LGW - MCO delays

[Darren Wheeler]

Someone or something is going right. Expertflyer shows the following seats on 25/10, first day of half-term.

BA 2037 J9 C8 D3 R1 I1 W2 E0 T0 Y7 B5 H3 K2 M2 L2 V0 S0 N0 Q0 O0 G0
VS 027 J1 D0 R0 Z0 W1 S0 K0 Y0 B0 L0 M0 Q0 X0 N0
BA 2039 J9 C9 D4 R2 I1 W3 E1 T0 Y1 B1 H0 K0 M0 L0 V0 S0 N0 Q0 O0 G0
VS 015 J0 D0 R0 Z0 W0 S0 K0 Y0 B0 L0 M0 Q0 X0 N0

Even a test booking for Y lowest, 2 adult and 2 children show tickets for BA but none for VS, even PE and full J are booked out.

BA use a 777, VS A 747-400

I suppose what I find most irksome about the MCO delay debacle is the fact that these are largely ÒplannedÓ delays. In other words VS publish a schedule without the intension of ensuring that they are able to fulfil the schedule.
BA and indeed most of the majors publish a schedule and ensure that there is some contingency built in to the operation to allow them to operate to the published schedule. Clearly VS do not do this. There is not sufficient contingency built into the operation and therefore I conclude that they are prepared to accept the delays and it therefore follows that these delays can be considered to be ÒplannedÓ.

Firstly welcome to VF upsidedown.

Originally posted by upsidedown19
I suppose what I find most irksome about the MCO delay debacle is the fact that these are largely ÒplannedÓ delays. In other words VS publish a schedule without the intension of ensuring that they are able to fulfil the schedule.

I am not show I really follow how you say they are planned? I can assure you that VS will want to stick to the timetable as much as possible.

An airline does not have any idea if there is going to be a storm in MCO shutting the airport on x day.

What all airlines do (in particular the LCC's and Short Haul routes) is grossly over exagerate the actual flying time. For example a 35minute hop to BRU will be timetabled in as taken an hour and 15.

This gives them a buffer in order to make the stats look good and be able to declare an ahead of schedule arrival.

BA and indeed most of the majors publish a schedule and ensure that there is some contingency built in to the operation to allow them to operate to the published schedule. Clearly VS do not do this. There is not sufficient contingency built into the operation and therefore I conclude that they are prepared to accept the delays and it therefore follows that these delays can be considered to be ÒplannedÓ.

VS do, like BA, plan for delays to happen. Unlike BA, VS is a small airline and so does not have aircraft sat around that can be called on in an emergency. BA for example can always sub in an LHR configured a/c to operate the route (as they did for my parents last month but they still had a 4 hour delay ex TPA). VS doesn't have this luxury as the whole fleet is worked very hard.

I think the main 'issue' with MCO is that for the vast majority of travelers this is a once a year trip, so a 3 hour delay is a pain. I know that most frequent flyers (and by that I mean a couple of times a month across the Atlantic) get very used to delays and do not mind them too much. The last time I bothered to compile some stats, the Hong Kong route ex LHR, had the highest amount of delays on average.

Another problem is that VS use the South Terminal compared to BA at the North. Stands at the North Terminal are easier to come by and are not so highly utilised (hence why CO transfered from South to North 18 months ago).

I have said time and again the types of reasons for a delay. MCO is not unfairly treated by VS, the vast majority of passengers do not check on time departure status before booking a flight.

I frequently use the MCO route and have always found my delays to be justified. Often the stats look worse than actually being their yourself.

It doesn't really matter why they have the problems the fact is that they do have problems but have no contingeny in place. It is the decision of VS to run this schedule with out contigency and therefor they plan to run without contigency and hence plan for the delays.
BA are bigger and have more aircraft and so may have a spare granted but that means that they are able to stick the advertised schedule as opposed to VS who have no chance what so ever of sticking to the advertised schedule. VS should consider cutting flights, amending the schedule or picking up and extra A/C from somewhere because at the moment they are selling a product that they can not provide. This is at best sharp practice.

Originally posted by upsidedown19
It doesn't really matter why they have the problems the fact is that they do have problems but have no contingeny in place. It is the decision of VS to run this schedule with out contigency and therefor they plan to run without contigency and hence plan for the delays.
BA are bigger and have more aircraft and so may have a spare granted but that means that they are able to stick the advertised schedule as opposed to VS who have no chance what so ever of sticking to the advertised schedule. VS should consider cutting flights, amending the schedule or picking up and extra A/C from somewhere because at the moment they are selling a product that they can not provide. This is at best sharp practice.

Hi there and 'scuse me for jumping in here. I flew out of LGW earlier in the summer and every VS arrival and departure was basically on schedule.

This being Oct 2nd puts us about 3 weeks past hurricane season peak. As you may have seen from the news the season was a rough one too.
When this occurs it throws schedules into chaos. There can be other reasons too - for example a crew member fell ill on board my plane after doors were closed - if that had happened on BA they'd have been delayed too.

