United Airlines Lies About the reason for a late arriving aircraft.

Hi all

Have you wondered if the airline is telling you the true about the
reason your flight may have been delayed or canceled. Well I have and
know I have proof that at least one airline (United is not always
telling the truth). I say this as I have a friend that I was supposed
to meet here in Calgary at airport at or around 11pm. I just received
a call from him stating that his flight was being delayed due to a
late arriving aircraft. The problem with them saying this is that the
flight (#1063) he is on started in San Antonio and arrived in Denver
on time, so they can claim this. Just look at the information I
obtained from united.com
(http://www.ua2go.com/flifo/FlightSum...63&Check=Check).
Flight 1063
ARRIVED
Details
San Antonio, TX (SAT)
Sun, May 23
Scheduled:* 6:10 PM
Actual: * 6:02 PM Reason:*--
Gate:* --
Denver, CO (DEN)
Sun, May 23
Scheduled:* 7:20 PM
Actual: 7:12 PM Reason:*--
Concourse B
Gate:* B47
Baggage claim:* 14
Flight 1063
NOT DEPARTED
Details Denver, CO (DEN)
Sun, May 23
Scheduled:* 8:05 PM
Estimated: * 10:15 PM Reason:*Schedule change due to Late Arriving
Aircraft
Concourse B
Gate:* B42
Calgary, (YYC)
Mon, May 24
Scheduled:* 10:30 PM
Estimated: 12:34 AM Reason:*Schedule change due to Late Arriving
Aircraft
Gate:* --
Baggage claim:* --

Liar Liar Pants on Fire. Lets hope their noses don't grow too much.

Jack Willson

I have little doubt that incorrect information is passed to passengers on
occasion. However, I believe it is often due to a lack of information and
the desire of an individual to keep the crowds quiet rather than a
deliberate intent to deceive. In this case, faced with the information
from United I would speculate that the two halves of the flight are not
operated by the same aircraft. United do this quite often. I have seen
the first half of a flight substantially delayed with the 2nd half operating
on time.

--
*****
*****The "return to" address embedded in this mail is wrong as an antispam
measure. Please address new mails or replies to
edwarddotharrison1atbtinternetdotcom replacing dot with a . and at
with an @*****
*****

Jack Willson wrote:

Hi all

Have you wondered if the airline is telling you the true about the
reason your flight may have been delayed or canceled. Well I have and
know I have proof that at least one airline (United is not always
telling the truth). I say this as I have a friend that I was supposed
to meet here in Calgary at airport at or around 11pm. I just received
a call from him stating that his flight was being delayed due to a
late arriving aircraft. The problem with them saying this is that the
flight (#1063) he is on started in San Antonio and arrived in Denver
on time, so they can claim this. Just look at the information I
obtained from united.com

Are you sure it is the same aircraft used on both legs of flight 1063?
A single flight number doesn't mean the same plane is used for all legs
of the flight.

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...
I have little doubt that incorrect information is passed to passengers on
occasion. However, I believe it is often due to a lack of information
and
the desire of an individual to keep the crowds quiet rather than a
deliberate intent to deceive. In this case, faced with the information
from United I would speculate that the two halves of the flight are not
operated by the same aircraft. United do this quite often. I have seen
the first half of a flight substantially delayed with the 2nd half
operating
on time.

The 'late arriving inbound aircraft' is often used, but it tells you nothing
about what happend to make it late. Maybe weather earlier on in the day,
maybe the a/c had a technical fault, maybe a pax fell ill, maybe they had to
offload baggage, maybe any number of things. But for some reason we all
accept this.

The worst serial lying I've ever seen was with KLM-UK on their old EDI-LCY
(London City) route. They used to run their BAe146's EDI-LCY-AMS-LCY-EDI
throughout the day, and more often than not they'd get stuck for longer than
their scheduled 20 minutes (or so) in AMS due to weather and/or congestion.
By the time you got to the 18:30 flight from EDI to LCY, they were regularly
three hours behind on their published schedule.

But, to stop endorsing your high revenue earning flexible ticket onto
another carrier to another London airport, they'd tell you it was only
fifteen minutes late. So you'd check in and hang around the lounge. Then,
when their fifteen minutes was up, they'd tell you it was another fifteen
minutes late. This would go on and on despite them knowing that the a/c was
still in AMS or LCY, and was really a couple of hours away.

The worst case of this was when I turned up for the 18:30 flight, and was
fobbed off with the usual fifteen minute BS. I sauntered up to the gate only
to find that my aircraft, on an 'earlier' flight, hadn't even left yet. So,
they knew full well I'd be sitting around for at least five hours.

This led to some fellow regulars issuing their own 'Grounded Dutchman'
magazine in the late 1990's
http://www.bloodboil.com/GroundedDutchman/index.htm which showed passengers
how to accumulate ground hours. They even distributed copies to passengers
when on board. Until the CEO of KLM had words with the CEO of a well known
Scottich bank where they all worked, that is.

Cheers, Howard

On Mon, 24 May 2004 11:05:49 +0000 (UTC), "Howard Long"
wrote:

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...
I have little doubt that incorrect information is passed to passengers on
occasion. However, I believe it is often due to a lack of information
and
the desire of an individual to keep the crowds quiet rather than a
deliberate intent to deceive. In this case, faced with the information
from United I would speculate that the two halves of the flight are not
operated by the same aircraft. United do this quite often. I have seen
the first half of a flight substantially delayed with the 2nd half
operating
on time.

