backseatdriver wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Well we all know that the WSJ is fake news, so take anything they say with a grain of salt.

The WSJ is the preeminent news source in the country, perhaps to the chagrin of only those who posses a strong distaste for truth in reporting.

The article informs the reader exactly what the metrics are for this study. Other studies that factor in cabin service, amenities, etc. are available if you want to see those. Just take it at face value.

Super80Fan wrote:

Anyway, WSJ's measurement here is seriously flawed, one-sided, and ill thought out. I can't believe they produced this garbage. All the data involved in airline operations needs to be collected, analyzed, and put out there for the public to decide. As always in this country, the sheep are eating it up while those of us with free thought left can see through this.

RDUDDJI wrote:

b6bos143 wrote:

Just to be clear: The point of the post was not to say B6 was "no worse than anybody else." It was to help illustrate that, when you isolate the two airports mentioned frequently in this thread, JetBlue was largely on par with other carriers (not significantly better or worse than the others,) at least for the most recent month for which data is available. I think it makes a fair point that with a disproportionately large percentage of its operation in those two cities, JetBlue still does fairly well at maintaining an on-time operation most of the time, despite its lack of another hub the size of JFK or BOS in a different geographical area to help balance the negative effects of a saturated operating region.

I'm a fan of B6. They're probably one of my top three airlines in the US. However, the reason I don't fly them (unless terminating in BOS/JFK) is because I intentionally avoid congested/delay prone airports like JFK. I suspect there are many others that do the same. B6 (and other carriers who choose to hub at congested/delay prone airports) deserve some of the blame. They're directly contributing to the congestion. They could have another (connecting) hub operation at a less congested airport*.

*I'm not advocating or even suggesting that B6 move their hub (after all it's the No 1 O&D market in the US), but they did choose the bed that they lie in. They should not be absolved from all blame for congestion issues that they contribute to. On the flip side, just ~10 years ago, WN pulled down the PHL hub citing chronic delays that were cascading into their whole network. Of course that's a bit easier for WN who has a dozen or so hubs, but it's a business decision available for any airline.

Just my 2 XRP.

Polot wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Anyway, WSJ's measurement here is seriously flawed, one-sided, and ill thought out. I can't believe they produced this garbage. All the data involved in airline operations needs to be collected, analyzed, and put out there for the public to decide. As always in this country, the sheep are eating it up while those of us with free thought left can see through this.

Just out of curiosity how is the data flawed, one-sided, and ill thought out?

WSJ clearly identified the metrics they were looking at. They provide the ranking of each airline in each metric, and then gave an overall rank.

Would you be here complaining if the title of the article was "The Best and Worst U.S. Airlines of 2017 in Terms of Operational Performance" instead?

Super80Fan wrote:

Yeah they went in and only "pick and chose" what they wanted to look at/report. This almost seems personal as opposed to an actual study/analysis.

Super80Fan wrote:

Yeah they went in and only "pick and chose" what they wanted to look at/report. This almost seems personal as opposed to an actual study/analysis.

If the article did read that, I would absolutely be fine with that. But, since they are producing fake news, I will not stop complaining.

tphuang wrote:

If b6 was actually significantly worse than delta and aa in JFK and bos, it won't be able to attract any corporate traffic or ff base.

All data point to the opposite. In spite of an absolutely horrendous year of operation, they have more ff base now than ever and more corporate base. And they are higher yielding than the dl, the greatest airline ever created.

So I guess the real world haven't found them to be significantly worse than their competitors in this area. It looks like the stats for bos and JFK show that they are certainly below average, but not significantly worse.

b6bos143 wrote:

At JFK, for the period 10/2016 - 11/2017:

B6 - 71.15 % on time; 3.06% cancel
AA - 74.51% on time; 1.78% cancel
DL - 78.29% on time; 1.07% cancel

RDUDDJI wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If b6 was actually significantly worse than delta and aa in JFK and bos, it won't be able to attract any corporate traffic or ff base.

