Airlines and the Weather excuse
Question:
"Jane," Are you a UAL retiree? You sound so bitter against UAL. Yes, the things of which you speak happen with all airlines, but you keep mentioning UAL. And you are in South Florida? That’s "The Holy Grail" for United employees. United has so few employees in warm climates; and many, over a thousand people, want to transfer there. Are you collecting retirement or other money from UAL? Why aren’t you standing up for UAL? What is the ‘real’ problem, "Jane?" What are you so angry about? Seriously. The plane availability is not the problem, something else is. That, and every time someone responds, you get to tell everybody once again that you "get to fly for free." Yet you’re complaining about United. You’re flying for free, but complaining about the service. Really, "Jane," what’s eating you? Having to pay a little service charge for pass travel now? A possible reduction in retirement benefits if you are a retiree? What is it? Are you a UAL retiree? How many years service? Frank
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a > standby aircraft for every problem) > An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. > Snow grounds the plane. > Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane? > Logically, yes…. > Financially it is imposible. > > > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described. > Well that is what the problem is, it should not be a qualified weather > delay. The airline choses how to run it’s schedule, the passenger > schedules his trip based on the promise of transportation. > Do you still don’t understand that? > Customer don’t care where the plane comes from. > What exactly did you do when you worked for UA? > Ticketing for UAL > And yes I was one of the few that mastered FastAir and learned on my > own a lot of things about Unimatic, something that they don’t teach > anymore. > It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for > the flight was delay by weather. > That is what you think > Again, the customer doesn’t care what the airline does with the plane > before the flight. If that were the case then UAL shouldn’t have sent > the plane somewhere where it might get stuck in bad weather. > Do you see how stupid this gets, when you try to blame this on the > customer? > It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement > aircraft came from. > UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement. > Here is where you got all confused. READ CAREFULLY….. > I said that in many cases OPS will swap planes making someones flight > a weather delay although it really wasn’t involved in any weather > issues. > That is cheating, but it happens all the time without passengers being > able to find out. > You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather > problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a > weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a > alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no > longer existed? > Sorry, you need to read my article again. > Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the > airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay? > Hey I fly for free. > And no, the answer is no. UAL out of the question , AA the same, US > AWA DL CO maybe. > Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do > with this? > Oh yeah, 5 years form now they will surely blame 911 for the problems > that they are having…… Come on…. Gimme a break. > Customer are avoiding crappy airlines like UAL. > Customers seem to be doing this on purpose. They are fed up with the > way the UAL, and AA treat them. That is why they are turning to > Smaller carriers. > So, you are suggesting the airline decided on this particular day to > replace its plane due to weather delay for the other aircraft as being > "anti customer"? Do you feel they were required to replace the plane > delayed due to weather??? They weren’t… They did it, and you complain > about it. Were the passengers, in general, not better off because they > replaced the aircraft? > HEH?/????? > Read my arcticle again…. > I don’t think you understand
Response:
> > Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a > standby aircraft for every problem) > An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. > Snow grounds the plane. > Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane? > Logically, yes…. > Financially it is imposible.
Financially it would normally possible to run an airline with twice the number of planes/pilots than you need???? > > > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described. > Well that is what the problem is, it should not be a qualified weather > delay. The airline choses how to run it’s schedule, the passenger > schedules his trip based on the promise of transportation.
The delay or non arrival from an airport with a weather problem is a weather delay even if the weather problem is not between the cities you want to fly between. You might not wish to call it that, but that is how the government classifies it. > Do you still don’t understand that? > Customer don’t care where the plane comes from.
No, but the customer paid a price for a specific service. You don’t seem to know what the specific service was. This service does not include compensation for late arrival times due to weather delays. > What exactly did you do when you worked for UA? > Ticketing for UAL
But, you didn’t learn what airlines were required to give passengers due to weather delays, or even what constituted a weather delay. > It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for > the flight was delay by weather. > That is what you think
No, that is what the rules say > Again, the customer doesn’t care what the airline does with the plane > before the flight. If that were the case then UAL shouldn’t have sent > the plane somewhere where it might get stuck in bad weather.
