Acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1880 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3577 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Unfortunately, on-time doesn't necessarily translate into more earnings and less cost, which is what executives are paid to obtain. Shareholders only care if the on-time aspect translates to more customers and more revenue, which hopefully will trickle down to more profits. Companies that are starting to look bad in the public eye (ie. U and UAL with their financial woes) are going to do what they can to keep the customers they have left. Why not woo them with the best service they can?
Unfortunately, some of the best experiences I've had as a customer came from companies that were about to go under (or were in the process of).
BWIrwy4 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 940 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3531 times:
Yes National, I agree with you. I was just joking around. The opportunity to have some fun was too good to pass up. I have nothing against UA744Flagship, and I hope he (and you) can see that I was just having some fun with his gaff.
737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3482 times:
I bet a lot this has to do with the fact UA and U have greatly reduced their schedule and have excess capacity to pick up the slack if an aircraft has a mechanical or long delay. UA's reduced capacity has also helped out in reducing delays out of SFO which contributed to a large percentage of UA's overall delays. Those airlines that haven't reduced capacity that much (i.e. Alaska, Northwest and Southwest) are all at the bottom of the list. Its interesting that the range from best to worst is only 5%, which isn't that dramatic.
Spark From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
That's one of the things that people often misconstrue about statistics. They take minute differences as being indictative of superior performance.
Think of it this way! You stood slightly less than a 2 in 10 chance of suffering a delay with United. Alaska had slightly more than a 2 in 10 chance of suffering a delay (basically the same). The ranking system is mainly luck of the draw!
EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1550 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3402 times:
Ceteris paribus, does it not make sense that the airlines with the most reserve aircraft and least congested facilities would be recording the best on-time performance? Right now, carriers like UA and US have more flexibility when it comes to aircraft assignments, and therefore should have a higher controllable on-time departures rating. While some carriers year-over-year ASMs are down over 10%, Southwest and Alaska are both operating at full schedule, so they will have more mechanical/crew scheduling delays. Quite simply, no airline is ever going to leave any more planes parked than it has to.
OK, so it's a bit of an over-simplification, but I don't think it's fair to say that UA and US are doing a better job serving customers by operating fewer flights. Besides, there are only six points separating the top and bottom airline here. Most likely, not even a frequent flyer would notice such a subtle difference. All airlines pretty much know what to do to minimize delays.
HlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (13 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 3377 times:
This i find funny.
Northwest was the top for on time a couple years ago. They open this new terminal at DTW and add a new runway that were both supposed to make better ontime departures and arrivals and now they are second to last.
UA744Flagship From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3334 times:
I guess we have no MLB fans who've used the term "winningest team" before. I really never thought it would be so funny. Well whatever gets your rocks off!
I would call UA's performance "significant" even despite lies, damn lies, and statistics, because it operates in 3 of the most expensive (SFO - most expensive costs per departure, DEN, and IAD) and two of the most operationally unreliable (SFO and ORD) airports in the country.
True, UA is hording a lot of spare aircraft, and running the second most reduced schedule, but still -- having compounding operations in ORD and SFO, and being able to achieve #1 is nothing short of a miracle. Keep in mind ORD experienced a lot of thunderstorms in July.
Trickijedi From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3266 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (13 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3310 times:
I don't mean to drag this out just a bit longer but "losingest" is in fact a word.
LOSINGEST, adj. In last place, worst off, lagging behind the rest. ["losing"+ superlative]
Context and source: "CBS is being asked to pay producers more for its series because, as the losingest network, CBS cancels more of them." (Wall Street Journal 09 Feb. 1989)