All data point to the opposite. In spite of an absolutely horrendous year of operation, they have more ff base now than ever and more corporate base. And they are higher yielding than the dl, the greatest airline ever created.

So I guess the real world haven't found them to be significantly worse than their competitors in this area. It looks like the stats for bos and JFK show that they are certainly below average, but not significantly worse.

b6bos143 wrote:

At JFK, for the period 10/2016 - 11/2017:

B6 - 71.15 % on time; 3.06% cancel
AA - 74.51% on time; 1.78% cancel
DL - 78.29% on time; 1.07% cancel

10% worse OT percentage than the best (large percentage of pax) carrier at JFK. Almost 300% higher rate of cancellation. I would call that "significant"...

BOS is better, but still significantly worse than their peers.

RDUDDJI wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Yeah they went in and only "pick and chose" what they wanted to look at/report. This almost seems personal as opposed to an actual study/analysis.

If the article did read that, I would absolutely be fine with that. But, since they are producing fake news, I will not stop complaining.

Um yeah [slow clap], it's the same report they do every year... Did you actually read the article? They give a clear explanation of what is measured and how. In no way is that "fake news". It's news "you dislike". Go create a rigged analysis that magically puts your favorite carrier on top and then see if anyone will publish it. We'll all wait...smh

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-a ... 1515594783

stlgph wrote:

Look kiddies -

No one here is saying JetBlue isn't giving you nice movies & TV to watch, clean planes, an entire (free) can of Coke to enjoy on the trip, some decent (free) snacks that are a step above some of the other carriers, and a couple of extra smiles along the way.

That's all nice and most appreciated, but we're talking about what matters most: getting from Point A to Point B.

Right now, JetBlue just isn't cutting it. Deal.

Super80Fan wrote:

United787 wrote:

I have flown them twice, ORD-JFK and JFK-ORD.

The first flight was cancelled because of "weather", in fact B6 cancelled most of their flights that day...the other airlines did not and operated fairly normally that day. I had to fly the next day.

The second flight was delayed for 3-4 hours at JFK, their hub, because of "late arriving crew". They can't find a crew at their own hub?

So yes, in my experience, worst airline ever. Even Olympic circa 1991 wasn't this bad.

This post folks, is why you take airline complaints with a grain of salt.

United787 wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

United787 wrote:

I have flown them twice, ORD-JFK and JFK-ORD.

The first flight was cancelled because of "weather", in fact B6 cancelled most of their flights that day...the other airlines did not and operated fairly normally that day. I had to fly the next day.

The second flight was delayed for 3-4 hours at JFK, their hub, because of "late arriving crew". They can't find a crew at their own hub?

So yes, in my experience, worst airline ever. Even Olympic circa 1991 wasn't this bad.

This post folks, is why you take airline complaints with a grain of salt.

That was exactly my point. My sarcasm didn't come across... but my experience, although crappy, is so limited, I can't really judge. But others do about UA all day long with the same amount of experience...

Super80Fan wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Yeah they went in and only "pick and chose" what they wanted to look at/report. This almost seems personal as opposed to an actual study/analysis.

If the article did read that, I would absolutely be fine with that. But, since they are producing fake news, I will not stop complaining.

Um yeah [slow clap], it's the same report they do every year... Did you actually read the article? They give a clear explanation of what is measured and how. In no way is that "fake news". It's news "you dislike". Go create a rigged analysis that magically puts your favorite carrier on top and then see if anyone will publish it. We'll all wait...smh

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-a ... 1515594783

Lies, straight up lies. The real world knows JetBlue fails at being OT at NYC/BOS, but the real world also realizes that other aspects of the company fit their needs to that is why they continue to win customer service awards/gain business travel. The real world looks at many factors before they book their flight, and look to friends/family on their experiences. In WSJ world, they create slander because a gate agent wouldn't upgrade them to an EMS seat for free.

richierich wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Look kiddies -

No one here is saying JetBlue isn't giving you nice movies & TV to watch, clean planes, an entire (free) can of Coke to enjoy on the trip, some decent (free) snacks that are a step above some of the other carriers, and a couple of extra smiles along the way.

