International Meltdown...Is US ready for China?

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

My intent was not to cast aspersions on the the many informed posters on this board. I did sense flame bait from the original poster. My apologies to any I may have inadvertently offended.

 

[sharktooth]

Thank you for carrying my thread off topic, but I feel the need to respond... Your racist insinuations are neither welcome nor are they appreciated

The key to my medical kit is that everything in it is FDA-approved and sold in the United States, which makes me a whole lot more comfortable using it than if I'm buying a product that I can't read the label and can't speak the language of the local population.

When I cut myself, for example, I like to have bandages, peroxide, topical antibiotic, etc. available RIGHT NOW and from a country I trust and know to have safe medical supplies. It's not about an inherent distrust of the country I'm visiting, but about my personal safety and my comfort zone.

When I need pain medication, I want to know I'm buying decent, US-grade Analgesics. It's about my personal safety. As with anything I'm putting into my body or on an open wound, I want US-grade material and there is NO GUARANTEE I can get that in any country outside the US.

And, for the record, NO, I do not trust anything I buy in China to be legitimate and safe, particularly medicine and the like. China is a place you go to buy low-grade knock-off merchandise and medication is no exception. No one can guarantee my personal safety but myself in that situation and I carry a medical bag.

That doesn't make me a racist or anti-China. It makes me a very precautious person.

Uh, cautious person.

Other than that, you are exactly correct sir, on every point. This airline is the lowest of the low. Protect yourself as if you were transiting 13th century Europe. The head whack-job dictates policy, only because the employee groups will not take the drunk to task. I mean, the west employees never asked the big questions, it will take a while for the east group to finally corner the bastard.

Until the no-loads get shoved out the door, I ask that you take medications in your carry-on bag when flying US. Any non-US carrier is a lot more reasonable about fantasies about liquids.

This airline needs a safety stand-down at least.

 

[Itestwell]

Don't worry bryan. I have to deal with this all the time it seems. You see me post and you be sure a post from a certain someone with all the brains :blink: will soon follow. It's not a fun read really just simply skip past it and move on.

You're right. I'll just pop another pill and head back to my corner. Everything will be alright, right? :huh:

 

[Travelpro72]

See....told ya. Don't you have a trip? Do you work EVER? My goodness you have taken such a liking to my posts. I'm flattered. Hey, if they are not responding to you your not hot.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Back on the topic of international meltdowns.....

Flightstats.com's 2 month moving average history now covers the period June 1 thru July 31. For that 2 month period, US' TA ops recorded a whopping 45.89% O/T performance with an average delay of 60.5 minutes. Eastbound flights performed worse (surprise) with an O/T rate of 33.5% and average delay of 53.2 minutes, while westbound flights came in at 50.5% and a 47.8 minute average delay.

Worst O/T performers? PHL-LGW and PHL-GLA with O/T rates of 16 & 17% respectively, and average.

Best O/T performers? FRA-PHL (flt #701) and FRA-CLT, both achieving an 80% O/T rate.

Greatest average delay? PHL-BCN at 103 minutes average delay.

Lowest average delay? FRA-PHL (flt #701) at 17 minutes average delay.

Jim

 

[Dog Wonder]

Transatlantic is a high revenue product.

Too bad it is being run into the ground by the newbies with no idea how to do it right.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Boeingboy posted the following from flightstats.com over on the ffocus forum:

Here are the TA stats for June 1 - July 31 from flightstats.com if you want to add them......

