FlyerTalker70

It's not fair to compare WS' OTP to AC's for a number of reasons:

1. WS has about half the movements of AC - naturally the more movements (and outstations) you have the more difficulty you'll face
2. OTP is less important when you have an extensive route network (and alliance) that can route you out of trouble - no 60 hour delays for this AC passenger
3. WS has fewer variety of aircraft: 737s, 767s and now 787s making repairs easier for them
4. It is easier to turn around a 737 than a 777ER on time (especially when flying INTL)!
5. WS takes off from far fewer regional airports than AC (i.e. YZR or YQG) - regional airports are more likely to be impacted by controllable events like WX.

If anything given the recent deflateGate debacle, I for one wouldn't mind my AC INTL flight being delayed by an hour or more if it means my lie flats won't stay flat!

-James

rankourabu

1. And Delta has 4x the movements of AC and 18% better OTP, so your "naturally more difficulty" theory is ???
2. UA has the same exact alliance as AC, yet 15% better OTP, so your I can be late because I have an alliance theory is see #1 .
3. DL/UA/AA have a more diverse fleet, and yet a much better OTP
4. See #3
5. The chart was for mainline, I had no idea mainline AC flies to Sarnia

FlyerTalker70

They also have more backup aircraft and have hubs in cities which have better operational performance (i.e. ATL, SEA, SLC). Almost every major Canadian airport is ranked at 500 or below in terms of OTP ranking. Perhaps AC could shift one of their hubs to IAH to deal with this issue... oh wait a sec wouldn't that be cabotage?

Again, the hubs UA has are better than the ones AC has (i.e. SFO, DEN, IAH, EWR, ORD). The point I'm trying to make is that even when your travel is impacted by an IRROP, chances are AC will runs service frequently enough and partners with enough airlines that you won't be left stranded. Consider the popular route of LHR->YYZ. AC runs that route 4 times per day and if that wasn't enough they could always dump you on the twice daily BA service from LHR. Meanwhile WS only operates LGW->YYZ once per day and previous experience has shown that they are unwilling to book affected travellers on OAL.

Fair point. Although AC also has ancient aircraft (17 years versus the 10-15 year average range of UA/AA/DL/WS - nothing to be proud about but still!)

I believe the US legacies stratify their aircraft by hubs. For instance, UA would only fly their 747s out of SF before they retired them (similar for DL out of DTW). Hence the ground staff at the respective airports only had to deal with a limited types of aircraft versus a wide variety. Meanwhile, AC doesn't have that luxury and if you go thru YYZ on a typical day it's not unusual to see a mix 767s, 777s, 787s, A330, A320, A319, A321, etc. However, if you look at, say, ORD you'll be lucky if you see anything more than just 737, 777 and 787 on mainline (there may be a couple Airbus aircraft UA bought in error but they are few and fare between and have little impact on OTP).

First, AC does fly to Sarnia. The chart clearly lists AC and under category it says Mainline. It's unclear from that chart whether the term Mainline refers to what we would call Legacy carriers or whether it means Mainline as us on FT know it. Given they also refer to WS as a Budget airline something which they clearly are not if you've ever bothered comparing the fares between WS and AC!

-James

Jagboi

How about British Airways, where the vast majority of it's flight go through LHR, one of the most congested airports in the world that runs at 99.5% capacity in good weather, and it's OTP is 11% better than AC. No matter how you try and spin it, AC's OTP is abysmal.

FlyerTalker70

EU airlines are not relevant for comparison since they have an implicit force that is causing their OTPs to be great, namely the EC261 compensation they must provide when they drop the ball. Perhaps these figures will change once the UK leaves the common market and adopts their own laws (only time will tell there). I would be curious to see if Canada adopted a law similar to EC261, whether the OTP of both WS and AC would improve greatly. My hunch would be yes since the compensation airlines have to pay can be quite steep in addition to the duty of care requirement (i.e. you must provide IRROPd pax food, hotel, etc.)