That's all nice and most appreciated, but we're talking about what matters most: getting from Point A to Point B.

Right now, JetBlue just isn't cutting it. Deal.

Fair point, but I think you have to say percentage points behind DL and AA at JFK and BOS. And, again, considering how many regional flights both legacy carriers operate, the numbers really begin to blur when those get counted. Maybe B6 should open a regional outfit to skirt the DOT numbers.

I'm not saying the WSJ is wrong, and metrics are there for all to see. However they don't tell the whole story. That's the problem here.
To imply that there is a deep-seeded operational issue at JetBlue, as several on this site have done on this thread and in the past, is misguided given where JetBlue has chosen to focus their business. Indeed, they have made their bed - there is a reason they are based in New York and not Idaho.

stlgph wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

Um yeah [slow clap], it's the same report they do every year... Did you actually read the article? They give a clear explanation of what is measured and how. In no way is that "fake news". It's news "you dislike". Go create a rigged analysis that magically puts your favorite carrier on top and then see if anyone will publish it. We'll all wait...smh

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-best-a ... 1515594783

Lies, straight up lies. The real world knows JetBlue fails at being OT at NYC/BOS, but the real world also realizes that other aspects of the company fit their needs to that is why they continue to win customer service awards/gain business travel. The real world looks at many factors before they book their flight, and look to friends/family on their experiences. In WSJ world, they create slander because a gate agent wouldn't upgrade them to an EMS seat for free.

Yeah, and then there's those folks at Bloomberg, clearly making stuff up, too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... since-2007

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. None.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

IMO, B6 has gone down, but it's still light years ahead of F9, NK, or B6.

diverdave wrote:

shamrock350 wrote:

"The Wall Street Journal looks at seven key operational metrics for their rankings, including on-time arrivals, canceled flights, extreme delays, 2-hour tarmac delays, mishandled luggage, involuntary bumping and complaints."

So what is wrong with those metrics, and what would you propose be used in their stead?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

IMO, B6 has gone down, but it's still light years ahead of F9, NK, or B6.

JetBlue is so amazing that not even JetBlue can beat JetBlue!


In all seriousness though, I agree. They're way ahead of any of our ULCCS, and by extension, the legacies as well.


There is room for operational improvement, and with a newer fleet, and some of the other initiatives, it will probably be a better year for them. I'm certainly not afraid to fly with them for all my east coast needs.

tphuang wrote:

Again, it clearly hasn't been bad enough that people have made the switch. The opposite is happening.

BerenErchamion wrote:

diverdave wrote:

shamrock350 wrote:

"The Wall Street Journal looks at seven key operational metrics for their rankings, including on-time arrivals, canceled flights, extreme delays, 2-hour tarmac delays, mishandled luggage, involuntary bumping and complaints."

So what is wrong with those metrics, and what would you propose be used in their stead?

A lot of them (e.g. airspace congestion, weather) are beyond their control, and disproportionately affect JetBlue because its operations are focused in areas that are particularly susceptible to those issues.

CobaltScar wrote:

B6 is overdue for some structural and fleet (and fleet interior) changes, and they need more of their business to branch outside of the NE.

What part of B6 do you guys like the most? The Flight Attendants/In-flight service and experience?

klm617 wrote:

Just another survey bought and paid for by cooperate dollars. These things are nothing more than fluff and told from the perspective of the agenda they are trying to further.

