DL Rated #2 Most Likely to Get You Home on Time For Thanksgiving or Christmas
Nov 8, 2017, 7:03 pm
#31
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: MSP & MCO
Programs: DL PM & NRSA, AA Gold, ANA Plat, Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold, National EC Exec, GE, CLEAR
Posts: 1,225
Totally OT, but really? God, I took that route like six times over the summer. Bummer we didn't bump into each other
Nov 8, 2017, 7:17 pm
#32
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando, FL Area
Programs: Delta SkySponge ExtraAbsorbent, SPG Gold
Posts: 29,988
Yeah I fly it pretty frequently. On my flight into DAB a couple of weeks ago it was really cool. Both pilots were female. I've only had that happen once before.
Nov 9, 2017, 9:59 am
#34
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,394
Aggregate totals based on old data (one year is too old) and limited sample size are a poor way to decide what flight to take. What really matters is the specific route/carrier combination based on recent ontime performance. And that's just for a nonstop. If connecting that throws another mathematical and weather wrench into the equation. Articles like these are ultimately misleading to consumers.
That check against is clearly not strong enough to reduce padding block times. Clearly most, if not all, airlines are voting in favor of padding block times. And it makes sense economically. A few more minutes of crew cost is a lot less than a planeload of IRROPS and the loss of marketing power with lower ontime rates.
It depends on the route, but in general DL seems to be the worst offender at padding block times. Your ATL-DEN example is skewed by UA's longest block times being flown by slower E175s. That's a normal variation. What isn't is routes such as ORD-SEA, as DL adds more time over both AA and UA with equally quick aircraft.
Aircraft utilization isn't much of an issue aside from point-to-point LCCs. DL in particular leaves healthy sit times at hub and outstations before the next flight.
I'd rather be able to pick a carrier based on their true performance, not rigged statistics.
Getting in early and waiting for a gate or arriving 14 minutes late during a tight connection isn't helpful either.
That's why I'm a big proponent of the DOT adding a departure-based time into the equation.
Padded times are generally taken into account for gate purposes. If they have to wait, it's a minor inconvenience that's easy to sell to waiting passengers.
That check against is clearly not strong enough to reduce padding block times. Clearly most, if not all, airlines are voting in favor of padding block times. And it makes sense economically. A few more minutes of crew cost is a lot less than a planeload of IRROPS and the loss of marketing power with lower ontime rates.
It depends on the route, but in general DL seems to be the worst offender at padding block times. Your ATL-DEN example is skewed by UA's longest block times being flown by slower E175s. That's a normal variation. What isn't is routes such as ORD-SEA, as DL adds more time over both AA and UA with equally quick aircraft.
Aircraft utilization isn't much of an issue aside from point-to-point LCCs. DL in particular leaves healthy sit times at hub and outstations before the next flight.
I'd rather be able to pick a carrier based on their true performance, not rigged statistics.
Getting in early and waiting for a gate or arriving 14 minutes late during a tight connection isn't helpful either.
That's why I'm a big proponent of the DOT adding a departure-based time into the equation.
Padded times are generally taken into account for gate purposes. If they have to wait, it's a minor inconvenience that's easy to sell to waiting passengers.
One CAN get from JFO to SFO in ~6 hours if the plane gets to push right out, quick taxi to the runway with no waiting, cleared to land on a direct path with a gate available with a quick taxi. But then add 8 minutes for the guy who refuses to check his carry on without looking in every single bin. Add 35 minutes for being 30th in line for take off, add 20 minutes for ATC having you circle SFO, add another 10 minutes to vector to the proper runway, add 10 more minutes for having to taxi to a gate that's not particularly close to the runway. Add 5 for waiting for some other airlines 777 to clear the taxiway. That's 68 minutes before we get to weather, or some other runway incursion. And that's by far not as bad as it can get at JFK or SFO.
So I think it's a good thing that they take the customer friendly approach of being realistic about the time it takes. It makes for a far better experience. Less running through airports, fewer miss-connects, and generally a less stressful experience.
I do think Delta pads more than AA though. A quick a look at my frequent route JFK-SFO: in the Dec outbound Delta's blocks average 7hrs 02 minutes while AA's blocks average 6hrs 47 mins. Additionally, AA only operates A321s on this route, albeit with a light load. The average cruise speed of the A321s is 15 mph slower than the average cruise speed of 767s and 757s.
DL's T-Con 767's have 208 seats
DL's T-Con 757's have 168 seats
The extra time DL blocks for the flight could be to account for the additional time it takes to load/unload much higher passenger counts.
Nov 9, 2017, 11:33 am
#35
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,228
You can't compare two different measures as if they are the same. On-time performance depends on a threshold that is set differently by each airline. Of course one airline will have better on-time statistics, if they always set more time for the same trip. It's like comparing apples and oranges but more subtle.
Now, if you want to create your own ontime metrics based on non-like products, go ahead, but the accepted standard is the DOT rules.
