Originally Posted by
Cogf16
Carl,
What about my post? You characterize my response as "totally unnacceptable and illustrative of my many shortcomings". What does that mean? I was merely suggesting a modification of straight ratio, +attrition that you proposed. You overreacted and tried to characterize my proposal as unreasonable.
Cog
What on Earth are you talking about? You're the one who characterized me in the poor light...Remember?
Originally Posted by
Cogf16
Carl,
Finally, your point about actual attrition being the only real quantifyable thing to be considered in a dynamic list is not valid. There are relative probabilities of many things happening that need to be taken into consideration. Certainly low probability things (like ALL the -9's going away in a yr or two) can be discounted but high prob things like the 6 777LR's that are paid for and coming in early 2009 and the many 737-700's in the same "category" need to be considered as "almost certain" To not consider these in a dynamic list is unfair and totally unreasonable. You lose all credibility by doing this.
Mark
Ring a bell?
It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you don't even pay attention.
Carl