The customer should care if they bought a ticket that doesn’t guarantee them compensation in this case. > Do you see how stupid this gets, when you try to blame this on the > customer?
The customer got what he paid for. It is up to the customer to determine before he buys the ticket what the ticket entitles him to. > It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement > aircraft came from. > UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement. > Here is where you got all confused. READ CAREFULLY….. > I said that in many cases OPS will swap planes making someones flight > a weather delay although it really wasn’t involved in any weather > issues. > That is cheating, but it happens all the time without passengers being > able to find out.
paying passengers??????? > You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather > problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a > weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a > alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no > longer existed? > Sorry, you need to read my article again.
"As it turns out, the A319 that UAL was going to use for the leg ORD-SEA got stuck and delayed in LAX because of bad weather there" You are correct… I was confusing it with a followup post. Nowhere did you say this plane in LAX was not the originally scheduled aircraft. If not, then what happened to the original plane that was supposed to fly ORD-SEA? > Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the > airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay? > Hey I fly for free. > And no, the answer is no. UAL out of the question , AA the same, US > AWA DL CO maybe.
So, you think they should provide service, but you don’t want to pay for it. Even if you did, most people don’t. Most leisure travelers would take the cheaper flight with less protection. > Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do > with this? > Oh yeah, 5 years form now they will surely blame 911 for the problems > that they are having…… Come on…. Gimme a break.
No, but when they were making money, passengers got more benefits, correct? But, most passengers were never compensated for weather dealys. > Customer are avoiding crappy airlines like UAL.
#1 in on time performance recently, I hear. > Customers seem to be doing this on purpose. They are fed up with the > way the UAL, and AA treat them. That is why they are turning to > Smaller carriers.
Smaller carriers have niche markets. I haven’t had a real problem with an airline in quite awhile. New airline may provide bonuses, like you claim that Jet Blue gives compensation for weather problems. However, they are still in the early stages trying to attract customers. Even profitable WN doesn’t give compensation for weather problems. Are people still flying them?
Response:
> Why wouldn’t someone sending an unaccompanied minor (or anyone else, > for that matter) from MIA to SEA choose a non-stop flight in order > to reduce the risk of misconnections, lost checked baggage, etc.?
I am guessing the fare was lower… This is my point. People want to spend less money, and expect others to pick up the tab if there is a hiccup in the cheapest plan.
Response:
> Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a > standby aircraft for every problem) > An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. > Snow grounds the plane. > Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane?
Logically, yes…. Financially it is imposible. > > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described.
Well that is what the problem is, it should not be a qualified weather delay. The airline choses how to run it’s schedule, the passenger schedules his trip based on the promise of transportation. Do you still don’t understand that? Customer don’t care where the plane comes from. > What exactly did you do when you worked for UA?
Ticketing for UAL And yes I was one of the few that mastered FastAir and learned on my own a lot of things about Unimatic, something that they don’t teach anymore. > It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for > the flight was delay by weather.
That is what you think Again, the customer doesn’t care what the airline does with the plane before the flight. If that were the case then UAL shouldn’t have sent the plane somewhere where it might get stuck in bad weather. Do you see how stupid this gets, when you try to blame this on the customer? > It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement > aircraft came from. > UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement.
Here is where you got all confused. READ CAREFULLY….. I said that in many cases OPS will swap planes making someones flight a weather delay although it really wasn’t involved in any weather issues. That is cheating, but it happens all the time without passengers being able to find out. > You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather > problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a > weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a > alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no > longer existed?
Sorry, you need to read my article again. > Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the > airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay?
Hey I fly for free. And no, the answer is no. UAL out of the question , AA the same, US AWA DL CO maybe. > Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do > with this?
