Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

jfklganyc · Fri May 31, 2013 12:05 pm

Who would think CVG-EWR would cause such heartache for people?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-wo...t-flight-in-america-155631923.html

Don't booking a connecting flight on the other end!!

eaglepower83 · Fri May 31, 2013 12:55 pm

That's stings.....considering the majority of United's operation are contracted Express flights.
On top of everything else, that can't help their on-time performance.

xjramper · Fri May 31, 2013 12:56 pm

That's what happens when airlines throw way more aircraft than they are capable of handling into any one airport. EWR just happens to be the most delay prone airport out there. PHL is a close second, but EWR just happens to fall into this article.

Quite honestly I would have imagined PHL-NYC as being the most delay prone

jfklganyc · Fri May 31, 2013 1:33 pm

There are not many PHL-EWR flights left, which is a GOOD thing.

Understand, the slot holder spread these delays out. ATC gives UA arrival rates.

UA holds the slots and then they delay the flights necessary to deal with the ATC arrival rate. So in effect, UA is delaying this flight and other express flights to keep the mainline stuff moving.

This does not include ground stops or center spacing.

If you take off from a place like DC going to NY, you need to clear 2 hurdles: EDCT (ATC delay for arrival rate) and Center spacing. Center spacing usually isnt given until taxi. So you flight can be on time, and them incur a half hour delay on the taxiway.

GentFromAlaska · Fri May 31, 2013 1:55 pm

Maybe the flying public should petition F9 to consider fly TTN-CVG F9 has established ULCC focus city of sorts at TTN; which is 39 statute miles from EWR. F9 recently added TTN-CMH; CMH being 100 miles or so from CVG. F9 also flies CVG-DEN; thus CVG is on F9 radar.

kgaiflyer · Fri May 31, 2013 2:02 pm

Quoting xjramper (Reply 2):
Quite honestly I would have imagined PHL-NYC as being the most delay prone

Nope -- How about anything connecting through SFO with a marine layer in place.

GentFromAlaska · Fri May 31, 2013 2:09 pm

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 5):
Nope -- How about anything connecting through SFO with a marine layer in place.

Been there done that! UA bused several of us over to OAK after our UA flight was ultimatley cancelled because of fog.

EricR · Fri May 31, 2013 2:54 pm

This is another example of why UA continues to struggle from a profitability standpoint. They have too many hubs in delay proned areas (SFO and ORD also come readily to mind).

Think of all the added costs the airline will have to incur now that the flight was delayed for 3 hours which caused many to miss connections. They will now have to incur costs for hotel accomodations, transporation to/from the hotel, food, etc. The 3 hour delay means the airline has indirectly lost money on that flight due to the ripple affect.

While UA has hubs in attractive metro areas, I continue to question how wise it is from a financial perspective.

railker · Fri May 31, 2013 3:04 pm

I remember reading an article from a while back and managed to find it again. It's from 2006, as bad as CVG-EWR might be ... do they have this bad OTP?

" Few things are certain in air travel today, but one comes close: If you're on Delta Connection Flight 5283 from New York to Washington, you can expect to be late.

The flight had the nation's worst on-time performance in September, arriving late 100 percent of the time at Reagan National Airport, according to a recent government report.

Its average delay: 1 hour and 19 minutes. Actual flying time: 53 minutes."

- Washington Post, "Like Clockwork: Hour of Delay, Hour of Flight", 13NOV2006

GentFromAlaska · Fri May 31, 2013 3:27 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 7):
They will now have to incur costs for hotel accomodations, transporation to/from the hotel, food, etc

Airlines are generally not responsible for weather delays at the origin or destination airports and fog would constitute weather. Like everything else there are a few exceptions.

SouthernDC9 · Fri May 31, 2013 4:06 pm

I have been to EWR twice in the past few years - once on an in-and-out trip to NJ and once on a DCA-EWR-LIT flight (home for my dad's funeral, which was obviously not optimal). Both times my flights were completely on-time/early. I am inclined to not press my luck, and lately haven't gone anywhere that it would make sense or even be possible to fly through EWR.

According to all-knowing Flightstats, #4352 has performed okay this week (relatively speaking)...

MON: left 7 minutes early, arrived 21 minutes early
TUE: left 51 minutes late, arrived 52 minutes late
WED: left 15 minute late, arrived 5 minutes early
THU: left 10 minutes early, arrived 15 minutes early

Dreamflight767 · Fri May 31, 2013 4:09 pm

I think it is wrong for us to use "weather" as a cause for delays.

