Us71 Snn/phl 8/15

[700UW]

That is BS

[post="288623"][/post]​

Prove it, how is the real estate market in Tempe?

 

[ClueByFour]

The funny thing is there was apparently no compensation given. There is no oversale or DB report generated for US71 8/15.

[post="288654"][/post]​

There will be. Both the US and the EU have regs on this (the new EU ones are much more stringent).

 

[LGA / 037]

There will be. Both the US and the EU have regs on this (the new EU ones are much more stringent).

[post="288762"][/post]​

Today they took vols and issued comp according to the G*L71/OS report. There was no report issued yesterday.

 

[hharotz]

I am not sure I agree with that.  140 seats out of SNN would be better then 0.  Yes it is hard to get 60 people to volunteer, but try finding 200 seats during peak season in Europe, especially after the BA fiasco this weekend.  If there would have been an outright cancellation, think of the cost of meals and hotels for 200 customers while parts are shipped in to fix the airplane and the 24+ hour delay.  (Not sure if the EU mandated compensation kicks in on a MTC issue, but if it does, then you need to add that amount being spent.) 

Just my opinion......I'd take 140 seats and 60 DB's over a cancellation of 200 any day.   Some seats are better then nothing.

[post="288633"][/post]​

We do not provide hotels unless the pax is at their connecting point and the delay is within US's control. As as rule, hotels are never provided at the pax's origin or destination.

As well, I don't believe policy allows us to give $$$ off certs or RTFCs in situations like these...oversales due to "equipment downsizing" definitley do not require us to issue compensation in the US (not sure about the EU).

I am not sure if we are required to compensate due to inop seats either? IMO, the only time we treat these things like an oversale is if we really did oversell the flight...if capacity is 200, booked to 225 and 215 show up at the counter, then 15 would be oversales and the remaining 60 people with inops seats would not be considered true oversales, and as such would not have to be compensated. If only 190 pax showed up at the counter in SNN yet the plane (capacity 200) could only take 140 due to 60inop seats, then 50 pax would be offloaded without compensation since it is a mechanical.

Soemtimes it's just easier to say the flight is cancelled, rather then having to explain these kinds of things to people. Who do you offload in these kinds of situations? Everyone with seat assignments in rows 22-31 even if they are US1s/2s/3s? What if someone has 12A prereserved and you choose to deny them their seat because rows 22-31 are inop? Situations like these often create more of a mob scene at the counter/gate than an outright cancellation.

 

[MarkMyWords]

hharotz -

you are incorrect.

1. We have canceled flights out of Europe due to MTC and schedule an extra section the following day (when the crew was legal or the parts came in) and put all 200-270 customers in hotels at our expense. MTC is considered an issue "within our control" and we do provide accomodations if necessary.

2. Equipment downsizing does require that we offer compensation to the customer if they volunteer their space on the aircraft. It is not the customers fault that we substituted a 733 for a 757, no matter what the reason. If there are not enough volunteers then we would involuntarily deny boarding and pay the appropriate compensation.

3. The same holds true for cases where we have inoperative seats. Those customers are entitled to DBC if we are unable to provide a seat for them. We would solicite volunteers and treat it like a normal oversale. If we were unable to get the appropriate number of volunteers, then we would involuntarily deny boarding and pay the appropriate compensation.

In this type of situation you would soliticite volunteers, explaining the situation and associated compensation. If you were unable to get the appropriate number of volunteers, then you would involuntarily deny boarding to those in the effected seats. If you have people in rows 12-21 that volunteered, then you would prioritize who you move from rows 22-31 (US1's that don't wish to volunteer, then US2's etc.)

If you are not providing the appropriate compensation, then that could explain why it would be easier for you to say the flight was canceled and rerouting 200 customers versus soliciting 60 volunteers and using the 140 seats.

 

[hharotz]

hharotz -

you are incorrect. 

1.  We have canceled flights out of Europe due to MTC and schedule an extra section the following day (when the crew was legal or the parts came in) and put all 200-270 customers in hotels at our expense.  MTC is considered an issue "within our control" and we do provide accomodations if necessary.

