Qantas Group Lead December 2009 OTP Figures

[Brad Myer]

Interesting...

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/14/Files/BITRE%20OTP%20Report%20December%202009.pdf

On Time Arrivals:

Qantas: 90.2%
QantasLink: 84.9%
Jetstar: 84.5%
Virgin Blue: 84%
Regional Ex: 80.7%
Skywest: 80.3%
Tiger Airways: 76.9%

Cancellations:

QantasLink: 0.6%
Qantas: 0.7%
Tiger Air: 1.7%
Jetstar: 1.9%
Virgin Blue: 2.2%

[Sarah C]

I thought the better figures was the fact QF have the best figures for 9 of the 12 months in 2009.

http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2010/jan10/4008

[Marty H]

VB would have been pulled down alot by the major IT outage in December in MEL and the onflow effects of it several days afterwards.

19 months in 2009:eek::p Sarah what calender are you looking at:confused:

[NickN]

What is the reason for the LCC's having worse OTP by a margin of around 5%?

They are meant to be more strict with policy than QF for example in order to get planes out on time and under budget.

Tiger have quite strict conditions about check in etc yet they are one of the worst. I doubt they are all WX related delays.

[Daniel F]

LCC have a very tight turnaround time. So one delayed flight will delay the entire day's schedule. Whereas with Qantas, their turnaround times are longer so even if one flight is delayed, they can easily catch up.

[D Chan]

generally the case but not always. The most obvious sign is to look for utilisation rates of the 737 fleet as a comparison. Don't forget about aircraft swaps + fleet size as well - should it be required aircraft swaps can take place as well.

[Chris W]

For on time departures;

QF - 89.1
QLink- 87.9
ZL - 86.4
DJ - 83.8
JQ - 83.3
TT - 76.3

And on the cancellation rate, ZL actually had the lowest of all airlines at 0.1% (or 7 cancelled flights from 5,361).

[Daniel F]

I've never understood why on-time departure figures are reported. Does it really matter if the flight leaves on-time... what really matters is whether the flight arrives on time.

I've been on Perth-Sydney red-eye flights where the departure has been delayed to make sure the flight doesn't arrive before the curfew is lifted. The flight still arrived on time.

[Marty H]

Daniel OTP performace is of very high importance to all airlines. Planes at mojar ports such as MEL SYD BNE need aircraft to depart ontime for such reasons as gate allocation for inbound aircraft.

[Daniel F]

But that's something the airlines and airports can deal with themselves. What's the reason for making departure stats publicly available? The public doesn't care... they just care about the arrival.

[D Chan]

\
you are right to an extent, but there's also the factor of weather and air traffic condition (e.g. airspace congestion) at the arrival airport. Yes, at the end the flight will probably arrive late due to the above reasons, but this may be due to issues beyond the airline's control AND this is something which will affect other carriers arriving at the airport at the same time.

Whereas I think ontime departure is important because this is something which airlines have significantly more control over, e.g. turnaround, boarding, catering / cleaning, loading of baggage/ULDs/Freight etc. I tend to think passengers will be more disgruntled if their aircraft was sitting on the ground for half an hour after their scheduled departure time etc. Also if a flight departs late and they have to make up lost time, 1) they burn more fuel doing so going above CI (Cruise Index) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_07/article_05_3.html, 2) they may not catch up for the delay sufficiently, 3) disgruntled passengers, 4) if the schedule is tight e.g. min turnaround time the aircraft may arrive late to destination and the delays may flow on continually and have a flow on effect to the following flights the particular aircraft is patterned to fly (and it may take several flights for the aircraft to catch up to schedule

Why is on-time departure important? Chances are if a flight departs late (>15 min after scheduled departure time), I am willing to bet there is significantly less chance for the aircraft to arrive on time as well. However if the flight departed on time I think there is a greater chance for the flight to arrive on-time, unless of course if there were the need to divert due to weather-related, or the flight gets held up in the traffic pattern if the airspace at the arrival port is extremely busy, or other factors. Adding to this, on-time departure is often seen as the level of reliability of the airline or its fleet, this figure in part includes the number of technical delays per departure (one possible measure of dispatch reliability)

[Daniel F]

1) they burn more fuel doing so going above CI (Cruise Index) http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...icle_05_3.html

That's the airline's problem and they know this already. Publishing departure performance stats is not going to change this, nor does the public care.


if the schedule is tight e.g. min turnaround time the aircraft may arrive late to destination and the delays may flow on continually and have a flow on effect to the following flights the particular aircraft is patterned to fly

Its the arrival of the aircraft that influences this, not the departure of the aircraft.


3) disgruntled passengers

And passengers are more disgruntled if they miss their connecting flight because the plane ARRIVES late, not if they sit on the tarmac for an extra 30 minutes.


Why is on-time departure important? Chances are if a flight departs late (>15 min after scheduled departure time), I am willing to be there is less chance for the aircraft to arrive on time as well.

So its important because it determines whether it will arrive on time? Well... how about just using the arrival stats instead if that's why its important!

If given a choice I would rather fly an airline with a 90% on-time arrival performance and a 80% on-time departure performance than an airline with a 90% on-time departure performance and a 80% on-time arrival performance.

So basically, I have just 1 question... what value does a government department collecting information on on-time departures create? As far as I can see, anyone who might have some sort of use for that information would already have the information themselves anyway. The only people who might find it useful are people tossing up between getting a Qantas Club or a Virgin Lounge membership so that they can pick the airline that has the worse on-time departure performance!

