Never again on B6

[Veritas]

Did it ever occur to you that the crew of the TUS flight was working a turn and that holding the flight for you would have extended their on duty hours for working that sequence close to or over the federal limit? That, in turn, could very well have caused them to be illegal to work the return flight to JFK. Had that been the case, a lot more pax than just you and you wife would have inconvenienced. It also would have been much more costly to the the airline than the paltry revenue it earned on selling your tickets. I find it curious that you never disclosed how little you paid for that round trip.

 

[eolesen]

Guess it's a good thing B6 is pulling out of TUS next month. The one-flight-per-day model sucks.

 

[Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways]

Guess it's a good thing B6 is pulling out of TUS next month. The one-flight-per-day model sucks.

The quote above and the post above it about crew timing out are spot on.

What the original poster has failed to take into consideration is the complicated process of running an airline and that everything COSTS the airlines something.

Running an airline is a complicated process. Every action causes multiple downline reactions. Some airlines are better than others at making decisions that "upset" the normal processes. And, some days are better than others -- for any airline. From YOUR perspective, it may seem simple to just "hold a plane a few minutes" -- but, in fact, it's not. "Irregular" operations are not good things for an airline.

If for example, that crew "timed-out" on the way to TUS, maybe there would not be a crew to bring the flight back to JFK -- and B6 would have to cancel a flight -- due to crew -- and then B6 would have to PAY to take care of those passengers hotels and more. Another possibility, say the airline did hold the flight, and "time could be made up in the air" -- How do you think an airplane "makes up time"? Yes, it flies faster and that takes more fuel and that COSTS more money. Or, there could be another airplane waiting to park at that gate, that now does not have a gate to park at because your airplane that is being held for you is still there and so it is sitting out there, on the tarmac, with passengers that just want to get off the plane while it continues to burn fuel while it waits and waits...costing more and more $$$$. And, do you think those passengers care about other connecting passengers? If you think they do, you are delusional. All they want to do is MAKE THEIR CONNECTION or go home. Oh, and that crew sitting on that plane waiting on the tarmac? They just timed out and can't fly the last flight of the day to SYR. And, as each and every flight is "held" throughout the day, more and more crews time out and more and more gate and ground employees are going to have to work overtime and more and more and more passengers are really going to be upset in the long run... "On time" departures are not just something the government keeps track of -- it's best for the airline, too.

All any airline wants to do is run a safe operation with the least "irregular" operations as possible -- this is the only formula that works when all the customer REALLY cares about in today's world is price. With razor thin margins, there is little room for "pad" or error or changes.

The decision to "hold" a plane for connecting passengers is made at a much higher level than the front line employees because the front line employees -- the gate agents -- and even the pilots -- do not understand how one action can COST the airline so much in the long run...

I get the impression that the original poster seems to think that somehow they got singled out (as a couple) and were treated "meanly" by JetBlue employees. In today's world of customer's "demanding" something for nothing, I'm not quite sure what else he (they) expected. They got $ for a "banged up" suitcase. Hmm. Were any of the contents damaged? If not, then they should consider themselves lucky. I've had handles and wheels broken off and corners scraped and piping ruined and well, I've never even asked for a dime. Doesn't anyone remember the old "gorilla" Samsonite commercials? Why would anyone think that today's baggage handlers take better care of luggage? And really, how much does a cheap roll-aboard cost at WalMart these days? About 27.94.

Now, about the choice to go to PHX instead of TUS -- I can understand where you feel the airline owed you something -- but it was a choice you made. You had the option of waiting for the next flight -- sure, you'd waste many hours -- but you chose what you felt was best for you -- to go to PHX, instead, and drive the rest of the way. When you chose not to wait for the next JetBlue flight to TUS, JetBlue no longer had an obligation to get you to TUS. You, renting a car, was your choice, not jetBlue's. The fact that you got a voucher for another flight, at all, is a minor miracle. And then, when you insinuate that you were miffed that you were told that communications with you would cease on this manner -- why should the airline listen to you anymore? They already gave you more than you were entitled to receive! So, many customers push for what they are not entitled to that they find some sort of morbid joy in the spar and parry of trying to bleed more and more out of the airline. I'm happy that jetBlue had the guts to say "enough is enough".

And, about the "earlier" flight that would have gave you a longer connect time that you weren't told about...hmm, let me guess. You probably gave the reservation agent a time that you would like to depart and they worked with you to accomdate that time with jetBlues schedule. If you had been told about it, and given a choice, you would have chosen the flight that gave you the BEST connecting time -- You can say now, all you want, that you would have taken the earlier flight from SYR -- but in reality I'm sure you wanted to maximize your time in SYR and there is no way you would have chose to spend additional hours in JFK. It's just not logical. So, please don't blame the agent. And what if that connecting flight would have been more expensive? I am all but positive that there is no way you would haven chosen to fly it if it cost more. And that is a definite possibility.

Take what you've learned from this experience and lower your expectations -- flying isn't what it used to be.

 

[ANDROMEDA]

AS A GENERAL RULE: AIRLINES (WHETHER LUFTHANSA, AIR INDIA, UNITED or JETBLUE) DO NOT HOLD FLIGHTS!!!!!

In certain circumstances, some flights are held, if the amount of possible misconnects exeeds a certain number and if, in turn, it is operationally impossible to deal with the subsequent reaccommodations task - (meaning the number of customers affected cannot be reaccommodated easely on future flights and/or the airport staff cannot process the amount of foreseeable misconnects).