Oh yeah, 5 years form now they will surely blame 911 for the problems that they are having…… Come on…. Gimme a break. Customer are avoiding crappy airlines like UAL. Customers seem to be doing this on purpose. They are fed up with the way the UAL, and AA treat them. That is why they are turning to Smaller carriers. > So, you are suggesting the airline decided on this particular day to > replace its plane due to weather delay for the other aircraft as being > "anti customer"? Do you feel they were required to replace the plane > delayed due to weather??? They weren’t… They did it, and you complain > about it. Were the passengers, in general, not better off because they > replaced the aircraft?
HEH?/????? Read my arcticle again…. I don’t think you understand
Response:
>Let’s say that you sent your child on that MIA – SEA flight. >Although airlines now have imposed strict rules as to how transport >UMNR’s, (not using the last flight of the day and other rules), it >still happens quiet often, that a child winds up misconnected and >stuck in that connection city.
Why wouldn’t someone sending an unaccompanied minor (or anyone else, for that matter) from MIA to SEA choose a non-stop flight in order to reduce the risk of misconnections, lost checked baggage, etc.? — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
This is absurd. If I were in the airline industry, you are not the kind of customer I would want to have. Dairenn Lombard Los Angeles, CA
Response:
> This is absurd.
What is absurd, honey? Have you ever worked for an airline to even know what is absurd or not? > If I were in the airline industry, you are not the kind of customer I > would want to have.
I can’t wait to be a full paying passenger again. The airlines wouldn’t get away with what they are doing. Fortunately me and my family fly for free. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Dairenn Lombard > Los Angeles, CA
Response:
mrtravel I don’t think that you understand the core of customer service, yet. You don’t understand that, whatever business your running, you can’t charge a customer, walk away with the money and leave the customer inconvenienced. I think this and other bad things need to happen to you before, you come to your senses. And if you work for UAL here is your wake up call "No, not every customer travels with an extra spare 200.00 dollars for the inconvenience that UAL might cause them." When I used to work for UAL, everybody always used to joke that if you shake the passengers enough that the money will fall out of them. UAL has thaught this type of culture to their employees, saying that passengers always have money, and that if you pressure them enough, they will turn it over. Here is another exapmle Let’s say that you sent your child on that MIA – SEA flight. Although airlines now have imposed strict rules as to how transport UMNR’s, (not using the last flight of the day and other rules), it still happens quiet often, that a child winds up misconnected and stuck in that connection city. I am not sure how much the airlines are ripping off the people for UMNR’s now, but it surely is enough to place that child in a good hotel with an employee. But instead, I have wittnessed UAL putting the child in disgusting room at O’hare Airport, letting the child sleep on a cott. Hmmm, now UAL charges so much money for that UM; wouldn’t you think that they should be decent enough to treat that child with dignity. I don’t think so. UAL in this example and others alike, is only interested in cashing in, anywhere they can, for services that they don’t provide. I am sure other airlines aren’t any better, but I can’t speak for what I haven’t seen, only for what I have wittnessed. – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - Please, learn some customer service. Maybe UAL’s business will get better as a result of it.
Response:
> mrtravel > I don’t think that you understand the core of customer service, yet. > You don’t understand that, whatever business your running, you can’t > charge a customer, walk away with the money and leave the customer > inconvenienced.
And you need to balance what you are giving away versus the revenue lost by not giving it away. A weather problem is not the fault of the airline. I don’t know if you recognize this or not, but most leisure customers are NOT going to pay more money for not being inconvenienced by weather delay > I think this and other bad things need to happen to you before, you > come to your senses. And if you work for UAL here is your wake up > call "No, not every customer travels with an extra spare 200.00 > dollars for the inconvenience that UAL might cause them."
