Originally Posted by
cmd320
The data is right there in the BTS website. In general, on time arrivals for US network carriers is in the upper 70% to right around 80% range. To me, that's a pretty poor number when it comes to reliability. No only that, but only at 15 minutes past schedule does a flight actually become delayed by the US definition so there are plenty more flights that actually operate behind schedule that aren't taken into account, plus there's also the ridiculous amount of schedule padding some airlines (Delta particularly) use on top of that.
First of all, A14 is a pretty universal reference for on-time arrivals used by pretty much every global reporting agency. Second, data without a reference point is absolutely useless. US airlines are/were pre-COVID absolutely comparable to international airlines. Here's the
2019 Cirium Report
The US is filled with congested airports and jammed up airways, partly due to the way airlines schedule their flights, so that really doesn't take them off the hook all that much, and unpredictable weather exists worldwide.
It doesn't change the fact that not all regions have equal congestion. APAC and LATAM for example still have less congested airports on average. I understand banked hubs can drive delays, but for the most part congested airports are an exogenous factor for airlines - especially given that all of the most congested airports in the US are not mega hubs for single airlines (possibly excepting EWR, but that still suffers from NYC airspace congestion spillover). Similarly, not all regions have similarly unpredictable weather (although some regions are even worse than the US as well).
Personally, the whole 'we don't cancel flights' song Delta used to sing was a bit of a red herring. As you mention, rather than canceling a flight they'd just delay it 12-24 hours which is essentially the same thing from the customer's perspective. In most cases there will be multiple other flights in that interim time. No, pre-COVID I could see an argue being made for Delta being more reliable than AA and UA, especially during AA's particularly terrible operational year. Now however, Delta stands out as having more operational meltdowns than most.
You're joking right? There is a reason why Delta doesn't like to cancel flights: it is the single biggest killer of NPS based on their data. A 12 hour or even 20 hour delayed flight is better than a cancel. Why? Because unless you are a top-status member, you're now fighting with 150 other passengers to fill the few other available options to get home. Maybe a quick-fingered Diamond does well on cancellations given that VIPR will rebook you with priority, but for a typical flyer during heavy IRROPS, it means long hold times and/or auto-rebooking on either crazy multi-leg itineraries or a flight multiple days in the future. At best you get home at about the same time - and now with the stress of multiple legs and with a crappier seat than before.
And, regardless of whether you believe it makes a difference, Delta's 99.8% completion factor is a global leader. In 2019, only Emirates - a single hub (which has great weather) airline that flies exclusively widebodies on international flights (which always get priority during WX because of high capacity, better crosswind tolerance, and the fact that for inbound WX they are already in the air before flow control hits) had a similar completion factor.
I agree that Delta may have lost their edge. It is too early to see how they "recover". They are still running lean and prioritizing operating expense over reliability. As things recover, we will have to see if they are able to (or even want to) pivot back to "operational reliability first". And even if they do choose to pivot back, have they lost too much talent that made them operationally effective in the past?