
United Airlines' Quest to Be Less Awful - dsiddharth
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-united-airlines-struggles/
======
zyxley
Airlines taking away free snacks for customers feels like companies taking
away free snacks for employees: it doesn't really matter much by itself for
anyone involved, but it's an obvious signal that the management involved can't
bother to even put a fig leaf on the matter of your personal comfort.

~~~
hellofunk
What is odd is that even the cheapest budget airlines of Asia, and there are
many, many of them, nearly all provide not just free snacks, but free hot
meals.

~~~
ghaff
I imagine I'm the minority opinion--and Asian airline meals are generally
better than US ones but that probably just reflects my preferences--but I
actually don't especially regret the general demise of hot meals on most
flights. They were always horrible in coach to the degree that I can recall
joking cartoons about them. Serving the meals was disruptive and often stunk
up the cabin.

Now, when it comes to passing out cold snacks, by all means.

~~~
rconti
Yeah. To be honest, I almost looked forward to layovers during air travel for
my once- or twice- yearly McDonalds visit. The food options in airports, as
dismal and overpriced as they tend to be, are gourmet fare compared with
what's served on the airplane.

I'd just as soon not have to shuffle my laptop or book around to make space
for lousy food.

~~~
ghaff
Many airport options have improved quite a bit--though most are still hardly
cheap. At some point, the message seems to have gotten out--for at least some
terminals--that very few people want pseudo-fine dining at airports but many
want good, relatively fast food.

------
martinald
What I can't understand is why United (and tbh most airlines) put such
ludicriously short connection times in going from international to domestic in
the US.

I've literally had them quote a 42 min connection at me getting from IAD
international to domestic. This is literally impossible unless the flight was
very significantly early/they put me on Concorde by mistake. I phoned up when
I noticed and asked to change flight. Nope, some huge change fee + additional
difference in airfare due.

Gave up and sure enough I missed the flight. They just stuck me on the next
one anyway, but probably lost the revenue for the flight I was meant to be on.
This has happend multiple times (I've it take as much as 4 hours at EWR to go
through immigration -> go through TSA-> get bag -> recheck bag -> go through
TSA -> board plane.

It must cost them _millions_ of dollars. And as far as I can see there is no
option on the scheduling system to say I want a longer layover. Not crazy
long, just some room to breathe. Annoying.

~~~
peteretep

        > And as far as I can see there is no option on the
        > scheduling system to say I want a longer layover
    

A travel agent can help you with that.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
Yes, but the idea that you actually have to hire a person to do something that
can be almost trivially handled by their existing systems is ridiculous these
days.

~~~
peteretep

        > something that can be almost trivially handled
    

One enters dangerous territory when one starts making assessments about how
difficult changing a system they're not familiar with is.

------
dnautics
It's a whole lot of little things. On one flight, there wasn't enough space
for my carry-on, so they told me to check it. I assumed they had meant "gate
check", because that's what other airlines I fly do, but instead it got routed
to the carousel, and because my next flight was on a different airline, there
was no way to route it to my final destination; I had to leave the security
area and _come back in_ to continue. Thankfully security was light and I
didn't miss my flight. The least they could have done was to check to make
sure I understood what this entailed, and worked to find a solution.

------
geff82
I think not providing meals/refreshments on any flight longer than 30min is
just wrong. Why? Of course on could argue that if you "pay less you get less"
or that meals are not needed on short flights. But the true story is that
often times, the actual time in flight is not the only time you wait. You
stand in line at the TSA, you run through giant gangways, you are sitting in a
plane that gets late an hour or more. Which all means: by the time you finally
are in the air, many people need some rest and energy. Not providing at least
some food/drinks for free thus is absolutely unacceptable to me.

Recently flew Frankfurt=>Detroit=>Dallas (2 flights). I was lucky they
provided 2 meals on the long first flight, as on the second leg they only gave
a coke. Including the waiting time and the time after the last meal on board,
we had 5 hours without food.

~~~
ghaff
There's much to complain about with the airlines but this is one I just don't
get.

5 hours without food doesn't seem like any great hardship. And there are any
number of places at most airports where you can pickup a sandwich or whatever
to bring on board (or pack some snack bars). I guess maybe if you were
expecting a meal on a transcontinental flight but airline food in economy was
always a bad joke. I'd probably prefer a bag of chips when they serve me water
or a Coke but it's really not a big deal if I know they won't.

------
taurath
Flight experiences are really just anecdotal if you're talking about the same
"class" of flight. I know people who fly regularly and are perfectly fine with
Delta while they'd never fly American. At the same time, its always felt like
the "national" domestic airlines have had very poor service - I liken it to GM
and Chrysler vehicles.

