Oh United

Makes sense to me. We cut flights there by 40% I wanna say it was? for the length of the runway construction given the capacity constraints to try to maintain a functioning airport... and other carriers.... then just added flights. It's been an absolute •show now and will be until the runway construction is done. So now if we go back to 100%, it'll be even more hilariously worse for everybody.
 
I'm sorry, does the government force United to have 50+ departures in a 15 minute period or did they do that to themselves?

Everytime SFO would shut down a runway for several weeks/months, they would tell the airlines WELL in advance, "Hey, we are shutting down a runway, our arrival rate will be down to X per hour. Please adjust your schedule to allow for a realistic arrival rate". The airlines would quite literally say, "What? Cut back 5 out of 25 flights on SFO-LAX so that AA/UA/DL/WN can add more and steal our money? Fat chance". Then we'd have 1-3 hour GDPs for weeks on nice sunny days and the airlines would berate the airport publicly to the passengers.

I am guessing this is the same old crap.
 
Dphoenix said:
Makes sense to me. We cut flights there by 40% I wanna say it was? for the length of the runway construction given the capacity constraints to try to maintain a functioning airport... and other carriers.... then just added flights. It's been an absolute •show now and will be until the runway construction is done. So now if we go back to 100%, it'll be even more hilariously worse for everybody.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The federal government should without a doubt help the second largest airline in the country maintain a competitive advantage when another airline does something it doesn't like!
 
ChasenSFO said:
I'm sorry, does the government force United to have 50+ departures in a 15 minute period or did they do that to themselves?

Everytime SFO would shut down a runway for several weeks/months, they would tell the airlines WELL in advance, "Hey, we are shutting down a runway, our arrival rate will be down to X per hour. Please adjust your schedule to allow for a realistic arrival rate". The airlines would quite literally say, "What? Cut back 5 out of 25 flights on SFO-LAX so that AA/UA/DL/WN can add more and steal our money? Fat chance". Then we'd have 1-3 hour GDPs for weeks on nice sunny days and the airlines would berate the airport publicly to the passengers.

I am guessing this is the same old crap.
Click to expand...

In this case, we did adjust the schedule, quite massively. Other carriers then added because they thought we were "pulling out" and thought they saw a competitive opportunity. So.. that really is how it works.
 
Dphoenix said:
In this case, we did adjust the schedule, quite massively. Other carriers then added because they thought we were "pulling out" and thought they saw a competitive opportunity. So.. that really is how it works.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a free country and everything.
tenor.gif
 
Dphoenix said:
In this case, we did adjust the schedule, quite massively. Other carriers then added because they thought we were "pulling out" and thought they saw a competitive opportunity. So.. that really is how it works.
Click to expand...
It's ALL moral hazard these days. Maybe you need a refresher course. ;)
 
C5 is ending (rather UAL is ending) our tenure in EWR. No more 145’s after October 31st, which no one is sad about except our EWR based who live in EWR or close by. I will not miss it, but if I wind up at B6 which I’m hoping for, I could be there again nearly as much since they are opening an EWR base. Damn irony….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top