Originally Posted by tracon

AC may have one of the worst OTP rates, but how does their completion rate compare?
The Americans have the tarmac rule to contend with. This results in a higher cancellation rate.
Especially for flights that will experience severe delays.
It's all fine to say that American hubs have a better OTP,
but hundreds of regional flights are cancelled to make the mother ship look good.

Originally Posted by Jumper Jack

Well lets see cancellation for Jan 2018
DL: 2.9%
UA: 3.0%
AA: 3.6%

AC: 6.8%

There is literally no way to spin this, last two months have been completely dumpster fire

Originally Posted by quantumofforce

I love the prompt reply in only four minutes! Well done .

Originally Posted by vernonc

Jumper Jack has done his homework. Probably an incentive based on his recent experiences with his AC flights.

Originally Posted by Jumper Jack

Decided that I had enough of AC's bull after fuming in rogue Y for nealy 90 mins before we even took off lol

Originally Posted by Jumper Jack

For the month of January of 2018, only 52.1% of flights by AC actually arrived on time.
On the plus side, AC actually beat Sunwing and Air Inuit, so its not a complete poop show... yet?
In fact, no other major carriers even come to close to the absolute awful record AC has manages to top.
I don't even want to post UA/DL/AA figures because it would look made AC look comically worse than it already manage to poop the bed.

Comparison to West Jet : 63.1%
Comparison to Jet Blue: ~66%
Even Porter managed to reach 55%
All three airlines above essentially hubs in cold areas similar to AC.
DL: 80.4%
UA: 78.7%
AA: 78.1%


For the month of December 2017, only 51.9% of flights by AC actually arrived on time.
Comparison to West Jet : 58.8%
Comparison to Jet Blue: ~73.5%
DL: 80.2%
UA: 80%
AA: 78.7%


For detail info
Jan Report: https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Monthly_OT...f-4c7fb7c05ca2
Dec Report: https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Monthly_OT...6-d74285bc8b5c

Yo AC execs, I know some of you guys read this, so maybe get your act together because that four star logo is almost a satire at this point?

On the other hand I am thrilled to find out if AC manage to take the crown next month.

Originally Posted by 346fetish

1. Why are you even comparing DL to AC? Delta's main hub is ATL which has seen 6 snow days between 2012 and 2016. Between 1981 and 2010, YUL has seen an average of 60 snow days per year. De-icing immensely affects your OTP, even in different types of snowfalls (wings and stab type 1 vs full body treatment type 1 + 4). I've also recently noticed a change in procedures for A320 family type at Air Canada where mechanics inspect the CFM56 blades and intake on the pad during heavy snow fall.

2. I also don't believe it's justifiable to compare PD or even WS with Air Canada. I've seen focus flights being pushed to their departure time limit in order for passengers to connect. Point to point and hub & spoke networks are two different animals.

3. Yes some airlines such as Delta and Ryanair allow more buffer in order to have better OTP, there's certainly a reason why AC isn't opting for that. Even though I wish I knew, I don't have an answer for that.

Originally Posted by Symmetre

That's an excuse the AC apologists have floated out there for years, but it's simply not valid. Westjet flies pretty much exactly the same routes as AC does, and in exactly the same weather, yet it has consistently posted a significantly better OPT. Not just recently, but for years.

Delta has major hubs in MSP, JFK and DTW - airports subjected to weather that's on par or worse than anything AC's hubs in YYZ and YUL face. And the volume of flights they run out of these airports would easily exceed the number of flights AC operates out of eastern Canada. Yet their OPT is consistently better than AC's, and by a significant level. Ditto for AA, with its hubs in JFK, LGA, PHL and ORD, which on its own is easily among the most weather-delayed airports in the world. In spite of exposure to similar weather, and operating more flights, AA manages an OTP that is so much better than AC's that the difference is laughable.

Man alive, even UA beat AC in OTP, and in spite of also operating its main hub in ORD - along with EWR (another of the worst for delays), plus DEN and IAD - all airports that face their share of winter weather.

The argument that AC can't get a plane to arrive on time because of cold weather just doesn't hold up. The problem lies in a toxic company culture, starting from the corner office.

Originally Posted by 346fetish

3. Yes some airlines such as Delta and Ryanair allow more buffer in order to have better OTP, there's certainly a reason why AC isn't opting for that. Even though I wish I knew, I don't have an answer for that.

Originally Posted by rankourabu

lol, yes, AC doesnt pad schedules as much as their competitors, another laughable excuse, right up there with the weather.
Here are 4 routes - EWR, DTW, MIA and LHR - where AC pads their schedules just as much as competitors, I ll be happy to provide more.

Originally Posted by 346fetish

Cool. I'd be curious to see if AC pads more than their competitors, let's say on 10 routes with similar aircraft types?

Originally Posted by Stranger

Surprised the issue of carry ons has not been mentioned. Seems to me this has a significant effect on the time it takes to boarding. Especially on Rouge fights.

I am actually surprised the new Y- fares still allow carry ons.

Originally Posted by Repooc17

Just completed my first connecting flights on AC, and in all, it worked out well. No delays to speak of, despite multiple connections from LGA to HKG via YYZ (and onward connections on CX to SE Asia). Most connection time were well under 2 hours (less if counting scheduled arrival to departure door closing time).

Your experience may vary, of course...

Originally Posted by rankourabu

Congrats on being on the 52% of AC flights that arrive on time
Statistics say your return will be like the other 48% of AC flights will not be on time