Realistic scheduling?
 

I'm guessing this has to do with "Gate times", but why does AC not under promise and over deliver on some of it's sched times?

AC 111 (YUL-YVR) is on average, 30+ mins late. I cite this just as an example, there are many, many more. Why not just post the arrival time to reflect the usual reality?

Seriously, I'm curious about this.

Same thing for YYC-YYZ - always 10 minutes or so late, never perfectly on-time or early. :confused:

It is due to time dilation as predicted by Einstein's relativistic theory.

When you are scheduled to arrive at let's say 1:40pm, it is with reference to the passenger's clock which is traveling with the plane.

However, because the plane is moving so fast, the stationary ground clock runs faster than your clock. Thus, the observed difference, i.e. you "appear" to be 10 mins late.

The solution is, obviously, to take time dilation into account and adjust the arrival time accordingly.

As a side note, it has been experimentally shown by independent observers that booze might also induce time dilation effect ;)

Einstein also predicted that the dilation effect is only noticeable as you approach the speed of light. The only thing I have ever seen AC do at even half the speed of light is post your charges to your credit card account.

... and setting R=0 at T-8 if I may add

Right. Forgot about that one.

Ahhhh, now I get it ;)

On a more serious note, would anyone from AC care to comment? Really, I am curious and want to know why the obvious, common sense approach isn't being applied on some of these routes. Why set yourself up for missed connections and customer complaints?

Pure speculation on my part, but maybe determining the gate-to-gate time to be published in the schedule isn't just a case of looking at actual experience and taking the average or median. Maybe there's some marketing that gets added in to the mix. And maybe it's a delicate balance between wanting to tell pax they'll get there quickly on the one hand, and boasting on-time performance, on the other.

Having said that, personally I'd think that on-time performance is a much more important competitive advantage than length of flight. If I'm flying YUL-YVR and AC says it will get me there 30 minutes faster than WS, then all other things being equal (which they never are) I would choose AC, but if AC's on-time performance is 50% and WS's is 95%, I might well choose WS, especially if I were connecting at the YVR end.

If any of this holds any water, you'd still need to wonder how many people actually pay attention to the on-time performance number when buying tix.

Bottom line, I'm with the OP. Better to be realistic in the schedule. Especially to avoid cranky pax who miss connections at the arrival end.

One thing I noticed that LH does on my recent 6 flights with them, that AC never does, is respect the boarding time. LH sometimes starts the boarding process even before the posted time, where AC seems to always wait untill the last minute. I believe this is part of the issue. Another, may just be how they schedule ground crew... perhalps they have the same last minute approach to getting the luggage and cargo on board. On a recent YYZ-YOW we where 40 minutes late leaving as the captain informed us multiple times, I still have the main cargo door open. I watched them arrive with the last container at T+30 minutes and put it in. Not sure what billiant tool couldnt wait for the next flight which at that point was only 30 minutes away...

Perhalps if Airports in Canada where more harsh on the dept/arrival slots and finned AC for every late arrival and departure; they would actualy set this issue as a priority and find out what is causing so many delays.

However, with the company bleeding cash like it is, I think they have other concerns ATM; like finding new ways of pissing off its passengers and staff.

perhaps it will be more realistic if they start boarding on time (as per the boarding card), rather than waiting another 10-15 mins after that time to commence boarding.

1 min too late GHT :P

For flights ex FRA this would mean that boarding would start 30-40 mins. earlier than usual...

And that is what they do... our MUC-YUL flight started boarding on time, but the push back was delayed by 30 minutes as they did not start earlier then the time indicated on the boarding cards and we where stuck at one of those stupid Bus Gates; waiting for 3 pax who showed up at the very last minute (boarding wise) but had to wait for the bus.

AC likes to maintain that the flight is on time when the inbound aircraft hasn't arrived by the boarding time. Only at departure time will they admit the flight is late when said aircraft is pulling up to the gate.

The boarding times on the cards I figure are for first time flyers so you are at the gate in time. AC is usally late in boarding and I never understood why and then then the priority boarding formula is a gong show. Some people here call those who wait tee'ed up "Gate Lice" well one needs to do what one has to to enjoy the perks of the program and as one who does not carry all of their luggage on board, I want that overhead bin so my ONE properly sized bag can be placed with my jacket carefully folded ontop.

Many airlines shows the countdown to boarding on the large gate screens and perhaps AC should do this so everyone is on the same page and staff will know when to act! At times it appears that the whole plane are filled with first time flyers including some F/F as they are slow in thinking how to sit down, looking all over the plave for their seat number as these seat numbers are placed in different spots for each flight, and over head bins look confusing and there is no ryme or reason when placing something up there?

My sense: it's completely doable to maintain departure and arrival times.

It's just that AC's above and below wing operations have alot of room for improvement to get OTP better.

http://www.flightstats.com/go/story.do?id=1012 <-- AC at 66% in April, all American carriers 77% or higher.

Amazing to compare AC to other *A Partners...

Gott love their screen - on time - 15 mins later - 30 mins later - 1 hr later - s has hit the ceiling (cancelled)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.448 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

I think that pretty much describes Air Canada's entire business and operational plan - cross their fingers, close their eyes, and "hope" really, really, REALLY hard.

I wonder what the wish for on the airline's birthday.

My 2012 experience on this route:
March 27 AC 134 - on time
April 16 AC 134 - 12 minutes early
May 10 AC 134 - 15 minutes early

5 out of my 6 YYC-YYZ flights in 2011 were also on time.

I actually find AC to be ok with being on time. I haven't experienced many delays recently....Sure, there's the occasional delay for de-icing, or waiting for clearance, but I find them ok usually....That being said, I don't live in YVR or YHZ where fog can cause delays, or in YUL or YYZ where there is REAL traffic ;)

I think for AC, it must be worth it to have a few delays, instead of having longer turnarounds. I can imagine delays cost the airline, but having all their planes spending even 10% more time on the ground on turnarounds, or blocking flight times longer, would cost them waaay more.

I know in YEG the DH3s for jazz have some tight turnarounds....land at, for example, 8.24am, depart at 9am. Even the Airbuses and ERJ's have 40mins sometimes...In more congested airports, like LGA, as soon as the last pax leave the plane, the wheelchairs are already being brought down to load on the first pax for the return.

Last Westjet stats for Feb are 73.2% which is nothing to be proud of either.

*sigh*

Seems like they also do a lot of it to them selves...

I am on AC271, delayed by 1H20; waiting for pax from Televiv... why not put them on AC273.....

Seems sometimes that this airline trys its best to destroy its self....