on.

JP

It *was* a direct flight. As others have pointed out, direct does not necessarily mean non-stop, or no change of aircraft.

While your flights were on Skywest doing business as United Express, there are heaps of United mainline direct flights which involve a stop and change of aircraft.

Since you say you booked your flight through United and it operated under a UA flight number, you might want to mention United's "Service Commitment" if you write.

Change of aircraft disclosure

We advise customers when their travel involves a change of planes. We share that information with them when they make their reservation, at check-in and on a printed travel itinerary.


http://www.ual.com/site/primary/1,10017,1515,00.html

And


Development of customer service plans

We have asked each of our domestic code-share partners to develop a plan that outlines how their company will fulfill United's customer service commitments. We have asked our United Express® partners to uphold the key provisions of Our United Commitment.

http://www.ual.com/site/primary/0,10017,1516,00.html


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 01-20-2002).]

I am curious... when the board said the plane was going to LAX and you thought you had a direct nonstop flight (which is what I am assuming from your comment) why didnt you just ask the gate agent about this problem?

That might have helped the situation. I know I have questioned that immediately... and not wait until I am on the tarmac at LAX... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

William

There is one of the sources of the problem: "[i]direct nonstop flight[i]". There is no such animal.

Non-stop: One flight number, one aircraft, no stops between two city pairs.

Direct: One flight number between two city pairs with one or more intermediate stops and a change of aircraft possible enroute.

Connecting: Two or more flight numbers with [usually] a change of aircraft enroute.

Always Flyin': I thought the relationship between "direct" and "nonstop" was set:subset.

"direct non-stop" flights certainly do exist, although it's redundant to say it that way. Non-stop flights are direct, so the set notation is correct (non-stop flights are a subset of direct flights).

Usually there's an announcement such as "welcome to flight 7989 to LAX, continuing to OAK".

I would have said something at check in when I saw the board said Los Angeles and not Oakland. My experience with United Express/Skywest is that they don't often know what they're doing...and I dont just mean the counter people. It seems like they wing it sometimes as far as which aircraft are going to go where.

All direct flights have a non-stop in them; not all non-stop flights are necessarily a sub-set of a direct flight (e.g., terminating service at an out station).

Bottom line is that a non-stop flight has no [scheduled] stops enroute. Direct and connecting flights do.

My favorite is a direct flight when the first leg is delayed and the remainder of the flight takes off before you get there (e.g., UA 875: SEA-NRT-BKK. SEA-NRT is delayed. You arrive in NRT figuring the flight can't leave for Bangkok until you get there. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Laughs on you--it's on it's way to BKK.). So much for the same flight number...

Always Flyin, the definition of "non-stop" for this purpose is: does the customer make any stops between origin and destination? Two flights with the same flight number or two flights with different flight numbers, are both *not* non-stop.

The definition of a direct flight is one or more flights from the customer's origin to destination, all of which have the same flight number.

For example, if someone is flying DL from ATL to HSV, he/she can fly DL 289, a non-stop flight from ATL to HSV. That is also a direct flight, because it is "one or more flights" (namely one). You could also fly DL 289 from ATL to MLU via HSV. That is also a direct flight, but is not a non-stop, as the flight stops in HSV on the way to MLU.

As all non-stop flights meet the definition of "one or more flights with the same flight number", all non-stop flights are also direct flights. The set of non-stop flights is a subset of the set of direct flights.

JS:

I agree with your first paragraph.

However, I disagree with the remainder of your post. A non-stop flight is not also a direct flight. A direct flight has two or more legs--not one.

The other confusing factor is that you can speak of a particular passenger's itinerary as direct or non-stop, or you can speak of an airline's service between two cities (e.g., UA offers direct service between XXX and XXX.)

Expedia.com used to have an option "direct flights only". If you check that box, you would get both non-stop and multiple-stop direct flights. They've since changed it to be "non-stop flights only", probably due to customer complaints about the direct flight "scam". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif The definition of a direct flight is one or more, not two or more, flights with the same flight number.

Re passenger's itinerary between two cities vs the airline's service between two cities -- it's the same thing. If you want to fly between LGA and DFW on UA, not only is there no non-stop service, there is no direct service (there used to be a direct flight through IAD).

The comment that Skywest is to blame and that when you write UAL over the subject that UAL doesn't have anything to do with it, because it's a Skywest flight is total B#$*S(%T!

IF it is a published UAL flight then UNITED had COMPLETE responsibility for it. To say that they just have a "marketing agreement" is utter nonsense!!!

Sorry, you are wrong. It's a Skywest flight and responsibility lies with them. UAL "codesharing" a flight number with Skywest does not make it responsible for that airline. Some fault also lies with the passenger, especially since he/she noted the destination as LAX. That was the time to inquire and point out his/her destination. Why are people so sheepish and unable to speak up ???

I did, in fact, confirm that the flight was going to Oakland when I checked in. They never mentioned changing planes, etc., etc.

And--I'm no lawyer--but the fact that it was booked on the United site, serviced at United gates, etc., indicates a level of involvement if not endorsement on their part.

I'll let you know their response when I write. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

JP

[This message has been edited by j379pa (edited 01-21-2002).]

I have to say that my definitions of nonstop and direct have been those enunciated by Always Flyin. That is why I was so utterly confused here in BKK years ago when I was booking flights ex-BKK. I had asked for a 'non-stop' and was given a 'direct' flight. I forget if I had the conversation in English or Thai, but what I've remembered ever since is that there is no misunderstanding that 'nonstop' = 'direct' in Asia (at least in this neck of the woods).

Hmmmm, let's see here. If a flight is sold on UA ticket stock, by a UA reservations agent, with the word "United" in the airline's name (United Express), on a plane painted in United's colors, leaving from a gate with signs reading "United" or "United Express," with check-in performed by United personnel at a counter that says "United," with the inflight magazine being the official United inflight magazine, etc. etc. how can you argue that United bears no responsibility for this?

