JetBlue extended my vacation involuntarily

[darrell]

Okay, so my wife and I flew JetBlue from Orlando to Cancun a week and a half ago. This flight is quite simple, it originates from Orlando (i.e. doesn't start from some other city first) and goes direct to Cancun. A couple of hours later, the flight returns from Cancun to Orlando. It's the only flight of the day that JetBlue offers from Orlando to Cancun, and it departs Orlando at about 7:50AM and arrives back at Orlando that same afternoon at about 1:10PM.

Enter my conundrum...

Our flight from Cancun back to Orlando on the 21st was cancelled at roughly 11pm on the 20th and we were automatically rebooked on the Thursday morning flight on the 23rd. The flight from Orlando, however, still departed on time and arrived, on time, in Cancun. It did not depart (that flight was cancelled) but instead stayed overnight. The next morning (today, the 22nd) the flight out of Orlando was also cancelled (makes sense, as the airplane and crew were still in Cancun) but the airplane DID take off and leave Cancun back to Orlando.

This is where we have question #1: Why were we not rebooked on this flight (return to MCO on the 22nd) but instead kept in Mexico another day until the 23rd?

Of course, I'm still in the hotel in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, so I have not yet made it back to Orlando. So far, the only reason I've been given is "weather-related" which really boils my blood, considering this crew and airplane initiate from MCO and go right back to MCO after a direct flight to and from CUN. I feel like it's JetBlue's way of letting themselves off the hook for my two additional days of expenses in Mexico. I understand there were weather delays and cancellations in the northeast, but I'm having a hard time connecting this to my cancellation, especially considering the flight from MCO to CUN did, in fact, depart MCO on time (it just didn't go back until the next day).

So, besides just venting, I'm looking for opinions on possible ways to receive compensation from JetBlue and how to respond to their inevitable "but it was weather-related" excuses. If there is truly a good reason I won't mind so much, but without something more specific than "weather" I'm convinced that I cannot rely on Jet Blue not to cancel a flight if there is adverse weather anywhere within 1000 miles (current opinions about trusting commercial air carriers notwithstanding).

 

[PPC1052]

Why were we not rebooked on this flight (return to MCO on the 22nd) but instead kept in Mexico another day until the 23rd?

Why, indeed.

I suspect it is homeland security trying to hold you up so that they can detain and search you for drugs and illegal aliens in your luggage.

 

[Van Johnston]

This is where we have question #1: Why were we not rebooked on this flight (return to MCO on the 22nd) but instead kept in Mexico another day until the 23rd?

Just speculating, but if that is their only flight of the day, there probably weren't enough empty seats on today's flight to accommodate everyone who got bumped yesterday. Maybe some got out today, you get out tomorrow, maybe others don't get out till Friday.

Again, just speculating.

 

[frfly172]

Intentional planning,want to try and keep all the seats full,rather than fly half full aircraft,

 

[taters]

FAR 117 plus Bad weather equals a new reality in inconvenience for passengers.
The weather crippled a Hub , that leads to mis commuting crews, stranded planes , low or almost no reserve coverage, pilots timing out way before they used to . These things affect an entire operation

 

[Art VanDelay]

Part 117 is going to require more pilots. Some carriers don't seem to want to believe it and are finding out the hard way.

 

[SCCutler]

FAR 117 plus Bad weather equals a new reality in inconvenience for passengers.
The weather crippled a Hub , that leads to mis commuting crews, stranded planes , low or almost no reserve coverage, pilots timing out way before they used to . These things affect an entire operation

This.

I suspect it was all about crews, and crews only.

 

[darrell]

I considered the crew rest thing, too, but am unable to wrap my head around how that would allow the crew to fly from MCO to CUN at 8am but not return to MCO a few hours later. Why would they have not just cancelled the initial flight out of MCO also? Keeping in mind the cancellation was around 11pm the night prior.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Part 117 is going to require more pilots. Some carriers don't seem to want to believe it and are finding out the hard way.

No, they believe. They can't just waive their hands and have people on the line tomorrow.

 

[Art VanDelay]

I considered the crew rest thing, too, but am unable to wrap my head around how that would allow the crew to fly from MCO to CUN at 8am but not return to MCO a few hours later. Why would they have not just cancelled the initial flight out of MCO also? Keeping in mind the cancellation was around 11pm the night prior.

What makes you think the crew's first leg was MCO - CUN ?

 

[darrell]

What makes you think the crew's first leg was MCO - CUN ?

What makes you think that I think that? But seriously, if that's the case, I'm willing to accept it, it just seems far-fetched. I don't know the new duty day or flight time restrictions.

When would the crew have to start their duty day in order to be out of time by 1pm (the scheduled arrival time back at MCO is 1:08pm)? Maybe they spent all night ferrying airplanes around for the upcoming storm. *shrug* Remember they have told me that the reason for cancellation was "weather-related".

What "weather-related" scenarios could result in the MCO-CUN leg going, but the return leg being cancelled (11 hours prior to the return leg's departure time)?

