AOPA states that "most" pilots are incompetent

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.


When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them? I
flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.


When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them? I
flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. com...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
by "Matt Barrow" Mar 21, 2006 at 07:07 AM



I guess the idea that "passengers" counts "repeaters" didn't enter your
head.



If they meant "passenger trips" they should have said it. They said
"passengers."

If I say I flew 100 passengers last year, that does not mean that I took
one passenger up one hundred times. That means 100 people flew on my
plane. TC had it right.


When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them?
I flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.


They do in most cases for just that reason and because it is statistically
relevant. But I've seen them quote words to the effect of "We carried X#
passengers last year," which is exactly what AOPA did in the press release
that Skywhine is bitching about. There is certainly know case where the
airline quoted the number of individuals they carried which is what Skypuss
seems to think the AOPA should do.

by "Dave Stadt" Mar 21, 2006 at 03:37 PM

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.



You are getting into an area I had some (former) professional expertise
in: they use passenger miles, passenger revenue miles, boardings as their
primary operational statistics. Passenger revenue miles is a primary
metric they use to determine fare structures (it measures only paying
customers) and usage.

In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by "Dave Stadt" Mar 21, 2006 at 03:37 PM

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.



You are getting into an area I had some (former) professional expertise
in: they use passenger miles, passenger revenue miles, boardings as their
primary operational statistics. Passenger revenue miles is a primary
metric they use to determine fare structures (it measures only paying
customers) and usage.

And -- big airports use "enplanements" to define "busy", even though the
only proper way to define "busy," relating to runway/airspace issues is
takeoffs and landings.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article
outaviation.com,
"Skylune" wrote:

by "Dave Stadt" Mar 21, 2006 at 03:37 PM

Don't they use passenger miles? It gives them a big number which looks
impressive.



You are getting into an area I had some (former) professional expertise
in: they use passenger miles, passenger revenue miles, boardings as
their
primary operational statistics. Passenger revenue miles is a primary
metric they use to determine fare structures (it measures only paying
customers) and usage.

And -- big airports use "enplanements" to define "busy", even though the
only proper way to define "busy," relating to runway/airspace issues is
takeoffs and landings.

Think I will start using that. My plane is a two enplanement model. Pretty
snazzy, eh.

by "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net Mar 21, 2006 at 09:22 AM



When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count them?
I

flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10 passengers.



The commercials count revenue passenger seat miles, boardings, etc. So
yes, they do measure it that way, sort of.

But, that is NOT what it said on GA serving america site. It said
passengers. Like most other stuff from AOPA, it is either intentionally
misleading or just incredibly dumb.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 at 12:03:50 in message
outaviation.com,
Skylune wrote:

When the airlines quotes their numbers how do you think they count
them? I flew 10 legs on airlines in 2005. I'll bet I count as 10
passengers.

I am pretty sure that you will have been counted as 20 passengers. One
for each take off and landing. You arrived at an airport and you left
from an airport.

Think of the airport management. You climb into an aircraft and fly out.
One passenger to them. You land at another airport. That airport logs
you in as a passenger arrival.

So my wife and I who flew to three main destinations last year in the
USA and had 2 legs on each flight which made 8 flights altogether, so we
probably clocked up as 32 passengers. That seemed to be the most
economical way to do what we wanted at the time.

It included a very short scheduled flight from Santa Anna in L.A. To LAX
(only 35 miles!).

I guess the one unscheduled landing and take off did not count! So maybe
if you don't get out of the aircraft at a stop that does not count!
--
David CL Francis