[D Chan]

And passengers are more disgruntled if they miss their connecting flight because the plane ARRIVES late, not if they sit on the tarmac for an extra 30 minutes.

you need to understand the fact that if a flight departs late, there's a very good chance the same flight will also arrive late. And so you ask why don't the industry just report on on-time arrivals instead of both, well ok let's put it this way:

If they only report on on-time arrivals how do people know if the delay was weather-related or air traffic related, or whether it was caused by the airline? I am not saying all late departures are due to airline issues but I am willing to bet it's more to do with the airline than say late arrivals.

The question is if you only publish on-time arrivals stats people will ask why on-time departures are not published.

In some major airports the queue to takeoff could mean an hour's wait to takeoff. In this scenario, let's assume that the flight departed on-time but had to wait on the taxiway for takeoff behind a whole queue of aircraft also waiting for takeoff. The flight arrived late at destination due to this. If this was a consistent pattern, the On-time departure indicator would show that the flight departed on time, but the on-time arrival indicator would show that the flight arrived late. In this situation the flight departed on time, meaning the airline did all it could to ensure an on-time departure, however an external factor caused the flight to arrive late. If we were to only focus on the on-time arrival performance this would mask the fact that the departure was in fact on-time. Sure and you will ask, then why dont we just report on-time arrival? because the on-time departure would indicate to people that the delay wasn't due to the fact the aircraft departed late, it was due to issues outside the airline's control which ultimately affected the ontime arrivals performance.

When I mentioned about the tight turnaround and flow on effects of delays on ground, you wrote:
Its the arrival of the aircraft that influences this, not the departure of the aircraft.
Ok, if the airline was looking for a missing pax and had to offload a bag, and this process (which happens on the ground), takes 20 minutes, and the aircraft doesn't catch up to schedule on arrival, yes, it's the 'late arrival of the aircraft that influences this', but the ultimate cause is the late departure.

And passengers are more disgruntled if they miss their connecting flight because the plane ARRIVES late, not if they sit on the tarmac for an extra 30 minutes.
You're assuming all pax have connecting flights, the reality is that this depends on a lot of variables, such as where you are flying to, where the pax's final destination is, whether the pax's transfer is MCT (min conection time), and whether they have connecting flights at all. Example: you are a business traveller heading to MEL from SYD for an important 8:30am meeting, and the flight is due to arrive at MEL at 8am. If you were sitting on the ground in SYD at 7:00am when the scheduled departure is 6:30am, and you know you will be late for that important meeting, will you be disgruntled? Sure the flight ARRIVES late, but this is due to the late DEPARTURE. Of course not all pax are business travellers and leisure travellers probably won't give a damn either way.


What I dont understand in your logic is that you say that the measure of on-time arrivals is more important (late arrival is an outcome, one which is more outside the airline's control), but failing to recognise that on time departure is equally important, because it 1) drives late arrivals, 2) is a measure of the airline's reliability on ground, 3) is another statistic that is available and is reported, 4) can potentially be compared with on-time arrivals to tell a much bigger part of the 'story', 5) both are industry standards)

I am not saying one is greater than the other. I am saying from a statistical perspective both on time departures and arrivals are equally relevant and important as an industry / airline KPI.

[Daniel F]

If they only report on on-time arrivals how do people know if the delay was weather-related or air traffic related, or whether it was caused by the airline?

How do the current statistics allow someone to assess that? Are you saying that the difference between departure and arrival stats is all due to uncontrollable events?


The question is if you only publish on-time arrivals stats people will ask why on-time departures are not published.

This has been my question all this time... who exactly are these people that care?

Ok, if the airline was looking for a missing pax and had to offload a bag, and this process (which happens on the ground), takes 20 minutes, and the aircraft doesn't catch up to schedule on arrival, yes, it's the 'late arrival of the aircraft that influences this', but the ultimate cause is the late departure.

No, the ultimate cause is because of a missing pax.


You're assuming all pax have connecting flights, the reality is that this depends on a lot of variables, such as where you are flying to, where the pax's final destination is, whether the pax's transfer is MCT (min conection time), and whether they have connecting flights at all. Example: you are a business traveller heading to MEL from SYD for an important 8:30am meeting, and the flight is due to arrive at MEL at 8am. If you were sitting on the ground in SYD at 7:00am when the scheduled departure is 6:30am, and you know you will be late for that important meeting, will you be disgruntled? Sure the flight ARRIVES late, but this is due to the late DEPARTURE. Of course not all pax are business travellers and leisure travellers probably won't give a damn either way.

They are disgruntled because they know they are going to arrive late, not because they know they are departing late. And connecting passengers is just one example, but it also applies to people going to meetings, weddings, dinner, etc... they are disgruntled because they are going to arrive late. And why do you seem to enjoy throwing acronyms like MCT around (and in your previous post about CI). It is totally irrelevant in this discussion. Do you think a passenger sitting on a late departing flight is going to think "oh, its not a problem. My MCT is 60 mins so this flight can be late for another 30 minutes before I need to worry"? Or are the acronyms just to show your superior knowledge of the subject?

[NickN]

Ok so you are both going to disagree, and not see eye-to-eye, call it for what it is and let it go.

[Marty H]

If an aircraft departs ontime it is more than likely going to arrive early or ontime so for the final time it is important the aircraft departs ontime, airlines otherwise wouldnt bother OTP accountable delays and delay codes etc. When an aircraft departs late a reason needs to be found if it arrives late then they go back to the departure delay for the reason it was late.

[Owen H]

A couple of things:

1 - Most passengers know their departure time to the minute... they have no idea of their scheduled arrival time other than a general idea.

2 - As a crewmember, the LAST thing I want is airlines pushing ontime ARRIVAL performance. It places undue pressure on crew to achieve ontime arrivals, and in an ideal world safety wouldn't be affected. We've seen what happens in parts of the world that have an obsession with ontime arrivals... I can't see why we want it here.