As the article states (and many here should know), regardless WX flights are/get delayed. The fact is, saturation, too much traffic, airlines over scheduling, crew issues, aircraft MX, airport layouts, etc. are the root for delays. WX only INCREASES delays.

Example, how often do you hear of delays into GFK, FAR, or LGB? GFK & FAR get nasty winter WX. And often, LGB WX is the same as LAX. But delays to these airports are far, far in between.

jfklganyc · Fri May 31, 2013 4:16 pm

They say weather because there is no compensation to go with weather. Any ATC delay is considered weather because the current configuration of the airport does not allow the amount of traffic necessary to avoid delays. And of course, the configuration is effected by wind and weather

phlwok · Fri May 31, 2013 4:26 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 7):
While UA has hubs in attractive metro areas, I continue to question how wise it is from a financial perspective.

You want to be big where there are a lot of people who may pay higher fares. This is the case in many of UA's hubs. Infrastructure - airport and airspace/ATC - are a problem at some (notably EWR and ORD) and weather is another that's harder to tackle (SFO fog, ORD storms, EWR winds that can cause runway availability issues, etc.) Theoretically, higher demand should drive infrastructure improvements, but as we all know that can take decades to play out. But it's not a reason to drop a hub in many cases - an airline needs to learn to manage the hub in a profitable way.

NOWINYOW · Fri May 31, 2013 4:27 pm

The root cause for WX can easily start the day at one airport, such as LIT and compound throughout the day for that particular aircraft. I did a search and found that a few regional airports are listed as chronically delayed or canceled. My guess towards their delay factor isn't so much about the weather at out-station X or Y, but rather the congestion at the hub airports. If any one regional airport is served only by traffic to/from EWR, LGA, ORD, PHL, SFO etc, then yes, regional airports X and Y are chronic.

I noticed that CLT isn't listed as a consistently delay-prone. Hopefully the new AA will take that into account if there's ever any talk of "PHL or CLT...one has to go".

rampbro · Fri May 31, 2013 11:20 pm

Quoting EricR (Reply 7):
This is another example of why UA continues to struggle from a profitability standpoint. They have too many hubs in delay proned areas (SFO and ORD also come readily to mind).

True, but those (and EWR) are important hubs in some of the most important cities in America. Although I doubt this trade-off has been made at UA, lower reliability versus being entrenched in some of the richest, most important commercial markets on the planet seems to be balanced.
One thing is for sure, and that's UA seems to have issues capitalizing on potential positive passenger experiences during IROPS. If my flight was delayed due to WX and UA offered me a hotel room/meal/ride to another airport quickly, with a minimum of grovelling, I would consider that a customer service WIN.

GentFromAlaska · Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:04 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 13):
Any ATC delay is considered weather because the current configuration of the airport does not allow the amount of traffic necessary to avoid delays

If I understood the article correctly reading between the lines it sounds like the flight in question was held in CVG because there was too much activity in the airspace around EWR at a busier time of day. Keeping in mind the flight in question is a regional jet which cannot fly as fast as a 737 or something of similar size and make up the time enroute.

I've flown from BNA to ORD and DCA on AA regional jets on several occasions and have been held in a bullpen near the departure runway area for 15-30 minutes until ATC released us in Nashville; because of crowded airspace at the destination airport. The weather was perfect. The flight deck kept us informed on the ground in BNA.

I also think the article in question is skewed and falls short in considering some of the delays between SEA and Southeast Alaska. I suspect the stat they may be pulling is a lower 48 statistic.

N62NA · Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:24 am

Quoting xjramper (Reply 2):
That's what happens when airlines throw way more aircraft than they are capable of handling into any one airport. EWR just happens to be the most delay prone airport out there.

I've made the same observation here many times but there's a contingent out there in a.net-land that maintains the problem is NOT the fact that UA has scheduled far more flights at certain times than the airport can handle.

Quoting EricR (Reply 7):
This is another example of why UA continues to struggle from a profitability standpoint. They have too many hubs in delay proned areas

I'm not even sure why a "hub" should be in such a densely populated area with tons of O&D. Wasn't the whole idea of a hub "back in the day" being some airport like STL or DEN or ATL where most of the passengers going through the airport were connecting passengers? Somehow, at some point, airlines got away from that and started putting hubs in ridiculous places like EWR or PHL.

Quoting rampbro (Reply 16):
True, but those (and EWR) are important hubs in some of the most important cities in America.