But…. an Act Of God is not the airline’s fault. Your contract with the airline is that you don’t get compensated for a weather delay. If you want that to be in the conditions of carriage, then either don’t do business with that carrier, or find a way to get it added. Why should the passenger not shoulder the responsibility of the weather delay? Go back to my simple question. An airline has one plane. If there is a weather problem, do you expect the airline to be able to make money by having a standby plane? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Here is another exapmle > Let’s say that you sent your child on that MIA – SEA flight. > Although airlines now have imposed strict rules as to how transport > UMNR’s, (not using the last flight of the day and other rules), it > still happens quiet often, that a child winds up misconnected and > stuck in that connection city. > I am not sure how much the airlines are ripping off the people for > UMNR’s now, but it surely is enough to place that child in a good > hotel with an employee. > But instead, I have wittnessed UAL putting the child in disgusting > room at O’hare Airport, letting the child sleep on a cott. > Hmmm, now UAL charges so much money for that UM; wouldn’t you think > that they should be decent enough to treat that child with dignity.
How much is "so much money"? Does it cover the cost of a room at the ORD Hilton? If you want to ensure your child doesn’t have a problem, then hire someone to fly with him AND PAY for a hotel room if there is a problem. If you pay $50 or whatever it is for UMs to fly, then you KNOW he isn’t going to get a room at Four Seasons if there is a problem. The parent chooses to send the child as a UM. If the parent doesn’t ask what the consequences of a flight delay are then that is their problem. It’s a business. You don’t expect a Lincoln for the price of a Metro. I want to hear more about how UA is "cashing in" as you call it, for services they don’t provide. Aren’t they providing the services they are contracted to provide? The contract doesn’t require them to do anything for a weather delay except get you on the next available flight that has seats available in your class. In your employment at UA, did you not know that?
Response:
> Wait….. > The customer doesn’t care, where the plane comes from. > It is the airlines job to have a plane ready there.
Are you suggesting that it would be a profitable business to have enough standby planes and crew available at all airports served by the airline, in case of a problem? So, if UA’s hub at ORD is snowed in and all of the planes there are grounded, they could afford to have enough aircraft to not affect other locations?
Response:
>And… UAL is not responsible for the weather. And.. in fact, there are >no airline penalties for weather delays. It’s the law, live with it, or >get it changed.
A customer can also choose itineraries which avoid using airports that have a high risk of weather problems (e.g. northern cities during snow season, SFO, etc.). Of course, this can hurt airlines whose hubs are at problem-prone airports. — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
> >And… UAL is not responsible for the weather. And.. in fact, there are >no airline penalties for weather delays. It’s the law, live with it, or >get it changed. > A customer can also choose itineraries which avoid using airports > that have a high risk of weather problems (e.g. northern cities > during snow season, SFO, etc.).
I agree, but that won’t help if the aircraft you are waiting for is coming from a bad weather location.
Response:
> > You misunderstood the contract. > How simple can I make it for you to understand… > Let’s see… > You pay for something… > You show up on time… > You are then told: "though luck, we don’t have a plane, Good bye." > "Oh, and you get nothing from us…. Sleep on the floor if you want."
Let’s make is simple. (understanding that airlines can not have a standby aircraft for every problem) An airline has one plane that flies from point A to point B. Snow grounds the plane. Is this the airline’s fault because it didn’t have a spare plane? > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described. > What makes it a qualified weather delay? > How? > Why? > Explain
What exactly did you do when you worked for UA? It is a qualified weather delay if the original aircraft scheduled for the flight was delay by weather. It makes no difference what the weather was where the replacement aircraft came from. UA wasn’t even required to send a replacement. > I worked for UAL, a qualified weather delay is something that is > directly affecting the flight that the customer wants to get on. > Whether you agree or not.
You stated the plane that was supposed to fly the trip had a weather problem so they substituted another aircraft from a location without a weather problem. Are you suggesting that, because they offered a alternative plane (that arrived late) that the original problem no longer existed? > Simply because an airline’s home base in in Chicago, doesn’t mean it has > plenty of extra planes and pilots around. > OK, planes they don’t have necessarily. They are therefor sitting in > MHV and VCV. But, what does that have to do with the customer? > Surely let’s say they don’t have plane. Fine, but the airline should > pay for hotel accommodation in this case. > The airline should have had a plane.
