Leaving psgrs stranded in CLT

[john john]

tower manager. If they did that, then the tower manager made the decision not to hold the flight. their supervisor and the supervisor the tower manager

Too many chefs covering there a$$. And the Indians not being empower to make the right discussion

 

[LD3]

People want ontime. Ontime. ONTIME! I know for a fact that UA did the same thing the other day on a flight from ORD to SJU. The airlines are scrambling to improve stats, and unfortunately, on time performance is the #1 priority for passengers.

Ugly, ain't it?

And not a peep about it on the UA board...

 

[sharktooth]

The P.O.C office would have known the late inbound flight had misconnect paxs on board, the CCC also should have known this, and the boarding gate agent should have known this. The POC and CCC simply could/should have called the tower manager. If they did that, then the tower manager made the decision not to hold the flight. The gate agent should have notified their supervisor and the supervisor would/should have called POC or CCC to see what was going to happen. All of these folks should have been active in there efforts to hold this flight but in the end it is the tower manager who locally makes that decision.

What is amazing to me is why the Captain/flight deck crew are not brought into the decision loop. Yeah, a few are disgruntled and won't cooperate, but, given the proper motivation, it can be amazing what a crew can do, once in a while, as long as it does not become status quo.

I remember waiting for over four hours while (mostly) west dispatchers thrashed around trying to get a (non-standard) flight plan approved. We could see the problem from the first attempt, yet they never asked why from the authority nor ourselves. Such arrogance has only one reward.

OK, Mr. Parker, you want to reduce everyone to minimum wage? Then, see what you get.

I can only hope for a Passenger Bill of Rights. Maybe it would force the thieves and thugs of the industry, yes, you, Mr. Dougweiser, out. They might actually have to work, for once.

 

[PITOCC71]

Direct flights are the absolute worst "gotchas" from a marketing perspective, in my opinon. If US sells me a "direct" flight with one flight number, I expect no change of aircraft. At the very least, any aircraft change should allow the through passengers time to connect.

If US chooses to switch aircraft on me, and they don't hold my "direct" flight so I can make it to the new aircraft....... I will complain to the D.O.T. and show no mercy -- not so much about the weather delay, but about selling me a "direct" flight, and then taking off without me and blaming it on the weather.

The way US markets their bogus "direct" flights is entirely within their control. If they don't have the appropriate recovery plan they deserve every D.O.T. complaint that they get. At least if you're going to jerk customers around, be honest about it.

Again....it's about managing customer expectations.

I remember the old America West had a policy for awhile which directed SOC (West OCC) to keep as many directs on the same aircraft as much as possible. It lasted all of two weeks, though. Always something (restrictive MELS, maint wanted certain aircraft routed through maint stations, A1 vs A5 engines, etc) putting a monkey wrench in that plan).

As for the misconnection, I wouldn't be surprised to see this issue addressed by an Obama administration FAA and/or DOT. Especially if he holds true on this "change" premise he was talking about on the campaign trail. Of course what a politician does on the trail and in the office can vary a bit, but that's another topic.

 

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> I can only hope for a Passenger Bill of Rights.

Thanx, but I’ll pass on that.

 

[tadjr]

I can only hope for a Passenger Bill of Rights.

Be careful what you wish for. Things arent great by any means now, but getting the govt involved hasnt worked great in a lot of things before and since they will be looking out for themselves as well, dont think this program would be what everyone expects it to be. Not gonna be pretty with the outcome.

 

[SS255]

As long as you hold every airline to that standard that's fine.

Absolutely. My comment was more of a general statement. I presume that all airlines do these "direct flight" switcheroos. I avoid "direct" flights if at all possible. You earn less miles, and it's tougher to upgrade because you must clear both legs, unless you find a very skilled agent who can split the reservation to upgrade you on the leg where there is availability.

One thing I have noticed with US is that some of the transcons originating at LAX have the same flight number as transatlantic flights. Obviously the "continuing" flights are on different aircraft. Can anybody explain why US does this? I have been on flights that landed late in PHL, and the continuing flight with the same flight number, presumably, was not held for the connecting pax. Why not just assign the transatlantic flight a different flight number?

 

[BoeingBoy]

One thing I have noticed with US is that some of the transcons originating at LAX have the same flight number as transatlantic flights. Obviously the "continuing" flights are on different aircraft. Can anybody explain why US does this?

That's a change of gauge and not a direct flight in airline speak. A change of guage flight always has an aircraft change - it's really a connecting flight after all. The practice is common and has been for decades - it started as a way to trick the GDS' into showing a direct flight for what is really a connection since direct flights are listed before connecting flights. It also allows an airline to show direct international service to/from a non-hub city even though a change of planes is required.

Jim

 

[sharktooth]

Be careful what you wish for.

I think I am.

A major source of problems with US appears to be the increasing lack or deferral of basic services like operations, including maintenance.

One issue alone. Going with the cheapest of the cheap "mx computer system" that provides little or no advance notice of MEL expiration. Instead of doing what nearly every other airline does, US decides to ignore it until expiration, then whine to the FAA for a "waiver". Fortunately, the pilots? operations? FAA? stopped that bankrupt and dangerous policy.