BREECH wrote:

MR27122 wrote:

B6 is hyper-proactive towards resolving customer issues in favor of the customer, often before they're asked for anything by the customer. The Valentine's Day massacre conditioned them "big time", and shed light open fantastical operational failings...namely, they possessed no "action plan". A March ice storm crippled the airline & tarnished it's image just as "phones on planes" were starting to be in vogue. Neeleman certainly deserves a heap of criticism for somehow believing B6 was immune from Mother Nature. Geography is a very large piece of the pie in regards to how these stats skew. The one absolute failing of B6 is timeliness as the day progresses. As for not "over booking"----I don't "buy it". I flew them on Saturday from BOS-AUS...the flight had been cxld Thur/Fri due to the northeast snowstorm. Prior to boarding they were asking for 4 "volunteers" yet kept on repeating the flight was not oversold (in that specific instance, 2 days of back-to-back cancellations for the nonstop BOS-AUS, it probably would've been better to be transparent---too many pax were booked for too few seats). Yet they proceeded with boarding after not getting sufficient volunteers. We then sat for 4.5 hours due to a "weight & balance" issue (we were overweight) that evolved into a suitable runway issue due to winds, that became a fuel issue due to weight & the decision to offload fuel & stop at RDU, that became a decision to re-fuel after 2 people volunteered to get off, that became a too few passengers---6 had deplaned because we were sitting for so long and had to be called back, while they offered everybody the option to de-plane (very odd), that finally turned into a refueling issue because they were having issues connecting the fuel pump, that became a suitable runway issue again. The point being---B6 has always seemed to be transparant since the Valentine's Day massacre...not so much anymore (if your giving away $700 travel vouchers pre-boarding & going via JFK to 4 volunteers, yet nobody bites, it's fairly obvious that the flight is overbooked....going "weight and balance" when you need 4 people off the plane was simply dopey because 4 people is a razor thin weight & balance "need").

Okay, so you had a bad flight. Doesn't mean the airline is bad. I'm sure you've been in a situation where you are late everywhere all day and the problems just keeping piling up and every call on your phone just adds to the already disastrous day. Mind you, people around you are kind enough to not call it "Bobby's f*ck-up Tuesday" (or what's your real name). Oh, and Valentine's Day massacre was a tragic event in Chicago in 1929 when Al Capone's gang killed seven people. Don't you think calling a plane delay the same name is a bit... how do I say it nicely?.. STUPID?

RDUDDJI wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Again, it clearly hasn't been bad enough that people have made the switch. The opposite is happening.

Please provide a link for this claim.

Polot wrote:

Also late arriving crew was probably because the inbound flight they were working on was late to arrive (aka, also delayed), not because "they started their day at home in LA". If you decide to commute you have a responsibly to be on work on time, living in the other side of the country is not a valid excuse.

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

Also late arriving crew was probably because the inbound flight they were working on was late to arrive (aka, also delayed), not because "they started their day at home in LA". If you decide to commute you have a responsibly to be on work on time, living in the other side of the country is not a valid excuse.

I'm sure you have never been late to work. Or school. Or an appointment. Or an important meeting. And have never caused any inconvenience to anyone. Ever.

Polot wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

Also late arriving crew was probably because the inbound flight they were working on was late to arrive (aka, also delayed), not because "they started their day at home in LA". If you decide to commute you have a responsibly to be on work on time, living in the other side of the country is not a valid excuse.

I'm sure you have never been late to work. Or school. Or an appointment. Or an important meeting. And have never caused any inconvenience to anyone. Ever.

3-4 hours late with no notice? Nope, not at all. Again it is the pilots responsibility to be there on time. That is their job, and a critical one for the operations of an airline at that. It is not a hobby for them that they can just reschedule if timing doesn't exactly work out. They chose to live somewhere outside their base requiring a flight to commute, they were not forced to do so. They might get a warning/slap on the wrist if they are late once or twice, but if it a regular thing they would no longer have to worry about the commute, as they would no longer be employed by JetBlue. How would your employer feel if you were showing up to work 3-4 hours late?

Polot wrote:

I think the main issue is the title they used (general best/worst airline) versus their actual rankings which are perfectly valid metrics for looking at airlines.

Polot wrote:

BREECH wrote:

Polot wrote:

Also late arriving crew was probably because the inbound flight they were working on was late to arrive (aka, also delayed), not because "they started their day at home in LA". If you decide to commute you have a responsibly to be on work on time, living in the other side of the country is not a valid excuse.

