"Airlines need to comply with consumer law" - ACCC

[dajop]

you don't seem to understand. Nothing has changed except a published arrival time. It makes no difference whatsoever to anything, except on time performance.

So what you're saying is airlines maintain two sets of schedules, one for the public, the other for ops? It's like maintaining two sets of accounting records, bound to create problems at some point. For example .....

Public schedule:
MEL-SYD 0600/0755
SYD-ADL 0815/1020
ADL-SYD 1035/1320

and, operational schedule for airport/ATC/internal operations:
MEL-SYD 0600/0725
SYD-ADL 0815/0955
ADL-SYD 1035/1255

 

[ozfflyer]

So the airline publishes a later arrival time (1230 instead of 1200), but tells the airport, its gate staff and ramp staff, and ATC that it will be arriving at 12pm?

As a passenger what time to I tell my ride to pick me up?

exactly, you finally get it.

There is no such time as 12pm.

You tell your ride to pick you up when you call.

 

[ozfflyer]

So what you're saying is airlines maintain two sets of schedules, one for the public, the other for ops? It's like maintaining two sets of accounting records, bound to create problems at some point. For example .....

Public schedule:
MEL-SYD 0600/0755
SYD-ADL 0815/1020
ADL-SYD 1035/1320

and, operational schedule for airport/ATC/internal operations:
MEL-SYD 0600/0725
SYD-ADL 0815/0955
ADL-SYD 1035/1255

yes it's really that simple & already occurs. Nothing to break. Note your departure times don't change at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

yes it's really that simple & already occurs. Nothing to break. Note your departure times don't change at all.

Except that dajop's subsequent departure times are not what exactly what happens in reality. Turnarounds can be achieved in 25 minutes, not the 50 minutes allowed for. You add this up over three sectors - in just one half day - and already you've lost a one way MEL-SYD or SYD-BNE flight. 168 fare paying passengers.

Multiple this across your fleet, for both morning and afternoon, and it becomes uncommerical. It's not departure times per se, it's fleet utilisation.

The reason why this is really a moot point is because the EU and Canadian compensation schemes aren't based on arrivals being just 30 mins late. It's much more than that and you can't pad your schedules by an hour or more on short-hauls.

(As for calling your ride when you land, it takes 5 minutes to get curb-side on a domestic flight. Someone picking me up from home can't get there in that time.)

 

[oz_mark]

yes it's really that simple & already occurs. Nothing to break. Note your departure times don't change at all.

There's only one set of schedules, and then there's what happens on the day.

 

[UP4014]

There's only one set of schedules, and then there's what happens on the day.

Sometimes the schedules can be works of fiction.

 

[oz_mark]

Sometimes the schedules can be works of fiction.

In some cities (e.g. Mebourne), train timetables are only published so you can work out how late the trains are....

 

[ozfflyer]

Except that dajop's subsequent departure times are not what exactly what happens in reality. Turnarounds can be achieved in 25 minutes, not the 50 minutes allowed for. You add this up over three sectors - in just one half day - and already you've lost a one way MEL-SYD or SYD-BNE flight. 168 fare paying passengers.

Multiple this across your fleet, for both morning and afternoon, and it becomes uncommerical. It's not departure times per se, it's fleet utilisation.

The reason why this is really a moot point is because the EU and Canadian compensation schemes aren't based on arrivals being just 30 mins late. It's much more than that and you can't pad your schedules by an hour or more on short-hauls.

(As for calling your ride when you land, it takes 5 minutes to get curb-side on a domestic flight. Someone picking me up from home can't get there in that time.)

no you don't get it. No time is lost. The only thing that changes is the published arrival time, so airlines can be late, but still satisfy OTP. Been going on for years. Was a case on SYD/MNL ... 3 airlines did it with virtually the same A330. The low cost Cebu Pacific were fastest, even though carrying a lot more pax. Then Philippine Airlines, then very slow Qantas. Looking at simply OTP based on timetable, Qantas looked initially to have the best OTP, but in fact, they were no better than the others, it was just their very dodgy published timings, ie. if they atook 30 mins more than the others, they were still on time, but others were late. Turnaround times has nothing to do with it at all.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Turnaround times has nothing to do with it at all.

it does in terms of fleet utilisation. Sit down with a piece of paper and map out the daily schedule of a 737 on the MEL-SYD trunk route. One with 25 minutes turnarounds, and the other with 55 minutes up its sleeve at every turn. You lose a flight.