Are you willing to pay the money for the fares needed to make the airline profitable enough to do this for any weather delay? > As far as your reference to pilots, there is much more than that in > order to put together a flight. For all of that they have plenty, and > I say, most of the time, plenty of reserves available. > Still that is not the customers job, > Hellowwwwww….. > IT’S THE AIRLINES JOB. > One last reference to this stupid remark… > They surely have plenty of planes available and parked right now in > MHV and VCV, due to their crappy service.
Are you suggesting a not so robust economy and 9-11 had nothing to do with this? > There is no promise of compensation for a weather delay unless it is > specified in the conditions of carriage. It isn’t… > Good point…. > I always said that there needs to be. > What you don’t know is… > that airlines jiggle A/C around to cheat the customers, all in an > effort to minimize the impact of IROPS;
So, you are suggesting the airline decided on this particular day to replace its plane due to weather delay for the other aircraft as being "anti customer"? Do you feel they were required to replace the plane delayed due to weather??? They weren’t… They did it, and you complain about it. Were the passengers, in general, not better off because they replaced the aircraft?
Response:
Wait….. The customer doesn’t care, where the plane comes from. It is the airlines job to have a plane ready there. The customer doesn’t care what was done with the plane before. The airline said that they have booked a flight for ORD – SEA so they need to have a plane for ORD – SEA, not "maybe if by chance they have a plane available for the customer" Then they should not charge the customer for the leg ORD – SEA. They should only charge if by chance they have the plane ready at the gate. They would have to charge at the gate then. Just leave it plain and simple….
Response:
> Remember…. > I worked for UNITED. > You all have valid points. > But, still what does it have to do with the customer? > The customer paid for (in this EXAMPLE) UAL to have a plane ready for > transportation.
And… UAL is not responsible for the weather. And.. in fact, there are no airline penalties for weather delays. It’s the law, live with it, or get it changed.
Response:
Ken > I’m a pilot (not for the airlines) and fully support an airline’s decision > not to fly in questionable weather. Airlines are specifically exempt from > civil or government penalties arising from delays due to weather. If this > were not the case, airlines would be under even more economic pressure to > fly no matter what, a serious safety issue. > I have witnessed numerous examples where I arrived at the airport and all > the major carriers were weather-cancelling flights while the budget airlines > were still flying. If you dislike weather delays, you can always fly the > "noname" airlines in exchange for some safety. The other alternative is to > pay full-fare on a major carrier, and the airline will provide > accomodations, meal vouchers, etc.
What’s a noname airline? Are you talking about the renouned Southwest Airlines with 30 years of solid service and no mayor accidents? Or are you talking about famous JetBlue for all of its superb service. Which noname airline? Strangly enough everybody is going to those noname airlines and spreading the names. Ever heard of mandatory FAA cancellations. That means that sometimes airlines have to cancel up to 75% of flights. Let’s reduce the number to a more common mandatory cancellation. 25% Let’s say that your NONAME airline has only one or two flight to the affected airport. Hmmmm that would mean that the noname airline can fly both of it’s flights. In this example, MANDATORY FAA canx, the airline still gets to choose what they WANT to cancel or not. In this event a small airline is not affected by this. So, therefor, if you ever have flown through ORD and seen 30% canx at AA and UA, chances are that your safe NONAME airline does not have to cancel any flights. Even if it just seems to you that they are flying unsafe. Speaking of UNSAFE…. Just because FAA mandates cancellations doesn’t mean it is unsafe to fly. It is perfectly safe to fly. It is just that during low visibility, the spacing among A/C in the air has to be greater than on a normal day, making it impossible for all planes to be allowed in the air. Again, that does not mean that everybody has to cancel it’s flights. In the case of a small airline they are most likely to be allowed to fly because, as and example, you could not possibly cancel 30% of 2 flights.