One way that VS can help to catch up from delays is to cancel a flight where two flights that are lightly loaded can be combined to free up an aircraft. Unfortunately, with the demise of XL the loadings have been too high to do that hence why knock on delays have been occuring.

I do agree that VS don't have as much slack as BA however to say that 'they have no chance what so ever of sticking to the advertised schedule' is incorrect.

I do agree that VS don't have as much slack as BA however to say that 'they have no chance what so ever of sticking to the advertised schedule' is incorrect.

If the above statement is incorrect can you explain why 50% of MCO departures are delayed with an average delay of 66mins? I can assure you that has very little to do with Hurricans or sick crew members. That delay stat can be for one reason only and that is because VS have over extended themselfs.

[Decker]

You've sort of contradicted yourself Upside down - they seem to have a 50:50 chance of sticking to the advertised schedule [;)]

[Darren Wheeler]

Originally posted by upsidedown19

If the above statement is incorrect can you explain why 50% of MCO departures are delayed with an average delay of 66mins?

As I also included in my original post of this figure, it's averaged over 2 months. One plane going techie or a couple of serious storms at MCO will soon hit that average.

Originally posted by willd

Getting the passengers to the gate on time also helps, ever wondered why it always says flight closing in the departure lounge?!?

Thanks for your reply and YES in fact I have pondered that very anomaly so am most thankful to your aviation insight. [^]

[honey lamb]

Originally posted by upsidedown19


If the above statement is incorrect can you explain why 50% of MCO departures are delayed with an average delay of 66mins? I can assure you that has very little to do with Hurricans or sick crew members. That delay stat can be for one reason only and that is because VS have over extended themselfs.

VS, who have no chance what so ever of sticking to the advertised schedule.

I'm sorry, but I am unable to follow your logic that the delays are 'planned' If that were the case, then surely 100% of flights from Gatwick would be delayed. The stats show that 50% were delayed which means that 50% left on time. And how can you assure us that it has little to do with hurricanes or sick crew when the evidence is here on the board that that flight X was delayed because a storm closed the airport or flight Y because a crew was sick? Hurricanes and storms do happen, especially in the MCO area at the height of summer. The first time I arrived there we were the last flight in before the airport was closed, including the ramp so we had to wait two hours for our bags. Obviously this has a knock-on effect for the returning flights. What evidence have you that it is otherwise? Sweeping statements are meaningless unless they are supported by fact.

You say that VS has over-extended itself. In other threads on the forum where the subject of delays generally has been discussed, it is acknowledged that the LGW planes work hard since at the end of the day a plane is worth more to any airline in the sky than on the ground. OK, let VS cut one of its flights but are you willing to pay the extra that an airline would charge for the shortfall from having a plane on the ground?

Decker Ð When I buy a product I expect better than a 50:50 chance of it conforming to the published spec.


Darren Ð 2 months is 60ish days during which time 30ish delays averaging 66 mins were experienced. That is not due to a couple of storms, a sick crew member and an A/C going tech is it?

Honey Ð Other airlines experience all of the same problems of A/C availability and conditions at destination that VS experience on this route but they do not have such an appalling on time dispatch record. When I say ÒplannedÓ for I mean that the VS management are aware of the causes of these delays and all of the issues involved but have determined that they are prepared to accept this level of performance on this route rather than take appropriate preventative action.

The evidence is that the BA flights are very rarely delayed on this route. I find it hard to believe that problems associated with WX etc affect only the VS flights. This is why I say that VS has over extended its self. This as a statement does not need any supporting evidence beyond the fact that they are only able to meet the commitment of the schedule on 50% of flights. QED!

[Decker]

I don't doubt for one moment that you expect better UpsideDown but that's a red herring designed to disguise the fact that your original assertion was erroneous - namely

VS who have no chance what so ever of sticking to the advertised schedule

From the information you provided they stand a 50:50 change of sticking to the advertised schedule. At those odds I'd buy lottery tickets - it's a significant chance. As you'll discover we like our debates logical and reasoned around here [;)].

From the information you provided they stand a 50:50 change of sticking to the advertised schedule. At those odds I'd buy lottery tickets - it's a significant chance. As you'll discover we like our debates logical and reasoned around here [;)].

Sorry, but are you seriously defending Virgin for only getting away on schedule 50% of the time?

I'm sorry. My mistake i didn't realise that air travel was supposed to be in any way analogeous to a lottery.

Since we are talking about logic and reasoned argument here is the definition of schedule:-

Definition: an ordered list of times at which things are planned to occur
Or an alternative definition
A list of times of departures and arrivals; a timetable

You will note that each definition containes the word list which means that we are not talking about individual or discrete events here.

I said that VS has no chance of sticking to the schedule. I did not say that they would some flights leaving on time and some not. I said that they could not stick to the schedule and that is not an erronious statement. It is patently obvious that it's a fact.

1 Ð They did not stick to the schedule
2- The schedule exists in its entirety and can not be divided into Òsome went on time and some did notÓ.
3 Ð If even one A/C was delayed then they failed to fulfil the published schedule.

