Most delays & cancellation seem to be on sUA aircraft?
Jul 24, 2015, 11:23 pm
#17
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,413
Code:
acft | sub | d0 | d30 | a0 | a14 | a60 | cxl -------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-------- B744 | sUA | 36% | 83% | 56% | 74% | 93% | 0.3% B763 | sUA | 44% | 77% | 52% | 69% | 86% | 3.4% B764 | sCO | 24% | 70% | 52% | 67% | 84% | 3.5% B772 | sCO | 26% | 68% | 51% | 65% | 84% | 4.4% B772 | sUA | 30% | 80% | 49% | 71% | 90% | 2.0% B788 | sCO | 24% | 76% | 45% | 65% | 88% | 2.8% B789 | sCO | 48% | 91% | 76% | 86% | 96% | 1.1%
Anecdotally, it seems the sCO 764s and 772s ex IAD and EWR have been worst, along with the 3-class 763s. Which is what these numbers confirm.
Last edited by Kacee; Jul 24, 2015 at 11:29 pm
Jul 25, 2015, 8:08 am
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
I had very few mechanical delays on CO during the 2000s, and as soon as I started flying UA planes in the early 2010s I noticed a somewhat higher rate of mechanical delays on those aircraft, and posted about it here.
Now it's across the board, as noted in this thread. Hope the company gets this fixed.
Now it's across the board, as noted in this thread. Hope the company gets this fixed.
Jul 25, 2015, 8:08 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,067
My sense is that the difference between sUA and sCO, assuming such difference is statistically significant, is most likely due to the difference in the age of the fleet.
But the difference between, on the one hand, UA-CO combined and, on the other hand, DL, can only be due to management, because DL inherited some older aircraft from NW and somehow they manage to maintain high reliability.
But the difference between, on the one hand, UA-CO combined and, on the other hand, DL, can only be due to management, because DL inherited some older aircraft from NW and somehow they manage to maintain high reliability.
According to airfleets.net, DL's average fleet age is 17.2 years, while UA's average fleet age is 13.6, yet DL performs significantly better than UA. And as noted before, PMUA had better performance than PMCO, despite older planes.
Those of us who fly a lot see how post-merger United bumbles on everyday processes. It's not surprising that despite a newer fleet advantage, they still underperform their competitors. Flying DL or AS feels a lot more like the "ballet" that Jeff Smisek talks about -- you're more likely to go on time, bags are more likely to be loaded when the door is closed. They do a good job with quick turns when things get tight. Agents aren't frazzled with some last-minute reconciliation issue. Delays from another issue (e.g., late inbound, crew, etc.), are known and posted well in advance, etc.
Meanwhile, I watched UA yesterday take a delay turning a plane where the inbound came in 30 minutes early. If they can't get things done in the best of circumstances, it's no wonder they fall on their face when things go south.
Jul 25, 2015, 8:44 am
#21
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
The age of the aircraft can influence reliability, but not to the extent of maintenance. Preventative maintenance, or spending more for better overhauls, can improve reliability, as we've seen in the 747 fleet. There are plans to do the same with the 3-class 767 fleet when it's reconfigured.
http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...rior-overhaul/
http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...rior-overhaul/
Last edited by goalie; Jul 25, 2015 at 9:22 am Reason: trolling comment removed
Jul 25, 2015, 8:48 am
#22
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I don't think overhauling the interior would help those planes and just because there's no memo posted online doesn't mean there's not an effort to improve reliability.
Last edited by goalie; Jul 25, 2015 at 9:22 am Reason: edited quoted post to match edited original post
Jul 25, 2015, 8:50 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,067
That, and the boarding/deplaning times on those can be on the long side. With a large-ish plane with a single aisle, and Door #1 boarding, it can take a while.
Last edited by goalie; Jul 25, 2015 at 9:21 am Reason: trolling
Jul 25, 2015, 9:02 am
#24
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
But its not just the interior. If you look at the numbers the sCO aircraft have more issues. Instead of taking the 763's into "maintainance" program, lets look at getting the 777 and 764 first.
Jul 25, 2015, 9:41 am
#25
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Avoiding or delaying the removal of GF from the 763s is not going to help improve the reliability of other fleets.
Jul 25, 2015, 11:00 am
#26
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: san antonio, texas
Programs: 3.2MM AA, 1.4MM UA,StwdLftPlt
Posts: 1,586
It suggested to me a work action.
Jul 25, 2015, 11:16 am
#27
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
Not all maintenance delays are caused by the same issues. It sounds like the 763 reliability can be improved with overhauls. The 764 and 777 may require different types of preventative maintenance that does not require a major overhaul program.
Avoiding or delaying the removal of GF from the 763s is not going to help improve the reliability of other fleets.
Avoiding or delaying the removal of GF from the 763s is not going to help improve the reliability of other fleets.
It seems like they love throwing everything they fix on the sUA side with a press release/memo.
They should focus on the main problems. sCO 777's, 764's and the ridiculous 739 turn times that are impossible. That will help greatly.
Jul 25, 2015, 1:12 pm
#28
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I'm not sure I understand. They say they are going to do an intense overhaul to improve reliability like the 747. The interior is just part of it not the main issue in the 3 month overhaul. The 777's and 764 need the overhaul more than the 763's.
It seems like they love throwing everything they fix on the sUA side with a press release/memo.
They should focus on the main problems. sCO 777's, 764's and the ridiculous 739 turn times that are impossible. That will help greatly.
It seems like they love throwing everything they fix on the sUA side with a press release/memo.
They should focus on the main problems. sCO 777's, 764's and the ridiculous 739 turn times that are impossible. That will help greatly.
I'minterpreting your view as one of mutual exclusivity. I'm not sure that's the case.
Jul 25, 2015, 1:57 pm
#29
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
I'm not sure I understand. The 763s need heavy maintenance and more reliable interior systems. Not performing this work will not improve OT performance, even if the same work is performed on other aircraft, which may not need this type of maintenance.
I'minterpreting your view as one of mutual exclusivity. I'm not sure that's the case.
I'minterpreting your view as one of mutual exclusivity. I'm not sure that's the case.
Jul 25, 2015, 2:43 pm
#30
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
All I'm saying is they need to get the reliability numbers up for sCO 777's, 764 AND sUA 763's but UA seems to have a fetish of always posting how they fixed those awful 747's and now those 767's are just as bad and the 57's had to be replaced wth 739's ASAP. But they seem to continue to ignore that 777 and 764's are having issues. Those need to have whatever is wrong with them fixed. If its not mechanical then they need to rework the schedule. They also need to solve the 739 delays. They seem to ignore the total picture and just pluck away at sUA aircraft thinking that will fix the issue. Its a bigger picture.
