<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jjbiv:
ATA does have a poor on-time record vis-a-vis direct comparison to other reporting airlines. However, the only truly valid comparison is between similar airlines. ATA is a major airline (not a national carrier) and operates into many congested airports and in areas of the country highly subject to weather delays. In other words, if you were to look at the rate of controllable delays and compare that number to a similar airline (can't think of many off the top of my head) you'd get a much more realistic picture.</font>
Okee dokee. I'll give y'all all the information:
For Q1 2003, ATA had a
worse on-time performance than: Airtran, Alaska Airlines, America West, American, American Eagle, Continental, Delta, Expressjet, Jetblue, Northwest, Skywest, Southwest, United and US Airways (14 airlines).
For Q1 2003, it had
better on-time performance than Atlantic Coast and Atlantic Southeast (2 airlines).
For April 2003, ATA had a
worse on-time performance than: Airtran, Alaska Airlines, America West, American, Continental, Delta, Expressjet, Jetblue, Northwest, Skywest, Southwest and United (12 airlines).
For April 2003, it had
better on-time performance than American Eagle, Atlantic Coast, Atlantic Southeast and US Airways (4 airlines).
For May 2003, ATA had a
worse on-time performance than: America West, Alaska Airlines, American, American Eagle, Continental, Delta, Expressjet, Jetblue, Northwest, Skywest, Southwest and United (12 airlines).
For May 2003, it had
better on-time performance than Airtran, Atlantic Coast, Atlantic Southeast and US Airways (4 airlines).
It would require an awesome amount of gullibility to accept the argument that ATA's poor on-time performance is primarily the fault of congested airports and weather delays.