I would like to see clear and bright lines that airline managements could not cross (in order to help them with their obvious ethics problems). One way would be to have a "bill of rights" for passengers. The airline management would then have to think things through. The good side is that they could then have rationales for raising fares in order to cover the "costs" associated with providing reliable transportation services and provide fiscal reasons for not sweeping problems under a carpet, hoping the problems would disappear, something present day managers seem quite good at.

 

[FlyGuyBWI]

Thanx, but I’ll pass on that.

Me too. It's not that I'm anti-passenger, heck, I want ya'll to get where you're going with your bags on-time all the time. But, such a law will likely become akin to re-regulation. It could have the unintended consequence of higher fares, or perhaps more cancellations, delays, etc. Who knows. Just my opinion.

 

[NCFL]

I can only hope for a Passenger Bill of Rights.

Be careful what you ask for. The EU version of this regulation, IMO, has wound up hurting customers in this respect more than it's helped. People who write U.S. airlines today are able to receive compensation of the airline's and to some extent the customer's choosing, depending on how customer-focused the company and the particular employee issuing it are. With the EU regulation, airlines simply respond "The Regulation says we compensate for X, Y and Z and with $$ amount. You only had problem B so you don't qualify. Piss Off."

Think about it, how many - and be honest - situations have you been in personally where you've been held hostage inside an aircraft longer than three hours in your entire lifetime? I flew weekly for 10 years of my career, and at least twice a month for the other 8. That sort of delay happened to me ONCE.

http://www.tripso.com/columns/now-is-not-t...bill-of-rights/

One thing I have noticed with US is that some of the transcons originating at LAX have the same flight number as transatlantic flights. Obviously the "continuing" flights are on different aircraft. Can anybody explain why US does this?

In addition to BoeingBoy's "Change of Gauge" flights, there are also "funnel flights" that do essentially the same thing. That way, agency CRSs can show "direct" flights from all over creation to LHR. You can spot those by the wacky flight numbers (and the fact that it's highly unlikely there would be a direct flight GSO-LHR on a CRJ. LOL).

You'll find both of these things at any airline, not just US.

 

[Doc]

Is that figure from the number of pax onboard at close-out (AKA after US left all of the thru pax behind) or the pre-departure booking level?

This seems to have caused a lot of headaches amid several discussions on this board of "the folks in charge don't seem to know what's going on in the trenches." Who can get the correct answer to why this occurred, rather than a jillion people putting forth opinions and speculation? Somebody has to know.

Morgan?

It was full if I remember it was over sold in first as well.

 

[Doc]

At the risk of hijacking the thread I'm going to comment on the proposed "Passenger Bill of Rights"

In my never to be humble opinion this would the absolute WORST thing for customers possible.

Let's look at what the potential consequences are.

• Customer Service is an attitude, not something that can be regulated. Airline employees will be afraid to go "Above & Beyond" due to the new rules and their particular airlines response to them - Bad for Customers
• Any additional layer of rules requires more people to deal with them. Both from a regulatory and customer service perspective. This will lead to higher fares - Bad for Customers
• New rules will force airlines to alter operations in order to "pad" schedules and not run afoul of the new rules. This could make alternate modes of transit more viable and lead to capacity cuts - Bad for Customers
• In any industry the more layers of bureaucracy you add, be they government or private increases the opportunity for things to go wrong and aviation is an industry where plenty goes wrong through no fault of the airline - Bad for Customers

If the government wants to help customers and airlines a law will do nothing except invoke the law of unintended consequences in ways impossible for anyone to determine. There is already a mechanism in place through the DOT for complaints. A simple solution would be to REQUIRE information regarding the DOT complaint process be available at every ticket counter, gate and highly visable on the companies website.

Making the DOT stats more public should provide airlines with the proper incentive to make changes to the way they do business in order to keep off the bottom tier of the stats.

Maybe the DOT can make us give more money and more free flights after all it's just the aviation business they are used to it.

 

[N965VJ]

Maybe the DOT can make us give more money and more free flights after all it's just the aviation business they are used to it.

Durn freeloaders, airlines are the only business on the planet that have loyalty programs, dontcha’ know!

 

[sharktooth]

Making the DOT stats more public should provide airlines with the proper incentive to make changes to the way they do business in order to keep off the bottom tier of the stats.

Hoping a corporation in a "capitalism, quarterly report, environment" will self-regulate may work over the short term, but, as we have seen in the financial industry, will not work longer than a couple of quarters as it is contrary to "profits first" capitalism. I am not saying "profits first" is evil, just that a healthy industry will exploit any and all niches, even ones eventually detrimental to its future.

I am not asking for a micro-management tool as you seem to imply but some simple oversight, with teeth. With the complex nature of the airline industry, there is certainty of unintended consequences to sometimes overly broad and not well thought out "rights".

I would like to see some lines drawn that would penalize airlines (corporations) for taking shortcuts to the detriment of passengers/employees. Introduce a penalty to the corporate spreadsheet "gurus", a way that passengers will get compensated for decisions that solely benefit the corporation, now.