The 'late arriving inbound aircraft' is often used, but it tells you nothing
about what happend to make it late. Maybe weather earlier on in the day,
maybe the a/c had a technical fault, maybe a pax fell ill, maybe they had to
offload baggage, maybe any number of things. But for some reason we all
accept this.

The worst serial lying I've ever seen was with KLM-UK on their old EDI-LCY
(London City) route. They used to run their BAe146's EDI-LCY-AMS-LCY-EDI
throughout the day, and more often than not they'd get stuck for longer than
their scheduled 20 minutes (or so) in AMS due to weather and/or congestion.
By the time you got to the 18:30 flight from EDI to LCY, they were regularly
three hours behind on their published schedule.

But, to stop endorsing your high revenue earning flexible ticket onto
another carrier to another London airport, they'd tell you it was only
fifteen minutes late. So you'd check in and hang around the lounge. Then,
when their fifteen minutes was up, they'd tell you it was another fifteen
minutes late. This would go on and on despite them knowing that the a/c was
still in AMS or LCY, and was really a couple of hours away.

The worst case of this was when I turned up for the 18:30 flight, and was
fobbed off with the usual fifteen minute BS. I sauntered up to the gate only
to find that my aircraft, on an 'earlier' flight, hadn't even left yet. So,
they knew full well I'd be sitting around for at least five hours.

This led to some fellow regulars issuing their own 'Grounded Dutchman'
magazine in the late 1990's
http://www.bloodboil.com/GroundedDutchman/index.htm which showed passengers
how to accumulate ground hours. They even distributed copies to passengers
when on board. Until the CEO of KLM had words with the CEO of a well known
Scottich bank where they all worked, that is.

Cheers, Howard



LOL, yes that was the period when Air UK/KLM UK was a real disaster.
It got to the stage I could never have a return trip with them that
didn't have major disruption. I wrote a sensible complaint letter
about it and got a generous travel voucher. Of course these days it is
much easier for the passenger to keep good track of his aircraft
throughout the day, and can know almost as much as the ground staff as
to when the aircraft is going to be where.
--==++AJC++==--

Have you wondered if the airline is telling you the true about the
reason your flight may have been delayed or canceled. Well I have and
know I have proof that at least one airline (United is not always
telling the truth)

I've had this happen with United in Denver (once); twice with Delta (in DC
and Atlanta).

In ALL 3 cases, airline employes confided to me that they didn't have a
profitable payload for the original flight, so they were told to give
"lying" answers to placate those waiting. In DC two hourly commutes were
cancelled due to "weather" at Atlanta airport. I called aviation weather
and got the ATL report. CAVU! By the time of the 3rd scheduled departure,
Delta had enough warm bodies to eke out a profit. Enroute to the airplane,
the captain verified to me my assumption was correct.

007

--
******************
Bill E. Burk


[Remove "NOSP" from my e-mail address]

This means nothing. They could have had several connecting passengers
arriving Denver on a late flight, and held the plane for them. Especially
on a late flight (and this was late evening), it is cheaper than putting up
misconnects at a local hotel.

Jeff


"Jack Willson" wrote in message
om...
Hi all

Have you wondered if the airline is telling you the true about the
reason your flight may have been delayed or canceled. Well I have and
know I have proof that at least one airline (United is not always
telling the truth). I say this as I have a friend that I was supposed
to meet here in Calgary at airport at or around 11pm. I just received
a call from him stating that his flight was being delayed due to a
late arriving aircraft. The problem with them saying this is that the
flight (#1063) he is on started in San Antonio and arrived in Denver
on time, so they can claim this. Just look at the information I
obtained from united.com

(http://www.ua2go.com/flifo/FlightSum...523&deparr=D&o
rig=&dest=&time=00002359&fltNbr=1063&Check=Check).
Flight 1063
ARRIVED
Details
San Antonio, TX (SAT)
Sun, May 23
Scheduled: 6:10 PM
Actual: 6:02 PM Reason: --
Gate: --
Denver, CO (DEN)
Sun, May 23
Scheduled: 7:20 PM
Actual: 7:12 PM Reason: --
Concourse B
Gate: B47
Baggage claim: 14
Flight 1063
NOT DEPARTED
Details Denver, CO (DEN)
Sun, May 23
Scheduled: 8:05 PM
Estimated: 10:15 PM Reason: Schedule change due to Late Arriving
Aircraft
Concourse B
Gate: B42
Calgary, (YYC)
Mon, May 24
Scheduled: 10:30 PM
Estimated: 12:34 AM Reason: Schedule change due to Late Arriving
Aircraft
Gate: --
Baggage claim: --

Liar Liar Pants on Fire. Lets hope their noses don't grow too much.

Jack Willson

mrtravelkay wrote in message .com...
Are you sure it is the same aircraft used on both legs of flight 1063?
A single flight number doesn't mean the same plane is used for all legs
of the flight.

After looking at the information that Jack provided it looks as though
the two legs of the flight operate out of different gates in DEN. This
would support what previous posters have stated about each leg being
operated with different aircraft.

Also clicked on the link provided by Jack and it looks, as though both
legs are operated using the same type of aircraft (B373-300), but that
still does not mean anything. Not sure why UA woul two aircarft for
this flight, as they seem to be the same type. A friend suggested that
each might be configured differently, which might be the case.

Just my two cents worth
M. Graham