United Airlines has a new program which cancels “empty” flights which are less than 30% full. Although the impact of such cancellations will be limited, it does represent a new course of action that we may see others follow in the pandemic era.
United Cancels “Empty” Flights (But Only 1% Of Flights Impacted)
In an internal memo first reported by Brian Sumers, United laid out its new algorithm which recommends flight cancellations. I’ve also now reviewed the memo and summarize it as follows:
- The new process is called “Mainline Recommended Cancels”
- It scans flights starting within seven days of travel and recommends cancellations based upon a number of factors
- The goal is to consolidate mainline flights with a load factor below 30%
- Factors including crew scheduling, keeping crew on a single aircraft for multiple legs, and the loads of downline flights operated by the same aircraft are considered
- The system does not proactively cancel flights
- Instead, it sends a cancellation recommendation that is then reviewed by Network Directors and Operations Managers
- The consolidated flight(s) must not be more than 75% full
- United expects to cancel 100-130 flights per month on primarily hub-to-hub routes
- United is willing to take a hit in operational reliability in order to preserve cash
When asked about the new algorithm, United said it would impact only 1% of flights and 77% of impacted passengers would arrive within four hours of their original schedule (with 2/3 arriving late and 1/3 arriving early).
I noticed this in action when I traveled last week. United had a 4:00PM 777-200 and a 6:30PM 787-10 operating from Newark to San Francisco. Both were nearly empty in economy class and less than half full in business class. United cancelled the 4:00PM and consolidated everyone onto the 6:30PM (or assumedly earlier flights).
My Thoughts
Is this good news? Of course not. But as a short-term solution, it beats just not scheduling extra flights at all. I think multiple daytime hub-to-hub flights are unnecessary at this point, but I’d rather have the chance for a flight than none at all. I do realize people plan around certain flight times and my schedule is more flexible than others. Still, this new program will impact only 1% of flights and seems like a logical move in the midst of such economic uncertainty. Very few will be impacted by this.
If this program grows, however, it will become more problematic. First, because business travelers will not tolerate this when demand returns. Second, because this will alienate all customers if becomes a more widespread and permanent solution.
United should be honest and transparent about this program and stress that it is temporary in nature and only applied in situations where merged flights will still allow for many open seats onboard.
CONCLUSION
I was on one of those fairly empty flights last week. Such a waste of resources…of crew and fuel and time. I’m willing to give airlines some latitude here and the fact that this impacts only 1% of flights seems quite reasonable considering current load factors (they’re horrible). It would not surprise me to see American and Delta adopt similar policies, even if they currently deny they are considering it.
“Balancing operational reliability”? C’mon Matthew. They’re trying to save money. A better title would be “Buying a ticket on United no longer means a commitment to operate a flight when they’ve promised”. Delta has better operational reliability without having to “balance it with cancellations”. Gary is writing a better analysis of this situation than you have:
https://viewfromthewing.com/new-united-program-cancels-flights-when-not-enough-people-buy-tickets/
What’s the other half of my title? Balancing operational reliability with cash preservation (“trying to save money” as you put it). I don’t get your gripe. Of course this is about money. I do disagree with Gary here. He argues you shouldn’t book United because it may cancel your flight. While a concern, this is not going on in any sort of widespread way…it impacts less than 1% of hub-hub flights and only when there are reasonable options before or after the cancelled flight. It’s simply not the groundbreaking news that some, including Gary, have argued. I don’t like the move…I’d rather United not do it. But I can understand why it does this. Loads are dismal now and operating back-to-back empty segments just makes very little sense from a cost/benefit analysis at this point in the game.
My husband and I are coming to GRU frm Campinas to go to I A D. . If United is going to acancel 4 hous before the flight we are going to be in troble becose we will be in the bus to GRU.
So please tel us when United has a flight To Washington any day before. September 26.
Than you very much..
Ana lucia freitas and Jorge freitas
fanaluciadas@gmail.com
United is selling flights at specific times, earning customer business on the basis of that schedule, and then reneging – not because they’re unable to operate the flights, but because it’s cheaper not to deliver on what customers have purchased.
Selling flights and then cancelling them for reasons entirely within the airline’s control, for their own benefit, while 23% of affected customers are impacted by more than four hours is an unfair and deceptive practice.
I hear you, but United (like many carriers) finds itself between a rock and hard place. It has certain projections and schedules flights based upon those projections weeks or months in advance. When loads fail to materialize and United faces losing tens of thousands of dollars on operating a flight when it can easily consolidate passengers on an earlier or later flight and still leave passengers room to spread out makes sense and is not equivalent to the sort of deception of selling a flight it has NO INTENTION of operating.