Response:
> You misunderstood the contract.
How simple can I make it for you to understand… Let’s see… You pay for something… You show up on time… You are then told: "though luck, we don’t have a plane, Good bye." "Oh, and you get nothing from us…. Sleep on the floor if you want." > And, yes, it is a qualified weather delay that you have described.
What makes it a qualified weather delay? How? Why? Explain I worked for UAL, a qualified weather delay is something that is directly affecting the flight that the customer wants to get on. Whether you agree or not. > Simply because an airline’s home base in in Chicago, doesn’t mean it has > plenty of extra planes and pilots around.
OK, planes they don’t have necessarily. They are therefor sitting in MHV and VCV. But, what does that have to do with the customer? Surely let’s say they don’t have plane. Fine, but the airline should pay for hotel accommodation in this case. The airline should have had a plane. As far as your reference to pilots, there is much more than that in order to put together a flight. For all of that they have plenty, and I say, most of the time, plenty of reserves available. Still that is not the customers job, Hellowwwwww….. IT’S THE AIRLINES JOB. One last reference to this stupid remark… They surely have plenty of planes available and parked right now in MHV and VCV, due to their crappy service. > There is no promise of compensation for a weather delay unless it is > specified in the conditions of carriage. It isn’t…
Good point…. I always said that there needs to be. What you don’t know is… that airlines jiggle A/C around to cheat the customers, all in an effort to minimize the impact of IROPS; in other words, just to keep the little money that they would have had to spend on Hotel accommodations and other little things. It’s all a game. Another fact is that they do not train the agents to recognize these things. They just write WEATHER in Unimatic and easely the agents say what they are trained to say. If an agent is smarter than that, then they ax that agent, simple as that. Surely, UAL as well as probably other airlines, walk away from the problem imposed on the customers. No surprise that customers are now walking away from airlines that behave like this, and go to airlines that do exactly the opposite; like JetBlue…. 
Response:
Remember…. I worked for UNITED. You all have valid points. But, still what does it have to do with the customer? The customer paid for (in this EXAMPLE) UAL to have a plane ready for transportation. What does all the drama have to do with how UAL does business? All the customer wanted was transportation from A to B. To twist things more now, this is another example of what the airlines practice out there. Let’s say that another plane was missing from the fleet for another flight; that another flight had actually had a weather cancellation. Let’s say that the plane meant for use for the SEA flight arrived on time from LAX and DEN. However, another plane for another flight didn’t make it due to weather and needs to go to (EXAMPLE) a more lucrative market, or due to operational logistics another route. I have seen many times that UAL flight Ops will swap planes, take the available plane for another flight because of the above mentioned and then make the customers flight a weather delay or cancellation. How about that? Please, read carefully before making stupid remarks. If you aren’t smart enough to understand this then shut up. And remember, this is just an example of what goes on. I didn’t actually fly this. I fly for free. Airline employee
Response:
> Sometimes the airline can come up with another airplane. But that is very > rare. And you also need a cockpit crew and cabin crew. That’s easier as they > have people on "airport standby," suited up and ready to go. The plane is > the hard part.
That is not the customers problem, is it? > Also, was your ORD-SEA leg the last flight of the day? That doesn’t help, > but that certainly can’t be avoided. My guess is the airline wasn’t too > happy either, they need that plane in SEA for the next day’s flight.
This wasn’t my flight. I put this together in order for you folks to understand. I fly for free. > Somebody long ago said, "An airplane sitting on the ground isn’t making any > money." Althought it would be nice, the airlines don’t have planes sitting > around on standby.
BUT STILL, What does it have to do with the customer? That is not the customers problem, the airline said that it was going to have a plane ready for him by scheduling this ticket. The customer doesn’t care whether they have planes sitting or in the air. The customer just wants his plane to be there as promised. The customer doesn’t care how the airline runs its business. The customer paid for a service, and the custome surely should demand for it. Remember, I am an airline employee too. I understand everything that goes on behind the scenes, but still, what does it have to do with the paying customer?