Another thing that would be interesting to compare would be the aircraft utilization of Canadian versus RoW airlines. Perhaps AC runs their airplanes at 90% capacity resulting in less leeway when the proverbial IRROP hits the fans.

That being said, I'm not a frequent AC traveller. Most of the time I'm flying UA. However, when I did fly domestically a lot in 2016 and 2017 I did find that AC did better than TS or WS at least on domestic OTP.

-James

CZAMFlyer

I would imagine that the ratio of aircraft designated as "backup" are similar, regardless of fleet size. More spare aircraft won't improve IRROPS is there are proportionally more flights affected.

That's crazy that UA bought 185 Airbus aircraft in error (I hope somebody got fired for that) and that none of those aircraft are seen frequently in the airline's single busiest hub airport.

Can you provide and data that EU261 incentives have a meaningful impact on on-time performance figures for any European carrier, or foreign carrier that serves Europe and is also subject to the regulation?

Except at peak holiday periods (and summer season), the load factors are usually much lower - generally in the order of 70-80% in the winter months when weather tends to create more delays.

Uh-oh. Me neither. Perhaps we shouldn't even be on this thread.

Jumper Jack

If the argument is that BA has a better OTP due to EU regulations... Then we need those regulations here in Canada

FlyerTalker70

I believe the Airbus aircraft were brought in those aircraft from the CO acquisition. Also it's my understanding that UA and Boeing share a very close relationship (they were both the same company at one point). Aside from a couple "regional" aircrafts, the bulk of UA's fleet are Boeing.


Absolutely, looking at the OAG report we see the following:






In addition, to the point about BA - they are a one hub airline. You can't compare a one hub airline like, say, BA, to a multi-hub airline like AC with parts, expertise and facilities scattered throughout a large geography. If anything goes mechanical at LHR chances are it will get sorted quick. If something goes mechanical at YYC, YMMV!

Just to clarify when I am referring to load, I'm not referring to passenger load so much as how many hours the darn plane is in the air. What I am claiming is that AC aircraft are in the air longer than say a DL aircraft.

Not really, my lack of flying exclusively with AC shouldn't exclude me from commenting on AC OTP, especially if I have tons of anecdotal evidence from the other Canadian airlines (i.e. the Skunk, WS and TS). If everyone on FT had to exclude them from threads they aren't experts of with the most definitive knowledge these forums would be crawling with tumbleweeds

-James

yytleisure

Seems there’s always an active OTP thread here and it’s pretty much always constant excuses put forth to “explain” why it’s not ACs fault. It’s pretty amusing.

If another airline has more spares available, wouldn’t that mean they planned it that way and spent a little extra to have extra flexibility?

I’m also finding the argument that ORD, EWR, SFO , etc. are less delay prone than Canadian airports a little hard to digest. Does anyone have any time to put in an analysis on the effect of weather delays on AC vs the hubs of other comparable airlines?

On the fleet type argument, I’ll make my own unsubstantiated claim and say AC has it easier routing everything through YYZ centrally. These other fragmented airlines must certainly have a disadvantage.

rankourabu

Yes, those are all less busy, and less weather prone, than YYZ, YUL and YYZ.

FlyerTalker70

My point here is not to defend AC or Canadian airports, neither are world leaders when it comes to OTP. Rather, it is to argue that comparing AC to other Canadian airlines is unreasonable. Sure WS may have slightly better OTP but hit a patch of IRROPs with them and all bets are off as to when you'll arrive at your final destination. When you hit IRROPs with AC chances are they'll find a way to get you back in a reasonable timeline. Case in point a relative flown the skunk a couple of months ago and for their return, the Skunk cancelled their return flight at the 11th hour (literally and figuratively). The next available flight was in 2 days meaning they would have to miss work. Ended up finding them an award ticket on AC using my UA points and got them back to their destination with minimal delay. Similarly, my parents were flying YZR to BCN on AC. Their YZR > YYZ went mechanical but AC called them and immediately booked them on a flight out of YXU. Minimal inconvenience for my parents since YZR and YXU are about the same distance from where they live. If this were WS or the Skunk who knows what would've happened!

