I thought I'd post this to see if others are begining to notice that CO is losing focus on its operations particularly when it comes to on-time departure. Also, how they handle themseleves when things go wrong.

Yesterday I travelled from EWR-IAH on CO 63 which left EWR almost exactly two hours late.

The story went like this...

(departure):
- Everyone on-board in time to make the 15:10 departure
- Announcement that there was 'a problem with the air compressor that is used to start the engines on the 767'
- Replacement starter brought in within 30 mins
- Then an announcement '30 international bags just showed up... decided to load them' another 25 mins
- Finally backed away from the gate 1hr late
- Sat on a taxi-way for 1hr waiting for a departure slot
- Took off almost exactly 2 hrs late
- crew did everything they could to make up time in the air

(arrival):
- Announcement 'we'll be coming into gate D5'
- Everyone with connections sighs
- Announcement... 'sorry folks there's a plane at that gate, we've radio'd to get it moved'
- 10 mins later the plane is towed away
- everyone who nearly made their connections now have to run like crazy to C and E since D is totally deserted.

CO used to be better than this... ok, so the air blower was genuine a problem.. but after that, the bags, take-off slot, arrival gate etc were just bad operational exectution.

ufo.

that's an unusual occurance.
But, yes, their numbers stink these days mostly due to EWR.

I haven't seen any lack of focus on operations. Right now, Continental appears to be fixated on the bottom line. I'd be surprised if Continental neglected operations or on-time departures, as these factors can directly affect the bottom line. If you check the latest DOT data, you'll see that Newark hasn't done too well over the past few months. I'd say that some of these problems can probably be attributed to decisions made be Continental, but I wouldn't say it represents a lack of focus on operations.

All those new airplanes CO purchased under Gordon are now getting older. So there will be more mechanicals but hopefully the maintenance will keep up and minimize.

Why is EWR so darn screwed up? I was thinking about flying through their until I saw all the ridiculous delays.

Yes, it is. And one of the paradoxes of being overly fixated on the bottom line is that--in short order--the bottom line suffers.

It's an economic doctrine you might call Kellner's Principle...

Are they still working on the new runways/terminals? That could add, but not be a major source, of EWR. Either that, or it hits the stench from Bayonne that stops planes dead in their tracks...

It is a bit of a balancing act. CO needs to turn its attention to other constituencies to make sure they're happy. So far, based on the numbers the company is producing, I'd say that the carrier is doing a very good job.

I know I'm in a very small minority here, but I definitely think that Kellner is neglecting some basics in order to produce these numbers. My prediction is that the damage being done now will begin to seriously reflect on CO in 24-36 months.

I think it's more than safe to say that something needs to be done about EWR if CO wants to continue international growth. Airspace already is jam-packed on the east coast corridor. The runway configuration only allows one takeoff and landing at a time (instead of two at a time, like larger aiports with parallel runways) and in bad weather, often only one runway is open for both arrivals and departures. In addition, EWR is packed with RJs. If a flight experiences a mechanical as in the OP's case, it can take ages for a landing slot to open. And let's not forget about the numerous ground stops for flights inbound to EWR.

CO needs to relieve some of the pressure on EWR so that the airport will develop a better reputation. If EWR continues to nuture its poor reputation, a danger exists that pax will book away from CO for their international travel in order to avoid the airport. At present, I have colleagues who are of this mindset - they were burned one too many times at EWR and now use other carriers and other airports for their international travel.

In the short term, CO should use the ExpressJet loss to reduce the number of RJs operating into EWR by at least 10% and select a European route that draws sufficient west coast, midwest, and southern o/d traffic to justify creating a CLE nonstop (like AMS or CDG). In the long term, I'm not certain that CO can do much else - EWR seems to be operating at maximum capacity.

There are no new runways planned for EWR - there is no space for them. Ditto for the terminals.

Short of condemning the land on the west side of the airport (basically all US1-9) or sending the Turnpike and its service roads into a tunnel, there is nothing that can be done at EWR to build more runways or alleviate delays except the FAA or PA forcing all airlines to either reduce their flight schedules or spread traffic more evenly.

The problem isn't aircraft age (NW is flying around DC-9s far older than me, and many members of this board! (40 years old), but simply congestion at EWR. CO does a good job at IAH, and an excellent job at CLE (except when inclement weather hits Cleveland)

I respect your opinion, but could you clarify on which 'basics' he is neglecting? From my point of view (aside from natural factors, i.e. weather) Kellner is running about as tight a ship as possible, and CO's product is as consistently strong as I can remember.

Newark is an extremely difficult place to conduct large-scale operations. The runway layout is inefficient, the airspace is nearly maxed out, the weather this summer has been brutal, and the airport is scheduled with more flights than it can realistically handle in perfect conditions. Part of it is Continental's fault, but it is a very profitable shop, so given the challenges associated with it, I think they are doing a serviceable job.

Don't forget the famous Texas summer storms that always seem to muck up IAH at the most inconvenient of times. Throw that into the mix and Continental has an operation that, more so than others, is very much at the mercy of Mother Nature.

Vague predictions over a term of three years are essentially pie-in-the-sky. Sure, you could come back here in 2009 and say, "I told you so" when CO posts a quarterly loss at some point, but neglect to take into account $120/barrel oil (should trends continue) and other difficulties unrelated to Kellner's skill at running an airline. Sure, we all miss the charisma and style of Gordon Bethune, but we also miss the fuel prices and revenue environments of the late 1990s equally as much. I doubt Bethune could do much better than Kellner has in this day and age.

CO 1E,

In all fairness, the separation of EWR's parallel 4/22 runways permits what is known as a 'one-and-a-half' operation. This means while one aircraft is beginning either a departure or arrival phase, the aircraft on the other parallel runway has initiated and is approximately halfway through the opposite phase. In other words, given reasonably good weather conditions and enough traffic where the airport needs to be operating at max efficiency, ideally if a DL MD-88 is on short final for 4R, the CO 777 departing on 4L is already rolling towards V1. In theory, simultaneous operations could be held using the layout, but in the event an aircraft arriving at the same time as another is taking off rejects the landing and goes around, there would be a tremendous risk for a collision, especially if departures are executing noise abatement turns or other procedures in the direction of the arriving traffic. Simultaneous takeoffs or landings on both runways would be illegal due to violation of lateral separation minima.

The ship is tight, but I think it's too tight for CAL's own good in the long term.

Some issues:

1. Staffing cutbacks already implemented or planned that have already and will continue to erode service to the customer (CSR, f/a's, longer hrs. worked by all line emloyees, etc.)

2. Limited investments planned in infrastcture improvements as well as fleet modernization (CAL is planning to buy new planes, but a relatively small number over the next 5 yrs)

3. Management refusal to recognize the paradigm shift that is about to produce a higher-quality product across the industry. This is in areas such as improved IFE and coach cabin comfort. Once this occurs in a significant fashion, CAL will be very behind and catching up will be hard & expensive

4. CAL leaving itself vulnerable to aggressive LCC's on its domestic trunk routes because CAL's fare structure on these routes is very high & comfort of coach cabin sub-standard.

5. Similarly, CAL is vulnerable to competition on int'l markets where competitors can fly bigger more comfortable planes with updated premium & coach cabins.

6. Slow erosion in on-board service which is deteriorating CAL's reputation as a reliable full-service airline

I guess this is what I meant by "one takeoff and landing at at time." I didn't realize that this sort of operation actually is referred to as a one-and-a-half operation.

So, what degree of separation is required to have a truly simultaneous operation? Is SFO 28L/R simultaneous or operated on a one-and-a-half basis, for example?