Response:
>Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was >cancelled or delayed due to weather?
Could one reduce the risk of misconnection problems by doing any of the following? a. Choosing nonstop flights, or minimizing the number of connections when possible. b. Choosing flights with reasonable layover times (e.g. a one hour layover where one must pass US customs and immigration is not all that realistic). c. Choosing flights earlier in the day (if you miss one, there is a better chance of getting a later one that day, and early flights are less affected by cascading delays). d. Using the flight status on the airline web sites over several days to find the risk of a particular flight being late, and avoiding flights that have a high risk of being late. e. Choosing connections in places where weather and other delays are less likely (with seasonal considerations). — Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Response:
> The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe > all airlines practice. > Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was > cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you > in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and > tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing?
I’m a pilot (not for the airlines) and fully support an airline’s decision not to fly in questionable weather. Airlines are specifically exempt from civil or government penalties arising from delays due to weather. If this were not the case, airlines would be under even more economic pressure to fly no matter what, a serious safety issue. I have witnessed numerous examples where I arrived at the airport and all the major carriers were weather-cancelling flights while the budget airlines were still flying. If you dislike weather delays, you can always fly the "noname" airlines in exchange for some safety. The other alternative is to pay full-fare on a major carrier, and the airline will provide accomodations, meal vouchers, etc. In addition to explicitly being exempt from weather delays in the C of C and DOT regulations, weather falls under "force majure" (sp?) or "acts of God" which nullify most contracts. Ken Ishiguro
Response:
Well said, Ken. A pilot on a major airline told me that because of low ceilings (or some weather event) recently, his major airline had the equipment to land at DEN, but the lower cost airline could not. It’s no coincidence that air travel is so safe. Ned www.funniestfa.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe > all airlines practice. > Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was > cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you > in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and > tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing? > I’m a pilot (not for the airlines) and fully support an airline’s decision > not to fly in questionable weather. Airlines are specifically exempt from > civil or government penalties arising from delays due to weather. If this > were not the case, airlines would be under even more economic pressure to > fly no matter what, a serious safety issue. > I have witnessed numerous examples where I arrived at the airport and all > the major carriers were weather-cancelling flights while the budget airlines > were still flying. If you dislike weather delays, you can always fly the > "noname" airlines in exchange for some safety. The other alternative is to > pay full-fare on a major carrier, and the airline will provide > accomodations, meal vouchers, etc. > In addition to explicitly being exempt from weather delays in the C of C and > DOT regulations, weather falls under "force majure" (sp?) or "acts of God" > which nullify most contracts. > Ken Ishiguro
Response:
Sometimes the airline can come up with another airplane. But that is very rare. And you also need a cockpit crew and cabin crew. That’s easier as they have people on "airport standby," suited up and ready to go. The plane is the hard part. Also, was your ORD-SEA leg the last flight of the day? That doesn’t help, but that certainly can’t be avoided. My guess is the airline wasn’t too happy either, they need that plane in SEA for the next day’s flight. Somebody long ago said, "An airplane sitting on the ground isn’t making any money." Althought it would be nice, the airlines don’t have planes sitting around on standby. Ned www.funniestfa.com