De-hub EWR!

GentFromAlaska · Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:20 pm

Here's a ten day snapshot of the flight courtesy http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL4352 it looks like on three of the days the flight was hour or more late departing CVG. last nights flight (Friday) flew an out and around pattern to avoid weather I suppose.

Because the flight is destined for EWR it seems almost to late if the intent was to meet the international bank of flights which historically depart by 7:00 PM for an earlier morning arrival across the pond. LHR, CDG FRA etc.

[Edited 2013-06-01 06:20:58]

In my mind UA would want to move it up for that very reason. Forty five or so minutes earlier should allow it to connect pax to the evening flights to Europe. This one appears to be concentrating on O&D.

[Edited 2013-06-01 06:25:32]

jfklganyc · Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:53 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 18):
Somehow, at some point, airlines got away from that and started putting hubs in ridiculous places like EWR or PHL.

The 80s were about building mega hubs in the middle of the country.

The 90s and 2000s were about returning to the major O and D centers and de hubbing unprofitable hubs with little O and D.

EWR is arguably one of the most profitable hubs in the country. Profit out weighs delays.

EricR · Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:17 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 20):

EWR is arguably one of the most profitable hubs in the country. Profit out weighs delays.

EWR certainly has one of the highest average fares, but that does not equate to profit. I would fully expect EWR to be one of the most expensive airports to operate from, including indirect costs such as the cost of delays. Therefore, I would be surprised if it was one of the most profitable. Has UA publicly stated that EWR is one of the most profitable hubs in the country? I am really curious to know how profitable it truly is (not yields or average fares, but actual profit).

[Edited 2013-06-01 07:19:22]

N62NA · Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:06 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 20):

EWR is arguably one of the most profitable hubs in the country. Profit out weighs delays.

Your opinion.

Quoting EricR (Reply 21):
EWR certainly has one of the highest average fares, but that does not equate to profit. I would fully expect EWR to be one of the most expensive airports to operate from, including indirect costs such as the cost of delays. Therefore, I would be surprised if it was one of the most profitable.

Your opinion.

My opinion: I have no idea. But I do know it is an airport to avoid due to all the congestion and delays. It (like LGA and JFK) is ill-suited to be a hub.

MesaFlyGuy · Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:38 pm

Quoting NOWINYOW (Reply 15):

Agreed. I've flown through CLT over 20 times and only had a delay once, which was airspace congestion at DCA. Meanwhile, at PHL I haven't been so lucky

IAHFLYR · Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:21 am

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 17):
Keeping in mind the flight in question is a regional jet which cannot fly as fast as a 737 or something of similar size and make up the time enroute.

Really, and what type of regional jet can't keep up with a B737 en route and what model of the B737 are you referring? You may be surprised at the speed of some RJ's and the speed of some B737's.

United1 · Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:50 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 18):
maintains the problem is NOT the fact that UA has scheduled far more flights at certain times than the airport can handle.

...but if UA (or DL, B6 or AA at JFK/LGA) were to cut flight and consolidate at peak times in order to reduce congestion whats to stop another airline from starting flights using those now vacant slots? It's not as simple a solution as UA cutting flights, its going to take a collaborative effort by all of the airlines serving NYC, the Feds and the port authority coming up with a comprehensive solution at all three NYC area airports....otherwise whats the point?

Quoting N62NA (Reply 18):
Quoting rampbro (Reply 16):
True, but those (and EWR) are important hubs in some of the most important cities in America.

De-hub EWR!

EWR is primarily an O&D hub for UA...believe it or not it serves far less connecting traffic than most people probably realize.

Passedv1 · Sun Jun 02, 2013 6:43 am

I was hopeful that the FAA plan to make the airlines bid for departure times at LGA awhile back would work. I think that would force an up-gauge of a/c which is what is needed.

N62NA · Sun Jun 02, 2013 7:21 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 24):
if UA (or DL, B6 or AA at JFK/LGA) were to cut flight and consolidate at peak times in order to reduce congestion whats to stop another airline from starting flights using those now vacant slots?

Because no airline would (with regards to EWR). DL and AA are almost exclusively using EWR as a spoke airport and it would be highly unlikely they would reverse course.

Quoting United1 (Reply 24):
EWR is primarily an O&D hub for UA...believe it or not it serves far less connecting traffic than most people probably realize.