For example, you may find that certain connecting hubs may hold the last batch of flights if a significant number of customers are impacted. (CLT is one station known for doing this.)

International flights, especially transoceanic flights/and or flights with [slot] restrictions will never be held.

Station management (meaning those running the airlines' airport operations) and Control Centers (OCC) are the only ones who have the authority to hold flights. Gate agents, ticket counter agents, flight attendants, pilots, reservation agents, premiere mileage desk staff and all of their respective supervisors and managers have no authority to make such decisions.

 

[daveinric]

Did it ever occur to you that the crew of the TUS flight was working a turn and that holding the flight for you would have extended their on duty hours for working that sequence close to or over the federal limit? That, in turn, could very well have caused them to be illegal to work the return flight to JFK. Had that been the case, a lot more pax than just you and you wife would have inconvenienced. It also would have been much more costly to the the airline than the paltry revenue it earned on selling your tickets. I find it curious that you never disclosed how little you paid for that round trip.

I am well aware that the crew was working a turn. However, your argument collapses under the facts of the situation on the date I attempted to return to TUS. The fact of the matter is that on the day in question, Flight 105 uncharacteristically departed JFK on time and arrived TUS well ahead of the scheduled arrival time. The crew then would have had to wait for the departure time in TUS. Thus, a wait of 20 minutes at JFK would have had no effect on the crew's duty hours for the JFK-TUS-JFK run on the dates in question.

While the amount we paid is definitely none of your business, I'll disclose it anyway. In fact, we paid approximately $420 each for the "privilege" of being stranded at JFK by a mere 20 minutes. To be certain, considerably cheaper fares would have been available if, for example, we had instead flown WN into ALB and driven to SYR, something we've done in the past. One thing is for certain, in such a situtation, WN would have had the capability and willingness to make different arrangements to get us back to TUS in a timely and competent fashion. (This contrasts with an idiot at a B6 counter who offered to get us somewhere near TUS, such as Houston, only 1000 miles from TUS).

I know that on the date in question, a number of other pax booked on the same flight out of SYR got screwed out of connections to the ONE AND ONLY flights of the day from JFK to other western cities. There were folks who wanted to travel, for example, to PDX, SMF, and DEN, to name a few cities, who were in the same situation. Bear in mind that for every one of us who screams bloody murder, there are many more in a similar situation who sit back and take it. I'm not one of them, though.

We flew B6 on this occasion at the urging of a family member. Live and learn. B6 not only lost us as pax, but they also lost the business and respect of the embarrassed family member, a corporate executive who travels often and who recommended B6 to us in the first place.

I say once again that I am glad to see B6 pulling out of TUS.

 

[daveinric]

The post by Breath of fresh US Airways contains a fallacious assumption that I would have resisted taking an earlier SYR-JFK flight to make the connection to TUS. To repeat, I made the reservation telephonically with a B6 reservations agent. At no time did she even hint at the availability of this earlier flight. After the reservation was made, I began to track the reliability of Flight 105 JFK-TUS, and it became obvious that this flight had a terrible reliability record in the Summer of 2007. It was cnx'd often, and when it did run, it was often late.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but we in fact checked in at SYR over 2 hours of the scheduled departure of Flight 75. The fact of the matter also is, that on the day in question, we killed a lot of time before going to the airport for flight 75 SYR-JFK. We could have very easily taken that earlier flight and made the connection to TUS. However, that option was never disclosed to us by the B6 reservations agent.

Interesting to see somebody from US defending B6. As maligned as US is, I've only had one problem ever with them, and that happened over 20 years ago at PHL and was a situation they did their darnedest to rectify. Thankfully, US will soon have a non-stop from TUS to CLT. Connections at CLT are a lot more pleasant than that dump they call JFK.... a lot more pleasant at any price.

 

[BartlettAve]

The post by Breath of fresh US Airways contains a fallacious assumption that I would have resisted taking an earlier SYR-JFK flight to make the connection to TUS. To repeat, I made the reservation telephonically with a B6 reservations agent. At no time did she even hint at the availability of this earlier flight. After the reservation was made, I began to track the reliability of Flight 105 JFK-TUS, and it became obvious that this flight had a terrible reliability record in the Summer of 2007. It was cnx'd often, and when it did run, it was often late.

Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but we in fact checked in at SYR over 2 hours of the scheduled departure of Flight 75. The fact of the matter also is, that on the day in question, we killed a lot of time before going to the airport for flight 75 SYR-JFK. We could have very easily taken that earlier flight and made the connection to TUS. However, that option was never disclosed to us by the B6 reservations agent.

Interesting to see somebody from US defending B6. As maligned as US is, I've only had one problem ever with them, and that happened over 20 years ago at PHL and was a situation they did their darnedest to rectify. Thankfully, US will soon have a non-stop from TUS to CLT. Connections at CLT are a lot more pleasant than that dump they call JFK.... a lot more pleasant at any price.

jeez, Dave. how long are you going to continue to re-live your horrible experience? let it go. it's not healthy, man. do some volunteer work or something.

 

[Veritas]

The expectations of some leisure travelers who do not know enough to look up airline schedules online and who travel on heavily discounted tickets are nothing short of amazing.

B6 and its employees should count their lucky stars that they no longer have to put up with daveinric and his kin folk.

 

[scot]

This one has more than outlasted its freshness date.