First, the employees were SkyWest, not United. The whole "image" thing is part of what regional carriers are all about. They even have uniforms that say United on them. However, the planes, gates, checkin posts all belong to SkyWest (or one of the other regionals branded as UX). There are contractual agreements about how these carriers are permitted to use the UA logo and are supplied with UA materials, but the obligations to the customer belong to the actual underlying carrier.

You'll note that the boarding pass (printed on UA ticket stock) has a message clearly printed on both your stub and the retained airline coupon indicating that "United Express service provided by XXXXXXXX" with the true carrier's name listed.

You suggest if the ticket was purchased at UAL.COM, that was further proof of responsibility. If I buy a ticket from ITN.COM directly, does American Express, GetThere, LP and SABRE have equal responsibility for my flight's operations the day of travel? I think not.

[This message has been edited by SFO 1K (edited 01-22-2002).]

I did not say anything about UAL.com. I described a situation in which the ticket was sold by a United reservations agent (i.e. telephone reservation); thus your ITN analogy doesn't apply.

Allow me to clarify my position. If I have been screwed by United Express and write a letter to United customer service, then I at least expect United to contact the United Express carrier to alert them to the issue. If the Express carrier does nothing, and I alert United to this, I expect United to contact the Express carrier again and get them to respond to my complaint. Just "forwarding" my letter to the Express carrier and then forgetting about the issue is not enough. United should follow up with the Express carrier to see what they have done to respond to the complaint.

I was involved in a situation where the United Express carrier I flew violated United Airlines' contract of carriage. United Airlines' contract of carriage explicitly states (or it stated in 1995, anyway) that the contract applies to United Express flights. Yet United Airlines did not do anything to rectify this violation of United's contract by the United Express carrier. United's position was that my complaint was totally unrelated to them, so they did not have to do anything. Of course, the only reason I was on that flight in the first place was that it was a UA-coded flight (which was sold to me over the phone by a United reservations agent, on United ticket stock).

United should also require Express carriers to abide by United's "customer service commitment" (or whatever it's called). This is simply good business. If United puts its name and logo on the flights of poorly run, second rate airlines, United's own image will suffer, and this will not be helped if United adopts the attitude, "It's not our flight, don't bother us with your complaint" when passengers complain.

Incidentally, I stopped flying United after the above referenced incident, and have been a much happier traveler since.

Please clarify your position further. Is that what did indeed happen?

And when did whatever in your case happen? Recently? Or several years ago?
United calls it their "Our United Commitment" (gack). United does claim they require United Express carriers to abide by its "major" points.

Some background: many parts of their "Commitment" came about the last time Congress was provoked into holding hearings into passenger complaints over airline practices. The "United Commitment" and related "commitments" from other airlines were what the airline CEOs offered Congress to back off from taking regulatory action. It worked -- at least as far as the airlines are concerned.

It's in United's business interest to at least look like they're making good on their commitment, cause if they don't, the airlines won't likely escape Congress so easily next time.

It will be interesting to hear the response the original poster of this thread gets from UA about his recent UA Express experience and compare it to what response you received (which I take it happened several years ago from your reference to the 1995 Contract of Carriage).


[This message has been edited by Quokka (edited 01-23-2002).]

It still does. From Rule 500:

A) AN INDEPENDENT OPERATOR WILL PROVIDE SERVICE UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH UA. THE INDEPENDENT OPERATOR IS CONSIDERED EITHER A UNITED SHARED DESIGNATOR OPERATOR OR A UNITED EXPRESS OPERATOR AS IDENTIFIED BY THE
FLIGHT NUMBERS SHOWN IN PARAGRAPH (B).

1) FOR UNITED SHARED DESIGNATOR FLIGHTS, ALL TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION APPLICABLE TO UA SPECIFIED IN THIS TARIFF APPLY EXCEPT FOR SECTION V - BAGGAGE, OR EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY NOTED. SEE THE INDEPENDENT OPERATOR'S SECTION OF THIS TARIFF FOR BAGGAGE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THEIR FLIGHTS.

2) FOR UNITED EXPRESS FLIGHTS, ALL TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION APPLICABLE TO UA SPECIFIED IN THIS TARIFF APPLY EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY NOTED.

The references in the contract of carriage merely mean that the business arrangement between Sky West and United inolves an agreement to be bound by UA's contract of carriage.

So, legally, UA would be justified in disregarding this and pointing to SkyWest (although I'm not sure what the legal claim would be against United even if it were entirely on UA metal, since you were transported, just very late and very poorly served, neither of which is a legal matter).

However, having said all that, UA should obviously step up and mediate in service problems like this, because it's a copout to claim that your licensees have nothing to do with you. UA benefits from making UX look like a full-fledged part of the UA route network, and that requires maintaining that appearance in good times and bad. UA should go so far as to provide appropriate compensation on behalf of their licensee should it come to that. If this becomes a liability to UA, then they should either force UX to repay such compensations as part of their UA contract or they should fire that licensee and replace them with one that will generate fewer problems.

P.S. My understanding of direct has always been that it represents a single flight number with 0 or more intermediate stops and plane changes. Therefore, all non-stops are by definition direct (1 flight number with 0 stops), but not all direct flights are non-stop. Therefore, it is redundant, but possible to say "direct, non-stop"

Amen!

I finally received a response from United regarding this issue.

No letter, but a $100 certificate on stationary that reads "We hope this travel certificate will give United Airlines an opportunity to serve you again."

I guess it's more than I expected, but some kind of personal response like "we'll try to fix this problem" would have been nice.

Thanks for your above thoughts on this issue.

JP