Could you update us once you take the flight and see if you would have hypothetically missed the plane?

Let me get this straight. Three reps told you that you would have to pay over $300, one rep finally changed it after you called back repeatedly, and now you're more likely to use Continental?

That's a 25% sanity rate. I think I'd be LESS likely. Sure you got a good outcome, but you shouldn't have had to try back four times.

Good job, Chris! It is a shame anyone has to go through this type of "customer service".

I really don't want to be an ass, but why wouldn't the OP check out the stats BEFORE buying the flight? I think in that sense, its the OP's fault.

Then again, an average delay time of 103 minutes is atrocious, and Continental better look into that!

@Russell Miller: True, but he probably should have done the research about the flight BEFORE he booked it. Lucky for him he found a sympathetic rep, but it wasn't like Continental changed their schedule and then was unwilling to accommodate him. He booked the flight, and then did some research to see how likely it was to be on time.

If making the once daily flight was a big concern (as I imagine it would be), he should have done that research before booking the flight.

@Russell Miller:
@ savdavid:

And why did Continental have to do anything? They didn't do anything wrong? What if everyone booked a cheaper flight and tried to get onto a more expensive flight? Or you think that just because you bought a ticket, you're entitled to get onto whatever flight you want? Yes, the OP had a valid point for going to the earlier flight, but reason be damned when it comes to businesses and their bottom line.

I think that this is a GREAT example of customer service.

@JMB:

Perhaps. But the fact that one rep finally didit shows that it was in their power to do, and as a poster pointed out below - a flight being that late that consistently IS Continental's fault.

Wow! It only took four tries for Chris to Continental to do the right thing!

Kudos to Chris for persistence, and to the agent who helped him, but...

... if Continental were honest about their flight schedules this would have never been a problem because they never would have given Chris this bogus itinerary in the first place.

4% on-time? That's not an occasional accident outside the airline's control. If a supermarket gave you underweight strawberries 4% of the time, or a gas station gave you less gas than you paid for 96% of the time, they'd be getting fines at a minimum - we've had local gas stations closed down by the county for that kind of thing.

@bobert: Whoops - meant to say "If a supermarket gave you THE CORRECT WEIGHT of strawberries 4% of the time".

@Dominikanfrank: Consumers are supposed to research every aspect of every business they use now?

@aznjoker: To put it VERY lightly, an average delay time of over 100 minutes and on-time rate of 4% more than justifies this because it's the airline's fault.

@Dominikanfrank: I guess I see it the other way. I'd hope when booking a plane that they'd offer fares that didn't have such a huge chance of my missing a flight.

If the flight is late 96% of the time then why don't they change the times of the flight? That is not a random delay because of maintenance or weather in DC or Newark causing a delay.

Maybe that flight is getting delayed somewhere on the way to Dulles, but it doesn't make sense. 4% on time? That is unfathomable.

And don't go back to Continental. Especially for a flight like this. A great airline wouldn't have a 96% failure rate to begin with.

@Russell Miller:

That's a 25% sanity rate.

In keeping with the statistics and averages theme of the post...

@Justin Larson: Ofcourse not every aspect, businesses should have a code of ethics thats the wouldn't make the customer feel the need to research every aspect.

My point, though, is that the customer had a feeling that the layover time is a bit short, but still bought that flight, and decided to research the info AFTERWARDS. All I'm saying is maybe he/she should have checked out the info first and THEN buy, not buy and then check it out.

i actually like this strategy from the airlines!

consider this... if you book a flight from say Italy (air italia) to paris knowing that air italia will be late and you will therefore miss your connecting flight from paris to the usa. SOOOO you arrive to and are "stuck" beautiful paris, (poor you). because you missed your connecting flight from air italia, there are no extra charges when you rebook your flight from paris to usa. if you checked the flights carefully you will know that you will be "stuck" in pair for 3 days AND THE BEST PART is that air france is obliged to pay for your hotel because the airline screwed up and caused you to suffer in paris (if that's possible) think of it this way... if you can be "stranded" anywhere while on your vacation where would that be? after you've answered that question, check the airlines you will be flying on very carefully and PLAN ahead...

@PinkBox: I agree with you 100%, irresponsible on Continentals part, but if the customer didn't have a good feeling to begin with he should have checked before purchasing.

@parabola101: If you manage to do this in tandem, then you may be able to construct some sort of way of living for free from airlines forever (albeit the travel costs negate the money saved from living costs)

@parabola101: Nope, won't work. The airline will invariably blame the delay on "weather" or "air traffic control", which means you are on your own until they can find you a seat.