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe > all airlines practice. > Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was > cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you > in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and > tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing? > This information goes to show you that maybe the way airlines make > decisions could affect you. Therefore, the airlines should also be > held accountable for this. > When you buy a ticket on an airline, you are buying a contract for the > airline to have you transported from A to B. > But many times the airlines cancel your flight or delay it resulting > in you getting stranded in a connecting airport. > Here is one scenario. > Say you book > United Airlines 1467 > Boeing 757-200 4:45 pm Miami (MIA) 7:01 pm Chicago (ORD) > On Time Non-stop > United Airlines 631 > Airbus A319 9:15 pm Chicago (ORD) 11:33 pm Seattle(SEA) > Non-stop > Let’s say you book the above flight with UNITED. You are taking a > flight from Miami via Chicago to Seattle. > You arrive in Chicago with a two-hour layover in order to assure your > connection, however, once you arrive in ORD you find out that your > flight is delayed and later cancelled. > The reason? UAL says: "Bad weather". > But there is no bad weather in ORD, nor is there bad weather in DEN > where the plane was coming from. > Well UAL says: "Bad weather from where the plane is supposed to > originate from." > As it turns out, the A319 that UAL was going to use for the leg > ORD-SEA got stuck and delayed in LAX because of bad weather there. > United Airlines 264 > Airbus A319 12:45 Los Angeles(LAX) 16:05 Denver(DEN) > Delayed for 3 hours Non-stop > United Airlines 264 > Airbus A319 16:55 Denver (DEN) 20:15 Chicago(ORD) > Delayed for over 3 hours and ETA 12:00 am Non-stop > United is now stranding you in ORD and blaming it on weather. > But wait. Why do you have to pay for UNITED not having a plane ready > for your connection to SEA. > Sure UAL cannot control the weather, but what does it have to do with > your flight? Nowhere did it say, that if UNITED has a bad weather > situation somewhere in the country, that they are not responsible for > not having a plane ready for you in Chicago. Besides, isn’t Chicago a > main hub for UNITED? > You paid for your ticked from MIA via ORD to SEA, > not MIA – LAX – DEN – ORD – SEA. > If something similar happens to you, then you should demand for > compensation. It isn’t your job to have a plane ready for you, it’s > UNITED’s job to keep the contract. > If they break the contract they should both give you hotel > accommodation and compensation.
Response:
The following situation reflects on a general policy that I believe all airlines practice. Ever been stuck at an airport because your connecting flight was cancelled or delayed due to weather? Did the airline accommodate you in a hotel for overnight or did they just blame it on the weather and tell you that you are out of luck and get nothing? This information goes to show you that maybe the way airlines make decisions could affect you. Therefore, the airlines should also be held accountable for this. When you buy a ticket on an airline, you are buying a contract for the airline to have you transported from A to B. But many times the airlines cancel your flight or delay it resulting in you getting stranded in a connecting airport. Here is one scenario. Say you book United Airlines 1467 Boeing 757-200 4:45 pm Miami (MIA) 7:01 pm Chicago (ORD) On Time Non-stop United Airlines 631 Airbus A319 9:15 pm Chicago (ORD) 11:33 pm Seattle(SEA) Non-stop Let’s say you book the above flight with UNITED. You are taking a flight from Miami via Chicago to Seattle. You arrive in Chicago with a two-hour layover in order to assure your connection, however, once you arrive in ORD you find out that your flight is delayed and later cancelled. The reason? UAL says: "Bad weather". But there is no bad weather in ORD, nor is there bad weather in DEN where the plane was coming from. Well UAL says: "Bad weather from where the plane is supposed to originate from." As it turns out, the A319 that UAL was going to use for the leg ORD-SEA got stuck and delayed in LAX because of bad weather there. United Airlines 264 Airbus A319 12:45 Los Angeles(LAX) 16:05 Denver(DEN) Delayed for 3 hours Non-stop United Airlines 264 Airbus A319 16:55 Denver (DEN) 20:15 Chicago(ORD) Delayed for over 3 hours and ETA 12:00 am Non-stop United is now stranding you in ORD and blaming it on weather. But wait. Why do you have to pay for UNITED not having a plane ready for your connection to SEA. Sure UAL cannot control the weather, but what does it have to do with your flight? Nowhere did it say, that if UNITED has a bad weather situation somewhere in the country, that they are not responsible for not having a plane ready for you in Chicago. Besides, isn’t Chicago a main hub for UNITED? You paid for your ticked from MIA via ORD to SEA, not MIA
Related Posts