PHL-SNN 41% (81)
SNN-PHL 70% (72)
PHL-DUB 37% (61)
DUB-PHL 53% (62)
PHL-GLA 17% (79)
GLA-PHL 48% (64)
PHL-MAN 29% (79)
MAN-PHL 40% (88)
PHL-LGW 16% (86)
LGW-PHL 54% (52)
PHL-LIS 36% (53)
LIS-PHL 39% (46)
PHL-MAD 72% (21)
MAD-PHL 59% (23)
PHL-BCN 40% (103)
BCN-PHL 40% (78)
PHL-AMS 39% (55)
AMS-PHL 70% (37)
PHL-BRU 34% (86)
BRU-PHL 40% (82)
PHL-CDG 42% (48)
CDG-PHL 68% (35)
PHL-FRA 36% (56) FLT 700
PHL-FRA 22% (91) FLT 702
FRA-PHL 80% (17) FLT 701
FRA-PHL 49% (77) FLT 703
PHL-MUC 20% (66)
MUC-PHL 40% (80)
PHL-ZRH 25% (45)
ZRH-PHL 50% (86)
PHL-MXP 39% (53)
MXP-PHL 73% (32)
PHL-VCE 36% (62)
VCE-PHL 54% (56)
PHL-FCO 37% (54)
FCO-PHL 47% (47)
PHL-ARN 31% (67)
ARN-PHL 62% (92)
PHL-ATH 55% (80)
ATH-PHL 40% (81)
CLT-LGW 56% (30)
LGW-CLT 73% (37)
CLT-FRA 30% (45)
FRA-CLT 80% (19)

As I stated in another posting: there are a great many things from the CCY/Dave Seigel era that I would not care to repeat, but remember when US ran over 5000 T/A flight without a single cancellation? And they pretty much were on time, too!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim Just curious how does this performance compare to say LH from PHL, DTW, CLT?
Or UA from ORD and IAD to European destinations?

I picked those two are the are star partners. As far as that goes what about Air Canada.

LH on the PHL-FRA had 63% O/T with an average delay of 31 minutes (June 1 - July 31), while the reverse - FRA-PHL - was O/T 67% of the time and had an average delay of 19 minutes. On CLT-MUC, LH had an 85% O/T rate with a 21 minute average delay, while the reverse (MUC-CLT) was O/T 91% of the time and the average delay was 11 minutes.

What I'd like is a comparison to another hubbing airline in the NE that operates from an airport similiar to PHL - too closely spaced parallel runways for parallel approaches/departures. That'd be CO @ EWR but I'm too lazy to dig out all the TA service the operate there. If anyone wants to gather a list of flights or European cities for CO's EWR hub, though, I'll do the research on O/T performance.

Jim

 

[AstroLounge]

I for one would be very interested in seeing the OT performance of PHL vs. EWR. The airports and the markets are comparable. As are the demographics and the air space. Both airports have to deal with the NY/DC cooridor.......EWR is actually right in the middle of it. Continental seems to do a better job in MANAGING the Situation........hell they even Serve China from EWR !

 

[BoeingBoy]

I for one would be very interested in seeing the OT performance of PHL vs. EWR.

The monthly DOT report breaks it down by airport (the 32 where airlines are required to report O/T performance), and by reporting carrier that operates at each of those airports - domestic flights only.

For June.....

PHL arrivals were O/T 58.6% of the time - that's domestic flights for all reporting carriers that operate there. US mainline domestic flights arrived O/T 51.8% of the time. The 3 top performing airlines were XE, YV, and WN.

EWR arrivals were O/T 52.2% of the time - again, domestic flights for all reporting carriers with flights there. CO mainline domestic flights arrived O/T 56% of the time. The top 3 airlines were CO, AS, and XE.

So while EWR is more delay prone overall than PHL, CO does a better job of minimizing their delays - their arrival O/T performance is better than the airport average. US, at PHL, is just the opposite - more arrival delays than the airport average.

The monthly DOT report also has departure performance for the same 32 airports, but don't break it down by carrier. PHL's overall O/T departure rate is 60.4% while EWR's is 60.9%.

I'd be interested to compare CO's int'l ops from EWR with US' from PHL, but I'm too lazy to dig out all the markets CO serves from EWR.

Jim

 

[usairways85]

And interestingly enough CO's international terminal is slightly larger (gate size) than A-west with about 19 gates. However they are positioned so that it is just about impossible to use all 19 at the same time, which makes it even smaller when comparing gate space with A-west.

