<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Mon, 15 Mar 2010 05:19:47 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Operational Failures</title><subtitle>Operational Failures</subtitle><id>http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/atom.xml"/><updated>2008-08-11T14:09:21Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.9.2 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Why Do You Have To Wait For A Gate After Landing?</title><category term="ground operations"/><id>http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/8/4/why-do-you-have-to-wait-for-a-gate-after-landing.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/8/4/why-do-you-have-to-wait-for-a-gate-after-landing.html"/><author><name>Administrator</name></author><published>2008-08-04T20:45:00Z</published><updated>2008-08-04T20:45:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-none"><span><img  src="http://www.glenntilton.com/storage/landinggate2.jpg" alt="landinggate2.jpg" style="width: 676px; height: 259px;"></span></span></p><p>If you&#8217;ve ever been delayed after landing while the pilot announces you are &#8220;waiting for a gate to open up,&#8221; remember<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; color: black;">—</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"> </span> it&#8217;s us on the other end of the announcement. And we&#8217;re just as frustrated as you. In fact, sometimes we can see open gates at the terminal, even as we make the announcement. We just aren&#8217;t allowed to park at them, because United&#8217;s management has no system to dynamically reroute the people and equipment needed. Most times, it doesn&#8217;t have to be this way. </p><p>A small investment would result in a dynamic gate assignment system, one which would assign landing flights to available gates, and direct ground support services to the appropriate place. The cost would be amortized in little time by the savings of on-time arrivals and downline on-time departures, not to mention fuel savings in this ultra-high-cost environment.<br></p><p>And in the <a href="http://www.glenntilton.com/write-glenn-tilton/">Department of Simple Ideas</a>, here&#8217;s one: We often take delays getting to the gate at the end of a flight because another plane is blocking our route to the gate. This could often be cured, and save time and fuel, by pushing back departing flights out of the way of the path other planes need to use to get to the gate. Pilots have to start engines and run two or three checklists after the plane is pushed back. This takes five minutes or more. If these planes are out of the way while the pilots do it, other planes can get in.&nbsp; Experienced senior management would know that, or at least know enough to listen to those who do. <br></p>
<p><br/><br/><br/><br/></p>]]></content></entry><entry><title>The Catering Conundrum: No Food for You!</title><category term="catering"/><id>http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/7/9/the-catering-conundrum-no-food-for-you.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/7/9/the-catering-conundrum-no-food-for-you.html"/><author><name>Administrator</name></author><published>2008-07-09T17:49:00Z</published><updated>2008-07-09T17:49:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>One more &#8220;Penny Wise, Pound Foolish&#8221; management technique at the &#8220;new&#8221; United is round-trip catering. On many flights, food for both outbound and return trips is boarded before the first departure, saving money on catering for the return trip.</p><p>As pilots, we&#8217;ve seen this repeatedly fail, as catering errors where food is loaded for only one direction (not uncommonly, Hawaii flights) can&#8217;t be rectified at the intermediate destination, since we no longer cater from those stations. More than once, we and the Customer Service/Stations Operations staff have wound up &#8220;catering for passengers&#8221; from vending machines in the concourse. </p><p>We&#8217;re all in favor of saving money when service isn&#8217;t affected, but these repeated errors call for either better quality control, or a return to catering at all stations. </p>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Planning for Cancellations; Acceptable Risk To United Senior Managers</title><category term="delays"/><category term="scheduling"/><id>http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/7/7/planning-for-cancellations-acceptable-risk-to-united-senior.