I understand that you are proposing two sets of schedules.. one for passengers and givernment reporting (on time statistics) and another set for operations (airport services and ATC).

But unless you are timetabling a five minute turn around (between the time you tell the passengers you will arrive, and the time the next flight is scheduled to leave), this concept isn't practical. And it's why, other than minor padding, airlines simply don't do it (BA has even dispensed with cleaning during turn arounds now just to gain an extra five minutes and get planes away as quickly as possible).

 

[ozfflyer]

it does in terms of fleet utilisation. Sit down with a piece of paper and map out the daily schedule of a 737 on the MEL-SYD trunk route. One with 25 minutes turnarounds, and the other with 55 minutes up its sleeve at every turn. You lose a flight.

I understand that you are proposing two sets of schedules.. one for passengers and givernment reporting (on time statistics) and another set for operations (airport services and ATC).

But unless you are timetabling a five minute turn around (between the time you tell the passengers you will arrive, and the time the next flight is scheduled to leave), this concept isn't practical. And it's why, other than minor padding, airlines simply don't do it (BA has even dispensed with cleaning during turn arounds now just to gain an extra five minutes and get planes away as quickly as possible).

it's a really simple concept. Not quite sure why you don't understand it.

Will repeat, nothing at all changes, except the published arrival time. Nothing. It's all about OTP. No departure times change at all. Turnarounds don't change.

 

[drron]

I am pretty sure our airlines are pretty good at fleet utilisation.They have more experience at this than the vast majority of AFF members.They are obviously OK with padded times for flights.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I am pretty sure our airlines are pretty good at fleet utilisation.They have more experience at this than the vast majority of AFF members.They are obviously OK with padded times for flights.

Agree. Padding is not the issue. But proposing zero minutes for scheduled turn-arounds would be unprecedented.

 

[ozfflyer]

Agree. Padding is not the issue. But proposing zero minutes for scheduled turn-arounds would be unprecedented.

wouldn't be 0 mins for turns. Turns would be exactly the same. All about OTP. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

wouldn't be 0 mins for turns. Turns would be exactly the same. All about OTP. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You're saying there are two sets of books. One for passengers (on which OTP will be judged) and one for operations. While the operations times might still allow your 30 minute turnaround (because the flight will be early), the set of books for the public would in essence have a zero turn around time listed.

Current schedule:

MEL-SYD 0600-0730
SYD-MEL 0800-0930

MEL-SYD 1000-1130
SYD-MEL 1200-1330

With 30 minutes of additional padding the officially published sschedule would now be:

MEL-SYD 0600-0800
SYD-MEL 0800-1000

MEL-SYD 1000-1200
SYD-MEL 1200-1400

 

[ozfflyer]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. You're saying there are two sets of books. One for passengers (on which OTP will be judged) and one for operations. While the operations times might still allow your 30 minute turnaround (because the flight will be early), the set of books for the public would in essence have a zero turn around time listed.

Current schedule:

MEL-SYD 0600-0730
SYD-MEL 0800-0930

MEL-SYD 1000-1130
SYD-MEL 1200-1330

With 30 minutes of additional padding the officially published sschedule would now be:

MEL-SYD 0600-0800
SYD-MEL 0800-1000

MEL-SYD 1000-1200
SYD-MEL 1200-1400

yep you got it. Pax wouldn't know that inbound aircraft, supposedly departs very shortly after arriving. Besides, most of the time inbound aircraft would arrive early, even if it departed late from origin. This is why OTP should not be important, unless you take into account the way a particular aircraft schedules their flights. Have heard pilots are told to slow aircraft down to save fuel. In these economic times, airlines have to do everything they can to survive, but still appear to be on time, to suit the business flyer.

 

[dajop]

In these economic times, airlines have to do everything they can to survive, but still appear to be on time, to suit the business flyer.

