PR: US Ranks First in On-Time Performance for March

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

I may be placing my head in the Lions mouth-but- would revamping the times be viewed as a more realistic approach to scheduling flights?

A long time ago PSA and AirCal competed on unrealistic schedules that neither one could meet.

They were rebuked by someone (I'm sorry I forget by whom) and had to post times that they could actually met. The competitive edge was pushed back, for both, to a more realistic schedule.

Meeting expectations would seem to be the definition of on time performance.

The paradigm has shifted. As an example- what is announced as as a 2Hr flight is only flight time. There is nothing more disheartening than landing early and announcing it, but neglecting the taxi/parking time(which seems totally ignored).

If there is some padding it makes thing more realistic for all involved.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

As you should be.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

What many of us are concerned about come directly from the lack of trust of the current regime.

I think it does define the issue. If it works for DOT then it works for the majority.

I feel for you but I think this is a good thing.

Should we set unrealistic PHL times and disappoint people every time?

PHL,EWR,JFK pick your poison - as much I feel things are difficult they are not SAN, LAX, or DEN.-its different flying.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Be Careful,

Setting realistic schedules for normal ATC/weather/airport infrastructure limitations is something I personally wouldn't call padding. It's merely setting a realistic schedule considering that those factors are largely out of US' control.

Padding to me is adding time to schedules to hide problems within US' control, which is what Isom has said was done. Doing that is fine as a short-term fix, although it's expensive. Eliminating that pad without affecting on time performance means fixing the underlying US problems and removing the pad as those problems are fixed - which Isom has also said he is charged with doing.

What I've responded to has been two types of comments - the "all airlines do it" and the "who cares". First, all airlines don't necessarily have the need for bandaid fixes to operational problems so don't need to put in extra pad to make up for them. Second, that extra pad is expensive anytime but when oil is 120+ a gallon it's an expense US doesn't need, so someone better care whether the underlying problems get fixed so that the extra pad can be taken out.

Jim

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

As much I respect your opinion the PHL Cluster F*** does not appear to be going away. PHL does appear to be something important. Paddding seems to have a certain amount of reasonable expectations-in the cabin-at least.

 

[dariencc]

Here's some good press. With a nice assist from Piney!



http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airl...ticle503873.ece

 

[SolidCactus]

YAY BOB!

I have to be honest here. I am a very vocal person, and US has really been meeting my expectations for the past few months, and that's all I need to be happy. Last year, and the year before, I could rarely fly US without getting so mad at something that I had to write a letter. I'm a good 30 flights into the year with hardly any problems.

Believe me, when I wrote letters, I had good reasons. I was bumped off a flight (I was platinum) - and I was bumped off because of a computer glitch that overbooked the flight and bumped me. I had a flight change in BOS where the BOS agent didn't give me my connecting boarding pass, and I had agents in PHL trying to charge me $2000 to get home because they said I was "making up" my itinerary, and I never really had the connecting flight in the first place because they couldnt find my reservation in the system... These were just a few of the things...

I really feel that most of these issues are in the past now. The padding is realistic... Things are coming in line. There is hope...