2.  Equipment downsizing does require that we offer compensation to the customer if they volunteer their space on the aircraft.  It is not the customers fault that we substituted a 733 for a 757, no matter what the reason.  If there are not enough volunteers then we would involuntarily deny boarding and pay the appropriate compensation. 

3.  The same holds true for cases where we have inoperative seats.  Those customers are entitled to DBC if we are unable to provide a seat for them.  We would solicite volunteers and treat it like a normal oversale.  If we were unable to get the appropriate number of volunteers, then we would involuntarily deny boarding and pay the appropriate compensation.

Sorry, but USAirways policy on this is quite clear in the terms of transportation:

Waiver of Payment of Compensation 
Denied boarding compensation payment may not be made if:

The flight for which the customer holds confirmed reserved space is unable to accommodate that customer because of the substitution of equipment of lesser capacity when required by operational or safety reasons.


http://www.usairways.com/customers/travel_...%20Compensation

Amenities will not be made available to a customer on any US Airways flight which is delayed or canceled in the metropolitan area where the customer resides or at the customer's destination.

In the event of a delay or cancellation, overnight accommodations will be arranged by US Airways at their expense for customers at connecting points whose flights are delayed or canceled because of circumstances within US Airways' control for whom no alternate transportation is available.

http://www.usairways.com/customers/travel_...yed%20Customers

Policy dictates that hotel accomodations are not to be given at a customer's origin or destination regardless of whether or not the event is within our control. Perhaps in the past policy has been broken (or maybe the ToT doesn't apply TransAtlantic), but as an agent we can only follow the policies as dictated by the company especially given that managers are rarely around to modify policy when these kind of things happen. Agents have been placed on disciplinary levels by management for giving hotels to pax who were already at their destination because they were breaking company policy.

I have not seen an extra section scheduled for years now for anything other than PHL baggage.

 

[hharotz]

If you are not providing the appropriate compensation, then that could explain why it would be easier for you to say the flight was canceled and rerouting 200 customers versus soliciting 60 volunteers and using the 140 seats.

[post="288801"][/post]​

Sadly, many of us are not allowed to deviate from written policy for fear of disciplinary action. In the past we could offer 2 RTFCs if we couldn't get volunteers to avoid an invol dbc, up the ante for volunteers, etc... but now there is no room at all for these kinds of things with most managers. Agents' hands are tied. It is easier for us to invol an entire flight offline (costing us thousands in the process) then have to explain to 60 people that we can't give them a hotel because they are at their destination and are not entitled to any compensation because their a/c's capacity has been downgraded for safety reasons.

Sadly, the lack of frontline agent empowerment really costs the company millions every year.

 

[ringmaruf]

There will be. Both the US and the EU have regs on this (the new EU ones are much more stringent).

[post="288762"][/post]​

IIRC, the new EU rules hit the short-haul carriers much harder, since I think they're a flat-rate per flight. It's probably not much worse for US than their regular transatlantic VDB compensation, probably in the neighborhood of $400 per pax.

Policy dictates that hotel accomodations are not to be given at a customer's origin or destination regardless of whether or not the event is within our control. Perhaps in the past policy has been broken (or maybe the ToT doesn't apply TransAtlantic), but as an agent we can only follow the policies as dictated by the company especially given that managers are rarely around to modify policy when these kind of things happen. Agents have been placed on disciplinary levels by management for giving hotels to pax who were already at their destination because they were breaking company policy.

[post="288803"][/post]​

All this customer can say is that US left him stuck at his destination only once in 200+ flights, last June in ATL due to teething problems on the 170.

And they did put me up in a hotel, the Westin in fact. Perhaps it was because they were able to reaccomodate most of the pax on DL and only had to put up about 6 of us, perhaps it was because I was a US2, but it certainly did happen. And I can't tell you how much goodwill US (or those CSAs) generated with that move.

