Originally Posted by
star_world
They have a "low goal" of 80% OT? I presume you either made that up or have access to some other data we haven't seen here. The quote you're thinking of included language that said there are diminishing returns above 80%, which I'm sure you realise isn't the same at all. When did that become their goal?
I saw a quote where Smisek was said to have stated that he thinks there are diminishing returns after 80%. When a CEO says that, what is the signal to the org?
Originally Posted by
PV_Premier
i expect more than 4 out of 5 flights to be on time especially when the definition of on time is already pretty loose, given the schedule padding levels AND the additional 15 minute buffer they get to define a flight as "on time".
anyways i do seem to remember that the fearless leader did tout 80% as a goal at one point or another. spin88 can probably ID the actual conversation or presser.
You raise a key point that they got to 80% in part by increasing scheduled flight times. So, if they are late for a flight that UA used to be able to complete in 4.5 hours with 90% reliability, they just increase duration to 5 hours.
Bingo! Now, we are early!
And they can't even meet that bar.
Originally Posted by
Sulley
I feel like I should chime in on this one - the only 80% number ever mentioned was for monthly on-time bonus awards for employees.
80% was the benchmark for both legacy UAL and legacy CAL. Key word is was.
It's even 80% at DL, or at least it was when I was offered a position with earlier this year.
Again, that sounds like a goal to me.