@Dominikanfrank: First, I think it should be expected that planes arrive on time. I know, revolutionary!

Second, I think it should be Continental's job to sell its customers tickets in such a manner that delays known to the company are taken into account.

@bobert:
There's no fine for a late plane. Too hard to differentiate between a maintenance delay and a Continental sucks delay.
One of my close friends was a flight attendant for them, he says 4% on time is about right. They even go as far as offering a bonus for flights that make it on time. He rarely if ever saw the bonus.

@Russell Miller: The customer service is probably better than United.

@aznjoker: While the OP did book the flight, continental should know better to have flights that take off so soon after landing.

I booked a continental flight going through Newark with a 45min layover. Looking at the gates I noticed that my flight landed in Terminal A and took off from C (never been to Newark so hope I am getting this right). Looking at the map of the Terminals I noticed that there was a security gate at the entrance to each terminal. I called and learned that there was no breezeway connecting the terminals, that I would have to go through the security checkpoint. And with 2 kids that was not going to be pretty. Luckily for me, the flight was canceled the morning of my departure so we got new flights.

And for some reason we and the other family that got rerouted from the same flight were both "randomly" selected for additional screening, but that is another story.

@Pixelantes Anonymous: "First, I think it should be expected that planes arrive on time. I know, revolutionary!"

Yeah, if there is heavy snow, I would prefer that they didn't de-ice the plane. If theres a fuel leak or something I'd really prefer that they didn't look into that before takeoff. I really can't think of ANY situation where it might not be the airline's fault if the plane doesn't leave on time!!!

@JMB: While that might be so, I don't think it's a customer's job to dig through Continental's data and figure out how truthful they're being with their stated timetable, and if Continental recommended and booked a connection that wasn't even remotely likely to work based on objective data they themselves have collected and published, then I think they have a responsibility to correct that mistake once it's been brought to their attention.

@Russell Miller: 25 percent sanity rate is actually pretty good for an airline.

@Dominikanfrank: Mr. Frank: I'm afraid your comment has a fairly high ass content. It's absurd for the airline to sell a ticket that, according to their own records, has a 4 percent chance of being delivered.

You could argue that it's fraud, if fraud is defined as selling somebody something that you know to be bogus, and not as represented.

@Russell Miller: I agree quit (using Continental) while you're ahead!

@aznjoker: "And why did Continental have to do anything?"

They sold him a ticket they knew damn well they wouldn't be able to honor. They took his money for a service they KNEW they couldn't deliver.

@David Small: "If the flight is late 96% of the time then why don't they change the times of the flight?"

...because it's Continental.

@parabola101: If you pull this off, please write about it to Consumerist. Imagine, using a company's own terrible service to your advantage. (wipes away single tear)

The times should be changed as David Small suggests. With a 96% failure rate, the listed times are fraudulent. When I search for a flight with connection, I want as short a wait in between as possible. Once I find the cheapest provider of those tickets, I purchase. From now on I'll purchase only after checking on-time rates before purchasing. Thanks for this article consumerist. I thought I had been booking properly. Listing times that are only correct 4% of the time should be criminal and if the on-time rate drops below a certain point, each passenger that booked should be entitled to compensation and if thats not possible, then the airport facility,acting under new State or Federal guidelines should be compensated. (#hrs x $pay/hr x #employees) + ($penalty x #passengers) + fixed additional $ (escalating amt) = airport late fee!

It would probably be better to take Amtrak to EWR and catch the plane from there. I think Amtrak and Continental even have some sort of agreement, too.

@sirwired:
Not all countries limit compensation if weather is involved.

Airlines in Brazil pay for lodging and meals if the flight is delayed for any reason. One flight I was on took off in a storm and tried to land 3 times before returning to Sao Paulo. I got a nice hotel, dinner, breakfast, and the next available flight after the storm passed the next day.

@parabola101: I don't know... I was flying Aeroflot from Los Angeles to Delhi with a connection in Moscow. We missed the connection, and got to spend a day in Moscow.

But we didn't have Russian visas, so they took our passports at the hotel and we weren't even allowed to leave the hotel room. It's not like the hotel had a great view, either.

@Radi0logy:

Yeah, if there is heavy snow...

...you see where I'm going with this?

Look out, Chris! It's a trap!

You'll get to the gate and the rep at the desk will smile sweetly as she charges you the extra fees, staring blankly at you when you try to explain that you were told that you wouldn't be charged any extra. "But of course we charge extra," she'll reply. "What planet are you from?"*

*I've not flown since I was six... but I live vicariously through the woe-filled tales of other readers here. Thanks, Consumerist!