Now UA recently left me stranded in IAD--where I was connecting--and they wouldn't give me a hotel room, saying that "ATC cancelled the (Mesa) flight". Riiight. Well, that's why pigs will fly (to SEA on US in F, no doubt) before I get on another UA flight. Star Alliance or not, it ain't happening. [Of course, it was the third lousy experience in a row on UA, so I'm not that fickle, it was just the straw that broke the camel's back.]

 

[hharotz]

And they did put me up in a hotel, the Westin in fact.  Perhaps it was because they were able to reaccomodate most of the pax on DL and only had to put up about 6 of us, perhaps it was because I was a US2, but it certainly did happen.  And I can't tell you how much goodwill US (or those CSAs) generated with that move.

IMO, the agents did the right thing.

The policy is total B.S. but sadly it is the policy that many of us on the frontlines have to work with everyday. It really is not our fault. I don't know who the StnMgr of ATL is, but if it was my StnMgr the agents would have been disciplined.

The sad thing is when agents in some stations bend the policy it makes it very hard for those of us who have no wiggle-room. All the US1/2/3s especially say "well in ATL they give hotels...." *sigh*

 

[ringmaruf]

The policy is total B.S. but sadly it is the policy that many of us on the frontlines have to work with everyday. It really is not our fault.

[post="288811"][/post]​

Oh, I know, I totally understand--I'd never blame the agent or try to argue my way into getting a hotel room or a FIM or whatever if some stupid "policy" said otherwise. I know you guys would always do everything in your power for the customers.

 

[JS]

Sorry, but USAirways policy on this is quite clear in the terms of transportation:
Policy dictates that hotel accomodations are not to be given at a customer's origin or destination regardless of whether or not the event is within our control. Perhaps in the past policy has been broken (or maybe the ToT doesn't apply TransAtlantic), but as an agent we can only follow the policies as dictated by the company especially given that managers are rarely around to modify policy when these kind of things happen. Agents have been placed on disciplinary levels by management for giving hotels to pax who were already at their destination because they were breaking company policy.

I have not seen an extra section scheduled for years now for anything other than PHL baggage.

[post="288803"][/post]​

This is precisely why US Airways is losing its shirt. What is wrong with these people? (not you, but management). Not giving a hotel room because you are returning from your destination? No one pays for a hotel room and then leaves on a flight without using it. It's no different than a connecting flight.

US Airways has made it clear that they will look for any excuse to deny compensation (not even an RFTC which costs them nothing other than the flimsy paper it's printed on) regardless of the reason.

 

[delldude]

after all this diatribe is said and done...the bottom line is if they didn't deny some 60 pax boarding rites and went along fat,dumb and happy and augered in in a limited basis.....without the said escape slides operational we as a company would have one huge fuc*ing lawsuit for negligence that would most likely do in the company....and we squabble over incessant boo-sheet??
people.....get a life and face the reality of the operational situation....please....

 

[ClueByFour]

Only the airlines run the cost of stranding that many people versus having a rotable spare somewhere in Europe. Unreal.

 

[real world]

Prove it, how is the real estate market in Tempe?

[post="288690"][/post]​

You first I am telling you it was not a problem. in the first place and you said that since we have outsourced it is, there certainly has not been an increase in the amount of slide issues out of Europe since the change, so what are refering too?

BTW - the real estate market is slightly cheaper than DC.

 

[PITMTC]

You first I am telling you it was not a problem. in the first place and you said that since we have outsourced it is, there certainly has not been an increase in the amount of slide issues out of Europe since the change, so what are refering too?

[post="288987"][/post]​

I spoke to the people who would know and should be "believed" and there was never an allocated widebody slide stocked at a European station, so I highly doubt that anyone ever shipped one over there for stock. The same allocated stations remain in merlin even though many haven't seen one in years, like DCA, MCO and LAX.
BTW, the MEL for door slides looks like it was approved by the FAA in Jauary of 2005 so it probably wasn't an option before then. This is why we ferried one back in the past, when we couldn't borrow a slide.