To reiterate Canadian airports and airlines all stink. As much as AC likes to beat their chests and proclaim they're an international airline and the only airline with a 4 Star rating from StarTraxx in North America, the reality is quite different! Much improvement to be made in this category!

If another airline has more spares available, wouldn’t that mean they planned it that way and spent a little extra to have extra flexibility?

It's my understanding that weather has no impact on OTP as measured by the industry. OTP only deals with things that are within the airline's control (which for normal passengers excludes weather ). It is true that some cities do have friendlier weather for flying, although given the effects of climate change those advantages will likely erode over time. That's to say nothing of the costs associated to airlines and airport authorities to change their hubs! To answer your question on how delay prone the US airports are, per OAG:

• SLC : 86.01%
• MSP : 85.72%
• DTW : 83.30%
• PHX : 83.22%
• IAH : 82.43%
• ATL : 82.38%
• DEN : 82.24%
• DFW : 81.36%
• IAD : 81.79%
• SEA : 80.35%
• ORD : 79.85%
• LAX : 74.66%
• JFK : 73.37%
• SFO : 72.05%

Nowhere are Canadian airports found on any of the top lists for OTP for any category. That should speak volumes of the wonderful operations at YYZ, YUL, and YVR. Your tax dollars at work

But that's not the case with AC. At a minimum I would say YVR and YYZ are their central hubs. Others on the forum have argued that YUL and YYC should be considered in contention as a central hub for AC.

FlyerTalker70

Again, depending on how it's reported OTP may or may not be impacted by weather ( I suspect it's not for obvious reasons). In addition, on the surface there doesn't appear to be a correlation between how busy an airport is versus OTP. In fact it may very well be the opposite - per the OAG report LHR has an OTP at 74.8% yet they are notorious for running at or above capacity! If anything an argument could be made that the airport authority at LHR is more competent than the ones North of the 49th - not only can they run an airport at full capacity but they can also achieve OTP numbers that are amongst the best in their category!

-James

Symmetre

Dang ... beat me to it! Well said, and couldn't agree more.

DL has major hubs in Minneapolis and Detroit. Those cities regularly get the same or worse weather than YYZ and YVR. Yet DL manages a vastly better OPT. Same for UA, with hubs in EWR and ORD, two of the worst airports in the world for delays. The "the other guys have hubs in better climates" argument just doesn't hold up James, sorry. If hubs matter, then please explain why Siberian Airlines has such a vastly better OTP than AC with its hubs located in Moscow and Novosibirsk.

Agree 100% ... AC's OTP remains brutal. There is simply no justification for such consistently shoddy performance - especially from an airline that consistently charges higher fares than its competitors and considers itself among the world's best.

AC's OTP is consistently substandard, and has been for years. There are never any shortages of excuses. Yet there are never any actual improvements in OTP. Sad.

rankourabu

Has it been like this for years? I mean ~70% in the winter perhaps excusable, but seems like they are now in the last couple years barely pulling 65% in the summer, and winter hovers around 50%. Has it really always been this bad? How do people keep flying this airline (especially for work) - if it's only half reliable?

CZAMFlyer

I'm not sure where the 'single-hub' comparison was made, but we're not comparing nor making excuses for the number of hubs an airline operates. We're comparing on-time performance.

That may be true (I don't know), but the percentage of a day that an AC aircraft is in flight, making money, is much much less than the 90% figure you mentioned. 14-hour average daily utilization, or 60%, would be more expected.

Climate change does not equate to friendlier, warmer weather. The long-term results which we are already seeing include more frequent, volatile and disruptive weather events - the types of storms, rain & snowfalls that will negatively impact airline operations.

I was being facetious, and shouldn't have been. I completely agree with your comment.

But what is the Skunk???