MIflyer12 wrote:

b6bos143 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Those metrics are for one month. A good weather month. A low traffic month.

Post the stats at JFK and BOS for the year. Then we will have a real discussion.

At JFK, for the period 10/2016 - 11/2017:

B6 - 71.15 % on time; 3.06% cancel
AA - 74.51% on time; 1.78% cancel
DL - 78.29% on time; 1.07% cancel

At BOS, for the same period:

B6 - 73.13% on time; 2.06% cancel
AA - 77.11% on time; 2.39% cancel
DL - 79.03% on time; 1.00% cancel

Thank you. Six or seven points of on-time performance is a big deal. Last in a 3-way race is a big deal. B6 management shouldn't be looking for rationalizations (but they have other hubs!); they should be driving improvements.

You are comparing apples to oranges if the AA and DL stats do not include regionals.

Again, if B6 operation was so much worse than AA and DL, then they would be loosing out on important clients, which do not seem to be the case.

MIflyer12 wrote:

You're right to call attention to Delta mainline stats vs. what they call 'Delta brand' stats which include Delta Connection. You might want to normalize for total number of flights, and to focus on JFK cancellations vs. total cancellations. Delta Connection didn't cancel 480 flights at JFK yesterday.

You're on shakier ground to assert that Delta outsources 'much of it's (sic) domestic flying.' It was 15.5% of domestic RPMs in 2017, down from 2016.

You're right that Delta Connection didn't cancel 480 flights at JFK. On the other hand, Delta didn't cancel 6 flights at JFK and Jet Blue didn't cancel 119 flights at JFK, either. All of those numbers are systemwide daily totals.

As far as RPM's that's not a measure that reflects the customer experience. If I fly ROC-JFK on Endeavor to connect to JFK-LAX on Delta my personal RPM's for that trip are probably 10% Delta Connection and 90% Delta. But if the Endeavor flight is cancelled am I only 10% affected?

The route you just pointed out is B6s downfall. ROC-JFK-LAX. If JFK goes down, hello, ROC-DTW-LAX.

With B6, it becomes, I will see you in 4 days. They simply cant compete because of their hub setup. This leads them to push the issue, which extends the irregular operations for many days and gives people (pax and employees) miserable experiences

IPFreely wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I am not sure if delta numbers there includes regional operation.

As for cancellations, that's bound to happen with how much of their flights are toward Florida and Puerto Rico. Much larger than delta.

Again, it clearly hasn't been bad enough that people have made the switch. The opposite is happening.

The Delta numbers do not include their regional operation. As posted above, look at yesterday when the northeast -- particularly JFK -- had weather issues:
Delta cancelled 6 flights.
JetBlue cancelled 119 flights.
Delta Connection carriers (combined) cancelled 480 flights.
Delta's regional operation is as bad as it gets.

This type of breakdown of how statistics are reported really bothers me. It's meaningless for the main group that the statistics actually matters to - the passengers. Of course, we as airline enthusiasts know (and figure it out if we don't) that Delta's or AA's or United's numbers don't include regionals, but if you're taking a trip with a DL/AA/UA itinerary, and connecting at JFK (or EWR for UA), chances are you are going to get on a regional flight. And all of a sudden, the "least cancellations in New York" or whatever means squat when your regional flight has been cancelled to make mainline numbers look good. The problem is, it misleads average Joe into making decisions. It may be legal, but in my book, it sure isn't ethical. And of course, airlines without regionals get shafted.

To me, those numbers actually make jetBlue's operations at JFK look impressive. DL and B6 are about equal in terms of annual passengers carried at JFK, and the fact that one manages to cancel 120-odd flight and another 480-odd flights speaks volumes on which one is actually better run. And yes, of course I'm including regional operation numbers, because, why wouldn't you?

jfklganyc wrote:

The route you just pointed out is B6s downfall. ROC-JFK-LAX. If JFK goes down, hello, ROC-DTW-LAX.

If you say so. But the whole RJ full of passengers flying ROC-DTW might not be happy to give up their seats to the whole RJ full of passengers people whose ROC-JFK flight just got cancelled. During Delta's three 2017 meltdowns hardly any passengers were accommodated by re-routing. For the route in question I'd take my chances on B6 getting me to LAX faster with ground transport to BUF vs. waiting for Endeavor Airlines to do anything.

klm617 wrote:

Just another survey bought and paid for by cooperate dollars. These things are nothing more than fluff and told from the perspective of the agenda they are trying to further.

*Corporate*

Isn't the worst one should be AA more than B6?