I'm sure you have never been late to work. Or school. Or an appointment. Or an important meeting. And have never caused any inconvenience to anyone. Ever.

3-4 hours late with no notice? Nope, not at all. Again it is the pilots responsibility to be there on time. That is their job, and a critical one for the operations of an airline at that. It is not a hobby for them that they can just reschedule if timing doesn't exactly work out. They chose to live somewhere outside their base requiring a flight to commute, they were not forced to do so. They might get a warning/slap on the wrist if they are late once or twice, but if it a regular thing they would no longer have to worry about the commute, as they would no longer be employed by JetBlue. How would your employer feel if you were showing up to work 3-4 hours late?

IPFreely wrote:

Polot wrote:

I think the main issue is the title they used (general best/worst airline) versus their actual rankings which are perfectly valid metrics for looking at airlines.

People need to be careful of what metrics they use with regard to on-time and completed flights. Just look at weather in the northeast and especially at JFK yesterday (Friday). At the end of the day, Delta cancelled 6 flights and JetBlue cancelled 119 flights. And that's before Delta operates these cancelled flights today or tomorrow, bringing their "completion percentage" up to 100. So Delta performed great, JetBlue is terrible, and if you travelled yesterday you should have flown Delta, right? But wait -- there's more. JetBlue operates all it's own flights and Delta outsources much of it's domestic flying. And the Delta Connection regional airlines combined to cancel 480 flights yesterday. So we know what the selected metrics say, but which airline really performed better?

fastmover wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

Polot wrote:

I think the main issue is the title they used (general best/worst airline) versus their actual rankings which are perfectly valid metrics for looking at airlines.

People need to be careful of what metrics they use with regard to on-time and completed flights. Just look at weather in the northeast and especially at JFK yesterday (Friday). At the end of the day, Delta cancelled 6 flights and JetBlue cancelled 119 flights. And that's before Delta operates these cancelled flights today or tomorrow, bringing their "completion percentage" up to 100. So Delta performed great, JetBlue is terrible, and if you travelled yesterday you should have flown Delta, right? But wait -- there's more. JetBlue operates all it's own flights and Delta outsources much of it's domestic flying. And the Delta Connection regional airlines combined to cancel 480 flights yesterday. So we know what the selected metrics say, but which airline really performed better?

And than DELTA touts how amazing it is. It’s so annoying how they use the system to get away with stuff like that.

tphuang wrote:

I am not sure if delta numbers there includes regional operation.

As for cancellations, that's bound to happen with how much of their flights are toward Florida and Puerto Rico. Much larger than delta.

Again, it clearly hasn't been bad enough that people have made the switch. The opposite is happening.

b6bos143 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Those metrics are for one month. A good weather month. A low traffic month.

Post the stats at JFK and BOS for the year. Then we will have a real discussion.

At JFK, for the period 10/2016 - 11/2017:

B6 - 71.15 % on time; 3.06% cancel
AA - 74.51% on time; 1.78% cancel
DL - 78.29% on time; 1.07% cancel

At BOS, for the same period:

B6 - 73.13% on time; 2.06% cancel
AA - 77.11% on time; 2.39% cancel
DL - 79.03% on time; 1.00% cancel

IPFreely wrote:

Polot wrote:

I think the main issue is the title they used (general best/worst airline) versus their actual rankings which are perfectly valid metrics for looking at airlines.

People need to be careful of what metrics they use with regard to on-time and completed flights. Just look at weather in the northeast and especially at JFK yesterday (Friday). At the end of the day, Delta cancelled 6 flights and JetBlue cancelled 119 flights. And that's before Delta operates these cancelled flights today or tomorrow, bringing their "completion percentage" up to 100. So Delta performed great, JetBlue is terrible, and if you travelled yesterday you should have flown Delta, right? But wait -- there's more. JetBlue operates all it's own flights and Delta outsources much of it's domestic flying. And the Delta Connection regional airlines combined to cancel 480 flights yesterday. So we know what the selected metrics say, but which airline really performed better?