~~~
digikata
The quality of the experience can also depend on what routes and/or hubs
people use regularly. Airlines also have different grades of presence at
various airports.

------
rconti
I think the airlines have had a bit of a race to the bottom in a few ways:

* Fees. Charge baggage fees, everyone else does the same, nobody's any better off. Boarding is slower and passengers crankier. I was HAPPY to not have to tote my bag around every single layover until they started charging for bags, now I'm another unhappy customer lugging a bag everywhere, walking up and down the aisles looking for space, having my bag gate-checked (and inevitably lost -- gate checking is the least reliable way of actually getting your bag to its destination, it seems).

* Chasing "frequent flier" business travelers. I don't have the numbers to back this up, but most of them already seem loyal to their chosen airline to funnel their corporate dollars to, because they've got so many damn miles accrued. But airlines trip all over themselves to throw free shit at the 1% of frequent fliers that they piss off the 99% of occasional travelers. Yes, the frequent flier dollars are very important, but now we have a (very) long tail of less-frequent travelers who can be _guaranteed_ that they will never, ever, ever be offered a free upgrade. You won't even get an emergency exit row (see: fees). I hate to sound entitled, but on my honeymoon, I was hoping that, for once, I might get a courtesy upgrade. Nope. I'd wager that if every airline set aside 2 slightly-better seats for a _random_ upgrade, they'd get a lot of good word-of-mouth from the average joe like myself. But instead they waste every single bit of effort on the jaded business traveler whose opinion won't be swayed that much by small favors, because all of the airlines are throwing free stuff at them all the time anyway.

* Space, obviously. I continue to insist there's a market to pay 50% more for just a LITTLE bit more space. I don't mean economy plus; I'm not tall, I'm just an average-sized male. I just want my own goddamned armrest. I don't know why the airlines can't get this right. Business class 2x2 seating on a narrowbody would 'only' cost them 33% of seat capacity. 2x3 would even be acceptable, with an offset aisle. On a widebody, even just taking out ONE coach seat would make enough space to give passengers a meaningful upgrade. add a couple more inches of legroom to make it easier to get in and out, and bam, you have my loyalty for life. I'm happy to pay for a little comfort. I just won't pay 5x as much for business class. It's simply not in a normal human being's price bracket. I don't have to pay $100k to get a car that's a bit nicer than a Corolla. (see: frequent fliers spending business dollars).

~~~
zbruhnke
As someone who is in the top 1% of fliers I could not disagree more with the
sentiment that the top 1% of fliers aren't going anywhere/will not notice good
service.

In fact as a counter to that point I flew well over 150k miles on United last
year and yet right now I'm doing a status match on American because United's
service on my most frequent route (LAX -> JFK) completely changed in October
of last year and I was/am hoping that American may offer superior service on
that route. Regardless of the miles in my account (they truly don't matter
that much to me) I care about how the customer service is, how the delays are
and how often my baggage is handled properly.

When I do use my miles its almost never on a ticket for me but a ticket for a
friend or family member.

As for those people who are not frequent fliers but expecting an upgrade
"randomly" I'd suggest to pay more for the seats and "upgrade" yourself. The
short of it is, the people who do spend as much time in the air as people like
me do care and it does make a difference to the Airlines' bottom line no
doubt.

~~~
rconti
Thanks for your comment. We're all certainly sensitive to customer service
issues (if anything, frequent fliers even more so). I think a major change in
service for your most frequently-used route is pretty significant, and I'd
expect anyone to switch airlines for this. I was speaking more of small
changes that would likely go unnoticed, eg if one airline offers upgrades to
frequent fliers slightly more often than another; that might go unnoticed, and
even if it didn't, likely would not trump loyalty due to existing miles,
preferable routes, preferred lounges/service of one airline over another, etc.