My assertion is that the published schedule is unrealistic and that they have no chance of fulfilling it and that has to be correct because that do not fulfil the schedule do they?

Inkiboo

Don't forget that these are not 15 minute delays that were are talking about here. This is an average 66 minute delay across 50% of flights.

Have you heard that sports program on radio Five on a Saturday morning? They play a game called 'defend the indefensible'. I think that we should nominate Decker to play. He might be rather good at it.[ii]

[Decker]

Hmmm you have a point. But if it is a list in its entirety NO airline has a chance of sticking to its schedule as to be late once means that they haven't stuck to their schedule.

Personally I think 50% sucks. Then again VS1 is only 40% on time and that's a business route out of LHR.

Do I defend it? Not at all it's not my job to do so. I think they should run on time. If I care about it deeply enough I'd even choose my carrier based upon punctuality. Sad fact is I don't care that much for all the usual reasons.

I travel this route 4 or 5 times a year and while I understand the issues virgin have with their fleet and also the issues some of us have with delays,

is it really worth getting all worked up about an hour or two delay*.

I accept that if you have connections they will cause a problem ( and believe me I have experience of this ) but the majority of passengers on that route are going on holiday - relax and enjoy yourselves

David (sitting in Saratoga Springs at Downtown Disney enjoying a lovely afternoon around 85 degrees)[:)]

* this comment is not aimed at anyone in particular

How about we decompose what a schedule is, does it just feature a departure time? Does it apply to one day or sixty days. If VS flights all left on time on one day would this count as meeting the schedule however you want to define it? As with all these things it always depends on your lens and the length of your lens!

That said, with available information (e.g. E-F) there is no doubt that VS to MCO departure time performance is worse than BA's - although that same evidence suggests that BA's flight is delayed on average by 35 minutes (note UpsideDown) - I'd be more interested in how this effects arrival time ... it is obviously a hot topic for frequent fliers on this route.

Playing devil ... let's ask whether VS is worse than any other airline? Well let's be selective ... ahh, the BA182 from JFK to LHR has a reliability of only 27% (oh I know, I josh, I'm being deliberately selective but it's true, I say never fly BA as a result [:I]).

[Nottingham Nick]

Originally posted by David

is it really worth getting all worked up about an hour or two delay*.

Well said! [y]

I always look on the first day of a transatlantic trip as a 'travel day'. Airport delays, immigration delays, car hire queues or just bad traffic at the other end; are all possible reasons for being late, so I never schedule anything important for the first evening in the US.

Nick

David Ð It sounds like what you are doing is a lot more fun than what I'm doing.

Decker Ð Correct. No airline can ever achieve 100% OTD against schedule. This is because of unforeseen circumstances which are taken into account by contingency but on occasion the contingency is not sufficient. Clever scheduling ensures that there is a very high probability that a flight will leave on time even if there are problems down line because other A/C can be switched in to the route. I do not believe that VS have built sufficient contingency into their schedules. I would be happy if they scheduled the MCO flights to leave at say 15:00 and arrive at MCO at say 19:30 because then I would have an honest choice to make. Do I fly BA and get to MCO in the afternoon or fly VS and get there early evening?
Somebody said earlier in this thread that it tends to be the flights that depart later in the morning that suffer the biggest and most frequent delays. This is indicative of an airline that has over stretched it's self. As it stands I am being offered for sale a product that does not (and can not) do what it says on the tin. I accept that it departs on time 50% of the time but I don't know which 50% basket my flight will fall into.

The reason that this concerns me is that Virgin is not the brand that it used to be and that is a great shame. This was a tremendous airline that thrived on high levels of customer satisfaction. Is that still the case? It annoyes me when i spend thousands of pounds for a product that the provider knows will as often as not fail meet the advertised standard.

[Darren Wheeler]

Going by the full flights on the 25th, I'd say VS has very strong customer satisfaction.

Slinky i think that the schedule is what is published and sold to the public however far ahead that may go. So to answer your point it is not one day or sixty days. When a company sells a product they should have a reasonable expectaion of being able to provide that product as advertised. I would say that anything above 90% OTD would be reasonable. Arrival times are i different matter and can be affected by all sorts of issues but at least with an OTD of 90% VS or BA for that matter couls say that they are doing there best.

[Nottingham Nick]

Originally posted by upsidedown19
It annoyes me when i spend thousands of pounds for a product that the provider knows will as often as not fail meet the advertised standard.

Err... why do you fly with VS, if you hate them so much then? [?]

[Darren Wheeler]

Originally posted by Nottingham Nick

Originally posted by upsidedown19
It annoyes me when i spend thousands of pounds for a product that the provider knows will as often as not fail meet the advertised standard.

Err... why do you fly with VS, if you hate them so much then? [?]

[oo]

Nick

To be honest if i was aware of the problems that VS have had at LGW over the last 6 months or more on the MCO route i probable would not have booked them. The on board experience i have found is a bit better with VS than with BA so i certainly don't hate them. I just wish that they did not sell me a ticket to travel at one time knowing full well that they are unlikely to be able to meet that commitment.