Originally Posted by
richk_30
When I read the data, it occurred to me that the article might not be accurate as pmUA was leading the way in On Time Performance for about 18 months. It took a bit to go find the historical data.
UA On time Performance
January 2010 = 83.66%
January 2011 = 84.51%
CO On time Performance
January 2010 = 82.34%
January 2011 = 76.52%
UA/CO On time Performance
January 2012 = 82.18%
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ot_delay/OT_DelayCause1.asp?pn=1
Assuming I'm using this site correctly, the above numbers are what show up for the 3 previous January's.
well UA's press release said: "the airline ended the month with an 82.8 percent domestic on-time arrival rate, and an 80.5 percent international on-time rate,
resulting in the best combined domestic and international performance for the month in 10 years. The on-time arrival rates are based on flights arriving within 14 minutes of scheduled arrival time." [my bolding]
I find these figures to be hard to reconcile, unless the figures you have from BTS (part of DOT) are something other than OT arrivals. They say "last 10 years" and "combined" so they would have to be merging the CO and UA numbers, but
Note that running a search here for January 2012:
http://apps.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummar...ryDataDisp.xml Shows that 16.57% of UAs flights were late.
either way that number, or the number you quoted for January 2012 would appear to be more OT than what UA just reported.
I would be curious what the basis for the claim is (and also curious what UA says about its financial performance in January, now that we know that if 20% of your flights are late in arriving by 15 minutes or longer you are running a GREAT AIRLINE!
But then perhaps this is the new business plan. Invent low thresholds and then hype them. For example "GF food recently voted best in blind taste test against a large institution in Joliette!!!" "UAL Recently ranked higher in customer service then the DMV!!!" "Voted best network by CEOs of Illinois based airlines for two years running!"