Your suggestion of "upgrading" yourself is not realistic for 2 reasons. One,
very few people will pay 5x as much for a slightly better experience. The
price difference vastly exceeds the actual cost (except to the extent that
premium seats subsidize coach seats, of course).

Secondly, my comment was about the customer goodwill the occasional upgrade
would generate, as lowly infrequent fliers do not expect to be treated as
anything but breathing, inconvenient cargo.

You say that people who spend as much time in the air as you DO care, but you
also said you don't use upgrades, and you changed airlines over a major
service change, not over a minor upgrade policy change. I'm not saying you
DON'T care about upgrades, just that it's not really what you were addressing
in your comment.

------
stephengoodwin
About 1/2 of the flights I've taken in the past 5 years have been on United or
Continental. 11 flights on United and 4 flights on Continental[1] (I keep
track of my airline travel in a spreadsheet). 2 of my United flights were
international. My most recent United flights was in late 2014.

I can only speak for myself, but I've never had a bad experience with United
or Continental. A few small delays here or there. One 3 hour delay caused by
really bad weather, but no cancellation: I still made it to my destination
before 1am.

For context, I've always flown economy, by myself or in a small group, and
usually departing from Austin or Houston.

[1] In this instance, 1 flight = 1 leg.

~~~
ubernostrum
Congratulations, you're an anecdote!

Statistically, United's performance has been absolutely _abysmal_. The crap
really started hitting the fan in June of last year, when United reported
departure/arrival on-time numbers of 42% and 66% (in other words, over half of
flights departed late, and over one-third arrived late, meaning they didn't
make up much time in the air).

For another perspective: if we look at "chronically delayed" flights (DOT
defines this as being 30+ minutes delayed, 50% or more of the time), the most
recent month published (November 2015) shows one-third of the chronically-
delayed flights in the US are on United's network, through its chronically-
comically-delayed Newark hub. Back in 2013 the WSJ published a report listing
eleven flights through Newark which had landed on the chronically-delayed list
for 8 consecutive months or more. The only carrier with more chronically-
delayed flights than United... is Spirit. And that's saying something (they're
also typically the only airline with worse overall on-time performance than
United).

Granted, a lot of that is from affiliates running small regional jets under
the "United Express" brand -- though mainline United was still dead last in
on-time performance among the big three legacy US carriers in Q3 2015 -- but
in turn that's mostly ripple effects of the way United manages its regionals
and shops out as much flying as possible to them (in Q3 2015, Delta operated
233,000 flights, American operated 234,000 and United only 133,000; over the
same time period ExpressJet, which does regional operations for all three but
primarily for United, operated over 142,000 flights, and SkyWest which has
over half its flying as United Express operated over 152,000 flights), which
in turn was thanks to a major strategy (slashing mainline operations in the
name of "capacity discipline") of the previous Smisek-led management at
United.

------
jstalin
I travel frequently and United is one of my favored airlines. I guess I just
don't expect much and airlines tend to deliver. My biggest frustrations are
usually with other passengers, not the airlines or their staff.

One thing I do miss is the airline Midwest Express, which used to hand out
warm chocolate chip cookies on each flight. It was a delight just smelling
them warm up about 30 minutes in to the flight.

------
enobrev
The last time I flew United was a non-stop flight from Chicago to NYC. I
somehow ended up in Washington D.C. with seemingly clear skies* and no more
flights out for the evening and a three-hour line for people trying to get
hotel vouchers. I rented a car and was in my bed five hours later. That was
six years ago. That wasn't my first bad experience with United by a long shot,
but I'm trying to make sure it's my last.

* If there WERE poor weather conditions anywhere along the way, they weren't showing up on any weather maps. I'm no expert - I'm sure they had their reasons.

------
marshray
Not to mention that they break guitars:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo)

------
lokedhs
I can't help but think that all they have to do is to look at other airlines
in the US and don't do what they do. Then you look at any airline in Asia and
do what they do. Problem solved.

I fly a lot in South-East Asia and judging by what I see from US commenters
here, the things I can complain about are problems a US airline would love to
have.

------
GizaDog
You'd figured with the reduction in fuel prices they'd be able to spend that
extra cash on its clients or erase those dumb baggage fees!