I've seen data to the contrary. I'm sorry I don't have it handy, it's probably on the Port Authority website somewhere.

corinthians · Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:21 pm

Quoting passedv1 (Reply 25):

I was hopeful that the FAA plan to make the airlines bid for departure times at LGA awhile back would work. I think that would force an up-gauge of a/c which is what is needed.

Courts deemed it illegal and rightly so. The FAA doesn't have the authority to generate revenue (i.e. tax) without Congressional authority. Congress rejected the FAA's request and the FAA tried to move ahead with the plan regardless and were struck down. Furthermore, the airlines view these slots as their property and sued the FAA over the threat to take their property away. That would go into property right issues and what the government has authority to do.

And this wouldn't have made a lick of difference. Only thing I see it doing is increasing fares as you'd still have the same number of slots, but charge more for them and pass them on to the consumer. Not to mention, bigger planes need more spacing to depart and land. More spacing means more delays. Just look at LHR. Big planes because of congestion pricing and worst delays in the world. Has anyone ever not circled around for 20 minutes when landing there?

Quoting United1 (Reply 24):
EWR is primarily an O&D hub for UA...believe it or not it serves far less connecting traffic than most people probably realize.

Actually, according to the Port, 47% of EWR's traffic is connecting.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/MAR2013

[Edited 2013-06-02 13:30:10]

kgaiflyer · Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:31 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 24):

EWR is primarily an O&D hub for UA...believe it or not it serves far less connecting traffic than most people probably realize.

Sure EWR's O&D numbers are large.

However, having sat at various A Concourse gates with compatriots from everywhere from YYT to JAX, and on taxiways behind 10 other E145s, I'd have to say EWR's connection numbers are far from insignificant.

As with other UA hubs, O&D traffic and connection traffic don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Edited 2013-06-02 13:44:32]

Type-Rated · Sun Jun 02, 2013 8:32 pm

But don't most airlines have a few flights that not for any given reason almost always run late?

klwright69 · Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:44 am

This flight from CVG to EWR cancelled last night, Sunday, June 2, living up to its reputation.

RyanairGuru · Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:26 am

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 19):
EWR is arguably one of the most profitable hubs in the country. Profit out weighs delays.

Quoting EricR (Reply 20):
I am really curious to know how profitable it truly is (not yields or average fares, but actual profit).

As far as I'm aware neither Continental nor United have specifically mentioned it, but Scott Kirby of US Airways said that it was the most profitable hub in the nation. Obviously that would be based on US internal guesses rather than actual numbers.

Quoting corinthians (Reply 27):
47% of EWR's traffic is connecting

Which is the lowest of any hub in the system.

mcdu · Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:50 pm

No surprise that the most delayed flight in America is a United Express flight. On zero flow control days with good weather in the entire system UAX will find a way to create delays of their own doing. They certainly don't need UA controlling slot times to create havoc in their schedule. I see it weekly on the west coast with Skywest who just happens to be the same company that has the most delayed flight in America.

The shell game the regionals play with names: Skywest, expressjet ,aka sure jet, aka ASA that all circle back to one entity Skywest, is their way of trying to shield the blame when things go wrong. Go jets and Trans States is another example.

Read in another thread that pinnacle is changing their name! It's ridiculous the sham that is the regional industry.

N62NA · Mon Jun 03, 2013 3:54 pm

Quoting mcdu (Reply 32):
The shell game the regionals play with names: Skywest, expressjet ,aka sure jet, aka ASA that all circle back to one entity Skywest, is their way of trying to shield the blame when things go wrong. Go jets and Trans States is another example.

But to the passengers, it's just "United" or "Delta" or "American" and not the regional (which I think is truly deceptive, but that's a discussion that is for another thread).

747-600X · Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:08 am

Going back to EaglePower83's first reply, having ExpressJet (et al.) operating thousands of these flights does not help. At KORD, it is not uncommon throughout the entire day to have 4 or 5 aircraft on the ground waiting for gates to open up. Some of these are very short flights - SkyWest 5311, MKE-ORD, amazes me. The plane spends what, 20? minutes in the air, and another 10-15 taxiing, and then 30 sitting in the Penalty Box waiting for a gate to open up. There have been plenty of occasions where 6 ExpressJet EMB-145s are lined up in the holding pad waiting for gates to open up. This business of having 14,000 flights a day on tiny planes is remarkable. The airline and the airport would operate much more smoothly with 3 or 4 flights on larger airplanes instead of 9 or 10 on RJs.

Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

RE: Funny Article: Most Delayed Flight In Country

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net