Tell us how you really feel! lol
“It has certain projections and schedules flights based upon those projections weeks or months in advance. ”
And customers buy their tickets on the basis of United marketing these flights.
“United (like many carriers) finds itself between a rock and hard place.”
That justifies Chapter 11, not fraud.
“United faces losing tens of thousands of dollars on operating a flight ”
The savings on a Houston – Chicago, San Francisco – Denver or Denver – Chicago narrowbody might be what, 1700 gallons of fuel? They’re not going to save tens of thousands of dollars cancelling that flight.
You think United is committing fraud and should file Chapter 11 before cancelling empty flights? Seriously? I’m with you 100% on the disgusting refund shenanigans. But I’m not outraged here. If there is any evidence that United is selling these flights with no intention of operating them, then I am with you…but not based upon loads so poorly measuring up to expectations. And I also think, if United’s intentions are pure, we should the incidence of these sorts of cancellations diminish over time, not increase.
Your headline, and many references in this post are completely dishonest.
An “empty” flight is one with no passengers. Zero. That’s not what’s happening here and it’s not what this is about.
You’re talking about flights with a low load (in other words, not enough passengers to be profitable enough to United). How low? Possibly one-third full. That’s completely different from “empty”.
If a dozen (or several dozen) customers buy a ticket from United for a flight they have scheduled, United (or you) calling that flight “empty” so they can cancel it is completely dishonest. Please stop perpetuati9ng this BS.
I consider 30% “empty” but I’m happy to be more precise in my language concerning that.
Not sure how my headline is dishonest…
I get it, but the fare differences concern me, especially if I’ve paid for a direct flight and end up having to connect, or the times mess up scheduled meetings or other travel connections. I’m going to lean towards going a day early and/or returning a day later, depending, meaning extra hotel costs.
Maybe some compensation based on the size of your arrival time change, or make refunding the fare difference between what you’re on and what you thought you were going to be on? I can’t think of an easy solution.
Is there some max # of hours arrival time difference involved? Could it be 12 hours? 23?
I agree that compensation (or a speedy refund) is appropriate.
Finally United is informing the passengers why they been having all this delay in certain flights on August 19, 2020 fight 2143 from Newark to San Juan the “Hell Flight” they had us with runaround taking us twice to boarding gate. Inhumanly keeping us for 6 hours inside a plane without not even caring about the pandemic we going thru and all the stress, dissapoinment, anxiety created to passengers instead of tell us the truth or get us of out the plane until they resolved any issues instead after 5 hours stuck inside the plane in Newark Airport they started offering water..SMH At the time I called and email corporate and the only respond that I have was “I am sorry” We apologize. Nonsense feeling sorry for something you are not part of it if the person that responded my email or the one that I sopke over the phone would be there I am sure they were not feeling sorry at all instead would of felt the same way we were feeling. I will never going to forget the worst service ever in the “Hell Flight” 4 hours flight from Newark to San Juan it took us 11 hours inside a plane.
I’m sorry but this doesn’t hold water. United is taking advantage of patterns, algorithms to determine whether or not to cancel. Why not just take those same algorithms, schedule flights when that pattern perceives the best chance of passenger load, profitability, etc. and stick to it?
Passengers don’t want to plan (and pay for, I might add) hotels, cars, other travel essentials only to have to hassle with them on the other end when United delays their travel for no other reason than their “profitability”.
United needs to stop believing that THEIR product is so desirable that passengers will put up with this nonsense.
Fine, so United gets to cancel 1% of it’s flights without basically any notice, because it’s not convenient for them. Extend me the same courtesy. For every 100 segments flown, you can cancel one at any point before takeoff with full refund, no questions asked.
Fingers crossed they cancel PDX to Hawaii in oct 3rd since the NCL 7 day cruise is suspended.
Wouldn’t hold it against them.
Don’t want a future flying credit, would like full refund back.
I think Southwest has already been doing this for the last couple of months. I have some October flights which have been changed several times, all within four hours of original reservations. Sadly, not a one has an earlier arrival; in fact one has a very late nighttime arrival. But the need to do this makes perfect sense under the circumstances.
@Matthew : at least UA has been honest about their approach, even if it means being very direct at times.
Contrast that to AA’s style …… pretend things are fine, ride around their moral high horse when empty route announcements, then like your other post said – using passengers as bargain chips to pressure Congress for yet another bail out.
Jeeee i wonder which CEO back on 9/28/2017 said they won’t even lose money ever again.
Instead of canceling outright, UA should first consider downgauging the plane size. On the upside, take this as an opportunity for mileage runs during IrrOps for free!