Nov 9, 2017, 11:42 am
#36
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,228
I do think Delta pads more than AA though. A quick a look at my frequent route JFK-SFO: in the Dec outbound Delta's blocks average 7hrs 02 minutes while AA's blocks average 6hrs 47 mins. Additionally, AA only operates A321s on this route, albeit with a light load. The average cruise speed of the A321s is 15 mph slower than the average cruise speed of 767s and 757s.
Today:
AA1574 ATL-ORD 2:15
DL2102 ATL-ORD 1:58
Anecdotal evidence is fantastic!
Nov 10, 2017, 1:12 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bye Delta
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 16,291
Nov 10, 2017, 7:44 am
#38
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,228
Nov 10, 2017, 7:47 am
#39
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Absolutely false. There are clearly published rules. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/234.4
No it isn't, which is why the DOT created rules. Just like any other service provider, airlines are judged by how they deliver compared to what was promised.
Now, if you want to create your own ontime metrics based on non-like products, go ahead, but the accepted standard is the DOT rules.
No it isn't, which is why the DOT created rules. Just like any other service provider, airlines are judged by how they deliver compared to what was promised.
Now, if you want to create your own ontime metrics based on non-like products, go ahead, but the accepted standard is the DOT rules.
Nov 10, 2017, 8:14 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bye Delta
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 16,291
Nov 10, 2017, 8:26 am
#41
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: RDU
Programs: DL DM+(segs)/MM, UA Ag, Hilton DM, Marriott Ti (life Pt), TSA Opt-out Platinum
Posts: 3,228
Nov 10, 2017, 8:32 am
#42
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
What they are changing is any EDV flight operating as Delta connection (all of them) will be counted against DAL. Which will mean a drop in performance numbers but make the figures more meaningful and comparable as SWA, JBU, etc cannot cancel someone else's flight to make sure one of theirs isn't impacted.
Nov 10, 2017, 9:37 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bye Delta
Programs: AA EXP, HH Diamond, IHG Plat, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Plat, Nat'l Exec Elite, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 16,291
Nov 10, 2017, 11:19 am
#44
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,079
If you guys are really interested in a deep dive into the data and statistical analysis of this topic, this paper does an amazing analysis. The conclusion is that there is padding, with improved on schedule arrivals, but it discusses the potential benefits and detriments of this. It also breaks down and controls for the many different reasons that departure time to gate arrival times have increased, including flight time, tarmac time, congestion, etc.
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...065017&EXT=pdf
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...065017&EXT=pdf
Nov 10, 2017, 1:24 pm
#45
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
How is it a rigged stat? It's the airline being realistic about the actual time it takes to get from A to B when there are so many things beyond DL's control that can effect the timing.
One CAN get from JFO to SFO in ~6 hours if the plane gets to push right out, quick taxi to the runway with no waiting, cleared to land on a direct path with a gate available with a quick taxi. But then add 8 minutes for the guy who refuses to check his carry on without looking in every single bin. Add 35 minutes for being 30th in line for take off, add 20 minutes for ATC having you circle SFO, add another 10 minutes to vector to the proper runway, add 10 more minutes for having to taxi to a gate that's not particularly close to the runway. Add 5 for waiting for some other airlines 777 to clear the taxiway. That's 68 minutes before we get to weather, or some other runway incursion. And that's by far not as bad as it can get at JFK or SFO.
So I think it's a good thing that they take the customer friendly approach of being realistic about the time it takes. It makes for a far better experience. Less running through airports, fewer miss-connects, and generally a less stressful experience.
One CAN get from JFO to SFO in ~6 hours if the plane gets to push right out, quick taxi to the runway with no waiting, cleared to land on a direct path with a gate available with a quick taxi. But then add 8 minutes for the guy who refuses to check his carry on without looking in every single bin. Add 35 minutes for being 30th in line for take off, add 20 minutes for ATC having you circle SFO, add another 10 minutes to vector to the proper runway, add 10 more minutes for having to taxi to a gate that's not particularly close to the runway. Add 5 for waiting for some other airlines 777 to clear the taxiway. That's 68 minutes before we get to weather, or some other runway incursion. And that's by far not as bad as it can get at JFK or SFO.
So I think it's a good thing that they take the customer friendly approach of being realistic about the time it takes. It makes for a far better experience. Less running through airports, fewer miss-connects, and generally a less stressful experience.
Block times are from gate-to-gate. So above-wing issues such as loading and unloading an airplane should not come into play (unless you have sloppy operations).
The problem to consumers isn't necessarily when you're on the airplane. It's also when you make a purchasing decision based on it.
If you guys are really interested in a deep dive into the data and statistical analysis of this topic, this paper does an amazing analysis. The conclusion is that there is padding, with improved on schedule arrivals, but it discusses the potential benefits and detriments of this. It also breaks down and controls for the many different reasons that departure time to gate arrival times have increased, including flight time, tarmac time, congestion, etc.