~~~
elthran
why would they do that, when they can just make extra profit?

------
leesalminen
I had a decent experience with United over the holidays. Only $99 to upgrade
to first class from DEN - LGA.

~~~
sveiss
This is actually one of the things (some of) United's frequent flyers complain
about -- very cheap day-of-travel upgrades which prevent complimentary
upgrades for their most loyal/highest spending customers from clearing.

------
CyberDildonics
I wonder if Satan also has a quest to be less evil.

------
rezashirazian
The airline industry needs to be disrupted. Lets hope for a day when building
safe and reliable planes is cheap and fueling them even cheaper.

~~~
ghaff
The problem is that people complain but many then go ahead and book the
cheapest flight whether it's to save their own money or to comply with
corporate travel policies. I'm not sure what "disruption" you have in mind
that isn't available to existing carriers.

~~~
mikeash
This is the key. People complain about the airlines, but they're only giving
their customers what the customers want. Sure, nobody _says_ they'd rather be
crammed into terrible seats and treated horribly to save $50, but that's how
people behave, and that's all that counts.

Next time you're eating your terrible free pretzels with your knees in the
back of the person before you, don't blame the airline, blame your fellow
passengers. And yourself!

~~~
izacus
Why the heck would I blame myself or other customers when it's the company
that's giving shitty service?!

If you want to make a capitalist argument then you also need to accept that
customers also have the right to complain about the service they receive. It's
part of the market. None of this "it's your own fault" bullshit when it's the
airline that's installing the seats.

~~~
mikeash
Airlines offer better service if you pay for it. If you choose not to take
advantage of that offer, you're telling the airline that you prefer to save
money than have better service.

You have every right to complain, but complaining itself doesn't _do_
anything. If you say X when you complain, but say Y when you pull out your
wallet, airlines are naturally going to listen to Y much more than X.

I've lost count of how many times I've seen a conversation go like this:

"Airlines suck, I'm a tall guy and my knees are crammed into the seat back for
the entire flight."

"Almost every airline these days offers an upgraded economy class with more
legroom."

"Yeah, but it's too expensive!"

If you don't want to pay for it and would prefer to suffer (I'm a tall guy,
and that's what I do too) then fine, but don't be surprised when the airlines
listen to the signals you send with your money.

~~~
ghaff
Mind you, United has more than its share of customer service issues even for
people who regularly get upgraded. But I fully agree with your basic point.
There does seem to be some market for relatively modestly priced legroom
upgrades but, for the most part, the market tends to bifurcate into cheapest
flight or price doesn't really matter.

~~~
mikeash
Yeah, they don't have an option to pay $100 for better customer service, so
that's a little more opaque. Still, different airlines do it differently, and
it's rare not to have a choice of airline for your trip.

That's an interesting aspect of this trouble with United's service. They had a
long period where their service was well below average. Did their passenger
numbers suffer accordingly, or did everybody just put up with it?

The major US airlines all suck to some degree, but they suck differently, so
if you care about that then go with the one you like best even if it costs
more. If you don't, you're saying you don't actually care.

~~~
ghaff
I'm honestly not convinced that there are huge differences between the big
legacy US carriers. Or, at any rate, your experience is just as much dictated
by how busy their hubs are, whether your common routes are non-stop (as many
of mine are with United), whether you're tending to fly in the winter in
northern climates, etc.

I'm sure I would have absolutely no problem collecting a long litany of horror
stories about every major US airline from among my Facebook friends with
status.

So I go with United for size of route system and frequency of flights at my
home airport and get enough miles to have status which does help.
(Alternatively, for one shorter route where United doesn't have a non-stop, I
usually fly JetBlue which IMO is one of the better bets in the absence of
status.)

~~~
mikeash
So much depends on luck, too. If you only fly a few times a year (which seems
pretty typical) then the variance in experience can be huge. I think you
really have to look at the relevant statistics to see how they actually
compare. Gathering anecdotes from friends won't give you a good picture,
especially since people have different standards for service. One person might
say they had a bad experience when the airline baggage people took their bag
and shredded each item in front of them while ridiculing their choice of
underwear, while another might say they had a bad experience when their flight
was delayed by 30 minutes because of a violent thunderstorm.