A frequent, experienced business flyer knows to build in contingencies wherever possible as they know there are any number of things that could go pear shaped to effect their plans - in the air or on the ground (such as taxi queues). I’d suggest that most would already factor in that 20 minutes of padding you are talking about already ... if I was going to a 10am meeting, 20 mins drive from the airport I would be planning to take at the latest a flight arriving at 9am not 9:20 or 9:30 ... Aside from connecting pax, padding schedule would not make a lot of difference in practical terms. It’s really the longer delays that muck things up, and padding won’t help that.

Also, an airline won’t do this unless it’s competitors also agree to doing it. VA aren’t going to put 1:50 into their schedule for MEL-SYD if QF has 1:25 in their schedule.

 

[ozfflyer]

A frequent, experienced business flyer knows to build in contingencies wherever possible as they know there are any number of things that could go pear shaped to effect their plans - in the air or on the ground (such as taxi queues). I’d suggest that most would already factor in that 20 minutes of padding you are talking about already ... if I was going to a 10am meeting, 20 mins drive from the airport I would be planning to take at the latest a flight arriving at 9am not 9:20 or 9:30 ... Aside from connecting pax, padding schedule would not make a lot of difference in practical terms. It’s really the longer delays that muck things up, and padding won’t help that.

Also, an airline won’t do this unless it’s competitors also agree to doing it. VA aren’t going to put 1:50 into their schedule for MEL-SYD if QF has 1:25 in their schedule.

VA & QF already do it. COnnecting pax won't be effected as nothing has changed, except a published arrival time. Min connecting time, won't be effected at all, as the arrival time is ficticious.

 

[dajop]

VA & QF already do it. COnnecting pax won't be effected as nothing has changed, except a published arrival time. Min connecting time, won't be effected at all, as the arrival time is ficticious.

VA & QF don't do it to the extent you suggest. As an example, take any MEL-SYD flight and look at performance history in flight aware. The gate-to-gate schedule is 1:25. Most flights seem to perform in the range of 1:15-:1:20, so there is at most 5-10 mins of padding. I don't know why QF would suddenly add 15 mins to the schedule to to account for the 1 in 20 flights that take 1:35.... As I said most business travellers factor this in already.

And as for connections, just going to screw all that up. So MCT = 45 mins (for example). Today someone books a flight as follows

A-B 12:00/13:25 connecting to B-C 14:15/16:00

So now your new schedule A-B is
A-B 12:00/13:50. Won't make the B-C with MCT, so the booking engine force them to book 15:45 flight arriving at 17:30.

Airline 1) has the new padding. Airline 2) doesn't. Who will get the business. Airline 1 which take and extra 90 mins due to padding, or Airline 2 which has realistic schedules?

 

[ozfflyer]

VA & QF don't do it to the extent you suggest. As an example, take any MEL-SYD flight and look at performance history in flight aware. The gate-to-gate schedule is 1:25. Most flights seem to perform in the range of 1:15-:1:20, so there is at most 5-10 mins of padding. I don't know why QF would suddenly add 15 mins to the schedule to to account for the 1 in 20 flights that take 1:35.... As I said most business travellers factor this in already.

And as for connections, just going to screw all that up. So MCT = 45 mins (for example). Today someone books a flight as follows

A-B 12:00/13:25 connecting to B-C 14:15/16:00

So now your new schedule A-B is
A-B 12:00/13:50. Won't make the B-C with MCT, so the booking engine force them to book 15:45 flight arriving at 17:30.

Airline 1) has the new padding. Airline 2) doesn't. Who will get the business. Airline 1 which take and extra 90 mins due to padding, or Airline 2 which has realistic schedules?

my example of SYD/MNL showed widely varying transit times (Qantas, Philippines & Cebu Pacific) according to timetable & no connections would be messed up as MCT would effectively be reduced, as the only thing that changes is a published arrival time.

 

[Frequent boarder]

Where does your fleet of aircraft arriving from MEL/BNE/CBR/OOL/TSV/DRW/ADL and PER all go then they turn up half an hour ealry and there are no landing slots and no gates? Your passengers will all swap to your competitor who can fly you to SYD 30 minutes faster and have a gate to get you off and on your way to a meeting.

no 30 mins early. It's just a schedule which means the airlines will hardly even be late, all designed to meet on time performance. It's been going on for decades.