Originally Posted by Roadkill

Concur. When someone posts the old "If you don't like it why don't you just leave?", it almost always pushes me away from whatever they are supporting. Dissent is good. Questioning and striving for improvement is good.

I've read all the TA, and have access to the published numbers, and have a degree in probability and statistics, and another in math. And I will tell you that I almost UNIVERSALLY DISAGREE with the interpretations on the numbers and usage that are posted by johnso, as well as sailingfun and slowplay. While I OFTEN agree with much of the content and almost always am glad to READ what sailing and slow post. However, in my opinion their interpretation of the statistics is almost always wrong and not properly characterized. Even when I might agree that the actual number itself is correct, how they interpret what that number means is wrong.

Average SC sat is an example. The company is not forced to increase pilot staffing on almost ANY average, it is in fact when operations bump up against the outliers of the data that flights are cancelled. It is the NON-AVERAGE high SC use data points in various months and various fleets that force increased staffing. When the company finds a way to spread unused pilot capacity from a low-average area into a high-use area, such as making critical months 1 day shorter, that is when the need for additional pilots is terminated.

By quoting averages, particularly low ones and in areas where we absolutely know that seniority ensures that junior pilots don't see "average" use because they don't have the ability to successfully bid in such a way that they are unused, these guys are like magicians moving your eye away from the REAL critical areas and fooling you with meaningless data that just SOUNDS applicable.

Staffing problems in a scenario where under-staffing and thus cancellation of operations is not an allowable option are driven by "limiting factors" which exist on the outlying edges a standard dev out or so on the applicable probability curves. These "limfacs" are usually caused by usage limitations that SOUND like they won't generally apply (such as 7 SC or ALV +15), and in fact generally WON'T be seen by most pilots... but they are nevertheless the critical limfac that is driving the staffing decision.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Looks like newK took the ol' 9 out for a spin this morning.

New speed record for you?

Originally Posted by Ferd149

I know NWA would bytch slap Alaska now and again. The story goes that Alaska did something and Wilson and the boys put a 747-200 on the SEA-ANC run one summer and literally gave the seats away. I guess the quid we got for stopping that service was NWA employees (think ANC commuters) got super seniority on Alaska flights on that route. We need one of the old freight dogs to chime in and make sure I have the urban legend correct

Ferd

Originally Posted by Roadkill

Concur. When someone posts the old "If you don't like it why don't you just leave?", it almost always pushes me away from whatever they are supporting. Dissent is good. Questioning and striving for improvement is good.

I've read all the TA, and have access to the published numbers, and have a degree in probability and statistics, and another in math. And I will tell you that I almost UNIVERSALLY DISAGREE with the interpretations on the numbers and usage that are posted by johnso, as well as sailingfun and slowplay. While I OFTEN agree with much of the content and almost always am glad to READ what sailing and slow post. However, in my opinion their interpretation of the statistics is almost always wrong and not properly characterized. Even when I might agree that the actual number itself is correct, how they interpret what that number means is wrong.

Average SC sat is an example. The company is not forced to increase pilot staffing on almost ANY average, it is in fact when operations bump up against the outliers of the data that flights are cancelled. It is the NON-AVERAGE high SC use data points in various months and various fleets that force increased staffing. When the company finds a way to spread unused pilot capacity from a low-average area into a high-use area, such as making critical months 1 day shorter, that is when the need for additional pilots is terminated.

By quoting averages, particularly low ones and in areas where we absolutely know that seniority ensures that junior pilots don't see "average" use because they don't have the ability to successfully bid in such a way that they are unused, these guys are like magicians moving your eye away from the REAL critical areas and fooling you with meaningless data that just SOUNDS applicable.

Staffing problems in a scenario where under-staffing and thus cancellation of operations is not an allowable option are driven by "limiting factors" which exist on the outlying edges a standard dev out or so on the applicable probability curves. These "limfacs" are usually caused by usage limitations that SOUND like they won't generally apply (such as 7 SC or ALV +15), and in fact generally WON'T be seen by most pilots... but they are nevertheless the critical limfac that is driving the staffing decision.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp

Looks like newK took the ol' 9 out for a spin this morning.

New speed record for you?

Originally Posted by captainv

The Tunguska event in 1908 is believed to have been an air burst of a 300ish-foot meteor that exploded with the force of up to 30 megatons. How durable are those dash cams??

Originally Posted by Roadkill

Concur. When someone posts the old "If you don't like it why don't you just leave?", it almost always pushes me away from whatever they are supporting. Dissent is good. Questioning and striving for improvement is good.

I've read all the TA, and have access to the published numbers, and have a degree in probability and statistics, and another in math. And I will tell you that I almost UNIVERSALLY DISAGREE with the interpretations on the numbers and usage that are posted by johnso, as well as sailingfun and slowplay. While I OFTEN agree with much of the content and almost always am glad to READ what sailing and slow post. However, in my opinion their interpretation of the statistics is almost always wrong and not properly characterized. Even when I might agree that the actual number itself is correct, how they interpret what that number means is wrong.

Average SC sat is an example. The company is not forced to increase pilot staffing on almost ANY average, it is in fact when operations bump up against the outliers of the data that flights are cancelled. It is the NON-AVERAGE high SC use data points in various months and various fleets that force increased staffing. When the company finds a way to spread unused pilot capacity from a low-average area into a high-use area, such as making critical months 1 day shorter, that is when the need for additional pilots is terminated.

By quoting averages, particularly low ones and in areas where we absolutely know that seniority ensures that junior pilots don't see "average" use because they don't have the ability to successfully bid in such a way that they are unused, these guys are like magicians moving your eye away from the REAL critical areas and fooling you with meaningless data that just SOUNDS applicable.

Staffing problems in a scenario where under-staffing and thus cancellation of operations is not an allowable option are driven by "limiting factors" which exist on the outlying edges a standard dev out or so on the applicable probability curves. These "limfacs" are usually caused by usage limitations that SOUND like they won't generally apply (such as 7 SC or ALV +15), and in fact generally WON'T be seen by most pilots... but they are nevertheless the critical limfac that is driving the staffing decision.

Originally Posted by dalad

I remember talking to BMac after that, and he agreed that it was a change that would be hard to sell to the troops.