@doctor_cos: Many times flights flying into Newark are delayed because Air Traffic Control in Newark keeps them grounded. It really isn't Continental's fault and they really have no idea until an hour before take-off whether the flight will be delayed.

I agree. It's sad that service after only 4 calls and the associated aggravation may be among the best outcomes possible in this industry.

I don't travel a lot, fortunately, but it seems like more than half the time, there is a major problem that they are somehow powerless to do anything about. And a successful resolution sometimes takes literally dozens of hours on the phone, careful notes, and more patience than should be required.

The only airline that is consistently good in this department is Southwest, as long as you accept their inherent limitations.

@takes_so_little: Continental did not KNOW they would not be able to honor the ticket. Continental's computer system booked him a perfectly reasonable itinerary (80 minute layover) barring nothing going wrong. It happens that this flight is often delayed, most likely due to reasons out of Continental's control (Flying into Newark can be difficult sometimes to say the least). If it once again happened that the flight was late, I'm sure Continental would have been more than happy to put him on the flight the next day.

I'm just wondering, if you miss the connection because if airline's fault, and the airline can't rebook you to another flight on the same day, don't they get free hotel stay?

IMO, if it is the case, the original flight schedule OP had sounds like a steal. I mean, it is like a free hotel guaranteed!

@I Love New Jersey: For accumulating mileage/points, yes, but this extends to codesharing only for 4 cities, two in CT (New Haven/Stamford), one in DE (Wilmington), and one in PA (Philadelphia). If he's going from DC to NY (he gets nothing if he books straight DC-EWR) he only gets 500/750 miles (depends on class of service) for that segment and has to book the segments separately, which will cost quite a bit.

I did some research into this flight.

A) The flight according to FAA data has an on-time record of 37% not 4% as everyone seems to be quoting. (I know the OP said 4% but I have to assume he was mistaken)
B) The flight is not operated by Continental, rather it is operated by ExpressJet, regional airline that operates some flights as ContinetalExpress.
C) Being the fact that both Dulles and Newark have wacky weather, a delayed flight is not to be unexpected.
D) Because of the limited airspace in the New York area, Air Traffic Control will often hold flights on the ground especially smaller airlines that fly less popular routes (Such as this flight).

It therefore makes sense that this flight could have a 37% on-time rating through no fault of either Continental or ExpressJet.

@computerwiz3491: Baloney. If the connection only has a 4% chance, it's their job... no, their BUSINESS to know. Either they're incompetent, deceitful, or just stupid.

I don't really think it matters whether it is Continental's fault that the delay happens. They are aware there is a delay. Their schedules should reflect that delay. Even at the FAA's 37% that's well more than a majority of their flights not moving on the schedule they say they will.

Known delay routes should be scheduled with that in mind, whether it's Continental's fault there's a delay or not.

And they should certainly have a policy of waiving their change fee (not, I'd say the additional flight cost, if that's the usual cost and not a cost to do with a late booking.) If they know there's over a 50% chance the customer will not make a connection, and the customer finds this out and calls them on it. The customer should not incur additional penalty costs.

@Bob Lu: No, usually they just lie and claim the delay was caused by "weather" even though it wasn't, directly.

@takes_so_little: As has already been stated, no, they did not know. I've had more than a couple flights that have a low on-time probability, but have had no delays. Anyone with a knowledge of statistics knows that these percentages are meaningless on an individual basis. Plus, other websites even showed a much higher on-time rate for that flight.

If you must point blame to someone other than the customer, how about you blame the airport? Or the FAA? Many delays stem from reasons beyond the airline's control. Though since this is Consumerist, the airlines should obviously be psychic and know each plane's delays with complete certainty beforehand. Score one for reasonable expectations and personal responsibility.

I wouldn't exactly be tempted to go back to them for my flights just because 1 rep out of 4 actually helped him. That's just poor customer service on their end and you happen to find the one rep that was willing to help.

@computerwiz3491: Then what's the purpose of publishing a schedule? Just have everyone show up and the plane leaves whenever the airline is ready to let it leave. Seriously, a 37% (or 4% wherever that number came from) on-time performance means that the published schedule is BS, and probably no better than random. I understand weather, maintenance and air traffic delays, particularly in the Eastern corridor, but 37%? That's really unacceptable performance and I'm surprised (maybe not) that the FAA just sits on its hands and does nothing.