Only thing is CO doesn't have to share with other airlines like BA, AF, F9, and LH in A-west. And can't CO use Terminal B for overflow international flts.

 

[zethya]

And interestingly enough CO's international terminal is slightly larger (gate size) than A-west with about 19 gates. However they are positioned so that it is just about impossible to use all 19 at the same time, which makes it even smaller when comparing gate space with A-west.
Only thing is CO doesn't have to share with other airlines like BA, AF, F9, and LH in A-west. And can't CO use Terminal B for overflow international flts.

PHL has just issued Bonds to expand A-West by 3 gates (and do a total redesign of "F"). Further, remember PHL's international terminals are BOTH A-East (already funded for a major upgrade to bring it cosmetically closer to A-West) and A-West, for a total of 27 International gates, of which 24 or 25 can be used by wide bodies depending on aircraft type present.

*** NOTE: MY RESPONSE IS TO THE QUOTE REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING SUPPORT IN ANY WAY TO THE AUTHOR OF THIS NONSENSICAL THREAD.

 

[Travelpro72]

I always thought that terminal F was a waste of space. The area of land that they ate up to build that POS terminal! ! ! Look at it from above. There is so much room for express planes to buzz around. That terminal should have been built that we could pop some mainline over there if needed. We already have Republic popping up on B and C. A terminal exclusively set aside for express is nice in the land of big sprawling airports but in constrained areas such as philly they need to maximize EVERY bit of space. I say tear down F and build a better terminal with a large portion STILL designated as express. Though the emb-170/175 are not rj's in my mind they should send Republic to the express terminal. All this aside US is in NO WAY ready for china. Hey ASTRO where do you get your fortune cookies for the snack basket? I LOVE that.

 

[usairways85]

PHL has just issued Bonds to expand A-West by 3 gates (and do a total redesign of "F"). Further, remember PHL's international terminals are BOTH A-East (already funded for a major upgrade to bring it cosmetically closer to A-West) and A-West, for a total of 27 International gates, of which 24 or 25 can be used by wide bodies depending on aircraft type present.

*** NOTE: MY RESPONSE IS TO THE QUOTE REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS GIVING SUPPORT IN ANY WAY TO THE AUTHOR OF THIS NONSENSICAL THREAD.

Yes, i did read that recently, but at the pace construction is done at PHL it will be quite some time. Is F9 still using that A-west gate that is not suitable for widebodies? Can a 752 fit in that space?

How many gates at A-east are "customs ready"? there are at least 3 or 4 that AA uses that are strictly domestic gates.


I am curious what the redesign of F entails. I know they want to move the baggage claim to a new building along side the rest of the baggage claim areas, but what else do they plan for the gate areas, and tarmac?

 

[zethya]

Yes, i did read that recently, but at the pace construction is done at PHL it will be quite some time. Is F9 still using that A-west gate that is not suitable for widebodies? Can a 752 fit in that space?

How many gates at A-east are "customs ready"? there are at least 3 or 4 that AA uses that are strictly domestic gates.
I am curious what the redesign of F entails. I know they want to move the baggage claim to a new building along side the rest of the baggage claim areas, but what else do they plan for the gate areas, and tarmac?

A-East has 7 wide-body international "Customs ready" gates, which after A-West adds 3, would provide a total of 23. I'm sure you are aware that in the past both LH and BA drove 747s into A-East. International gate expansion is something PHL should really consider starting soon in anticipation of more international carrier presence through Open Skies.

Obviously I don't know the particulars of the "F" redesign, since it hasn't started yet, but the general idea is to create a new, much larger Baggage Claim area and to redesign most of the gate areas so that many more "small" aircraft can use the facility simultaneously. When it was originally done, US's strategy was to use larger short haul aircraft for commuter services and that has dramatically changed to the other direction. I'm not certain what if any general plans there are for improving the interior. Since "F" is essentially a dedicated US terminal, it might be prudent for the city to wait spending $ on it until there is more certaintly regarding US's future.