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/7/7/planning-for-cancellations-acceptable-risk-to-united-senior.html"/><author><name>Administrator</name></author><published>2008-07-07T23:33:00Z</published><updated>2008-07-07T23:33:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a math problem. We promise no calculator is required. If you are operating 100 flights, and each one requires 10 crewmembers on board, how many crewmembers need to be scheduled in total? </p><p>If you said, &#8220;1,000 crewmembers,&#8221; you get an &#8220;A,&#8221; anywhere except the management suite at United. The Tilton regime&#8217;s &#8220;planning for failure&#8221; routine means scheduling less than 1,000 people for these 1,000 slots, and hoping this reduced staff will volunteer to somehow pick up enough slack to fly the entire schedule. If they can&#8217;t, well, your flight just got cancelled. But the good news is that the airline just saved a pile of money, and everyone will get where they&#8217;re going sooner or later anyway. </p><p>&nbsp;We know you hate it, and we do too. <a href="http://www.glenntilton.com/write-glenn-tilton/">Tell Glenn Tilton</a> you won&#8217;t stand for it again. And if you see it happen, <a href="http://www.glenntilton.com/pirep-submission/">tell us</a>, and we&#8217;ll tell everyone. <br></p><br>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>United's Operational Performance Slammed in new DOT Report</title><category term="delays"/><category term="ground operations"/><category term="scheduling"/><id>http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/7/1/uniteds-operational-performance-slammed-in-new-dot-report.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/7/1/uniteds-operational-performance-slammed-in-new-dot-report.html"/><author><name>Administrator</name></author><published>2008-07-01T18:42:33Z</published><updated>2008-07-01T18:42:33Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>The Air Travel Consumer Report is a monthly product of the Department of Transportation&#8217;s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (OAEP). The report is designed to assist consumers with information on the quality of services provided by the airlines.</p><p>Here are some rankings for United in the June, 2008 report:</p><p><strong>On-Time Arrivals</strong>: Second-to-last place, with 27.2%, or more than 1 out of 4 flights <span style="text-decoration: underline;">delayed</span> by DOT standards.</p><p><strong>Complaints</strong>: United was the worst of all airlines studied in consumer complaints. Last Place.<br></p><p><strong>Baggage Mishandling</strong>: United ranked 9th out of 19 places for baggage mishandling. </p><p>These failures cannot be blamed on external factors. They are the simple result of mismanagement by Glenn Tilton and his senior staff, who are more interested in their own payouts than the airline entrusted to their care. </p><p>Please <a class="offsite-link-inline" target="_blank" href="http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/reports/2008/June/200806atcr.pdf">click here</a> for the full report. (PDF Large File: requires Adobe Reader)&nbsp;</p><br>
]]></content></entry><entry><title>Parts inventory reductions frustrate passengers</title><category term="maintenance"/><id>http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/6/19/parts-inventory-reductions-frustrate-passengers.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.glenntilton.com/operational-failures/2008/6/19/parts-inventory-reductions-frustrate-passengers.html"/><author><name>Administrator</name></author><published>2008-06-19T20:58:00Z</published><updated>2008-06-19T20:58:00Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p><span class="full-image-float-left"><span><img  style="width: 321px; height: 208px;" alt="AircraftParts.jpg" src="http://www.glenntilton.com/storage/AircraftParts.jpg"></span></span>To those of us in the front seats, it looks like the Tilton regime has made a decision to try to save money by reducing parts inventories. All well and good, until a flight is delayed or canceled because we don&#8217;t have what we need to go. To the airline, this simply means that all of you are delayed to a later flight, miss a connection, miss a meeting, or the first part of your vacation. To you and to us, it&#8217;s the source of endless frustration.</p><p>&nbsp;Here&#8217;s the scene: A generator goes inoperative, or a cockpit seat is broken, or any one of thousands of other mechanical items break, often at a non-hub airport.&nbsp; We used to be able to call a mechanic and have them fix it, usually before you even board the plane. But now, all too often, we&#8217;re told that these same small breakdowns will cause a delay or a cancellation, because most parts aren&#8217;t stocked outside our hubs. So if we need a generator in Tampa, or a cockpit seat in Portland, we&#8217;re all grounded together until one can be flown in. Believe it or not, this nonsense goes on at our primary hubs, too!<br> </p><p>There&#8217;s a difference between smart savings and dumb savings. This one falls on the wrong side of the ledger.&nbsp;</p>
]]></content></entry></feed>