Anyway, like I said, if that's the case, would the airline know? And more importantly, would they tell me?

 

[Art VanDelay]

What makes you think that I think that? But seriously, if that's the case, I'm willing to accept it, it just seems far-fetched. I don't know the new duty day or flight time restrictions.

When would the crew have to start their duty day in order to be out of time by 1pm (the scheduled arrival time back at MCO is 1:08pm)? Maybe they spent all night ferrying airplanes around for the upcoming storm. *shrug* Remember they have told me that the reason for cancellation was "weather-related".

What "weather-related" scenarios could result in the MCO-CUN leg going, but the return leg being cancelled (11 hours prior to the return leg's departure time)?

Anyway, like I said, if that's the case, would the airline know? And more importantly, would they tell me?

You are correct, you do not understand crew duty limits. Keep in mind they are cumulative as well as daily. And that accumulation could very well be related to adverse weather problems that are occurring ANYWHERE in their system.

 

[SoloEqs]

"JetFU"

 

[comanchepilot]

Sue them in small claims court for the lost wages or time off equivalent, the cost of hotel, meals above what you'd spend at home, etc.

Then, you subpoena all internal documents related to your original flight, the one on the 22nd and the one you fly out on, crew identity, dispatchers, flight crew records - put all that in the definition of all documents, including email and phone records.

Its not weather.

If it was me, I'd sue them in regular court, on a class action basis for violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud. Telling you that they cancelled the flight for weather reasons is fraud - it is an attempt to avoid liability for breach of contract. The only reason I can see for cancelling the flight using weather as an excuse is if the flight crew was on a trip which originated at a northeast airport, to Orlando, spend the night, to CUN, back to MCO and then back to the northeast the next day.

Are you saying that they operated the flight today, that you were supposed to be on, but they bumped you from it before you even got to the airport? That is a whole different story then -

 

[comanchepilot]

If there is a weather problem this week in New York, JetBlue or any other airline can blame that storm on 31 Jan for timed out crew and a cancellation - they can probably make that claim cumulatively in June if they wanted to . . . which is why we are going to need more regulation around these issues - all they need to do for the weather delay is say that the flight must be directly delayed by weather - so you cannot blame the storm last week for the cancellation this week because you did not plan well.

 

[darrell]

Are you saying that they operated the flight today, that you were supposed to be on, but they bumped you from it before you even got to the airport? That is a whole different story then -

11pm on 20Jan: Cancellation of CUN-MCO flight on the 21st *and* MCO-CUN flight on the 22nd. I am rebooked on CUN-MCO flight on the 23rd.

21st: Flight arrived on-time in CUN from MCO but doesn't return to MCO, stays overnight in CUN.

22nd: No flight from MCO-CUN, but the airplane already in CUN departed on-time from CUN for MCO.

23rd: Has not happened yet, but flight status on JetBlue's site says they are both good to go.

My assumption now is that the people who were already scheduled for the 22nd CUN-MCO flight stayed on it, and they put as many people as possible on it from the cancelled 21st leg. I drew the short straw and got pushed to the 23rd...maybe some people even got pushed to the 24th.

 

[darrell]

You are correct, you do not understand crew duty limits. Keep in mind they are cumulative as well as daily. And that accumulation could very well be related to adverse weather problems that are occurring ANYWHERE in their system.

I don't know if you're being terse and combative for a reason, or if it's just how you are, but I'll humor you. I do know that crew duty limits are cumulative, however (i.e. I can read 117.23 just like anyone else).

But if the airline claims the cancellation was due to weather, while it was really a crew duty restriction (albeit itself caused by weather), is that enough for the "weather" claim to be legitimate in their refusal to compensate me?

 

[taters]

Keep in mind FAR 117 is prospective in nature not retrospective. Crews will not be able to depart with a known issue ( some exemptions but I'm not going there here) . In 121 you could "react" to a bad day with compensatory rest...no more " legal to start, legal to finish"

 

[N801BH]

Sue them in small claims court for the lost wages or time off equivalent, the cost of hotel, meals above what you'd spend at home, etc.

Then, you subpoena all internal documents related to your original flight, the one on the 22nd and the one you fly out on, crew identity, dispatchers, flight crew records - put all that in the definition of all documents, including email and phone records.

Its not weather.

If it was me, I'd sue them in regular court, on a class action basis for violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud. Telling you that they cancelled the flight for weather reasons is fraud - it is an attempt to avoid liability for breach of contract. The only reason I can see for cancelling the flight using weather as an excuse is if the flight crew was on a trip which originated at a northeast airport, to Orlando, spend the night, to CUN, back to MCO and then back to the northeast the next day.

Are you saying that they operated the flight today, that you were supposed to be on, but they bumped you from it before you even got to the airport? That is a whole different story then -

I am on board with this thought process... The potential for abuse using weather is ripe and there needs to be oversight... A successful suit will put the airlines on notice... IMHO..