AOPA states that "most" pilots are incompetent

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.

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.

Each of these separate statistics has its own purpose.

1. Individual "Passengers" of course would indicate only how many
people fly. How is this useful?
2. "Passengers" in the sense the airlines use it would be more useful,
since it doesn't make any difference whether it's 100 people travling
once or one person travelling 100 times. They still have to provide a
seat on 100 trips, and spend the $$ on fuel, baggage, etc. The airport
still has to provide parking, etc.

3. We have, what 600,000 ppilots in the US? This indicates our
political clout.
4. If we all flew once per year, we have certain effects. If we all
flew daily, we'd have a much larger effect. So my local airport counts
operations, not individual pilots. Airport activists count operations
because it is an appropriate indicator of economic activity. Airport
haters count pilots, because they try to stress that few people benefit
from the airport.

If a statistic is "passsengers", I would have to take it in context to
determine if they meant "passenger trips" or individual "passengers".
So MOST of the items provided above are very clear in context, and not
dishonest. Misusing the statistic wouldn't be a good thing, though.

"Now representing more than 400,000 owners and pilots, AOPA keeps the
individual needs of each member of utmost importance."
This original AOPA quote sounds fine to me. Questioning the
disposition of "members of lesser importance" is humorous, and I do
that quite often myself. But the context leaves no confusion.

That's why it's (GA) one of America's most popular forms of air
transportation, flying more than 166 million passengers a year!"
AOPA was trying to indicate the value and popularity of air travel.
One person travelling 100 times is as much an indicator of popularity
as 100 people each going once. It's a valid use of the statistic.

I don't size airports based on the number of individuals who fly, but
on the number of trips made.
I don't send mass mailings based on the number of trips made (send 100
flyers to 1 one person?), but on the number of individuals involved.

All that said, it is very easy for someoe to misues ot twist
statistics. I just don't see it in any of the cases cited.

"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.

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

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
ink.net...

When we fudge statistics like that to make ourselves appear more
important than reality we just end up looking bad when the truth comes
out.

It's sort of like the propaganda you always see about how aviation is a
booming industry and there's going to be great opportunities for pilots in
the next few years because of all the retiring ex-military types.

" Pilot jobs are expected to increase faster than average through the year
2006, based on the geographical location of the employer. Jobs will continue
to be open due to the growth of the industry as well as replacement of
retired pilots or those who leave the field."
http://www.lcc.edu/transportation/aviation/careers/

Then, it turns out:

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/ooh9899/36.htm
"Pilots are expected to face considerable competition for jobs through the
year 2006 because the number of applicants for new positions is expected to
exceed the number of job openings. Competition will be especially keen early
in the projection period due to a temporary increase in the pool of
qualified pilots seeking jobs. Mergers and bankruptcies during the recent
restructuring of the industry caused a large number of airline pilots to
lose their jobs. Also, Federal budget reductions resulted in many pilots
leaving the Armed Forces...."

And what do they earn?

" Earnings of airline pilots are among the highest in the nation. The
average starting salary for airline pilots ranged from about $15,000 at the
smaller commuter airlines to $26,000 at the larger, major airlines in 1996.
The average earnings for experienced pilots ranged from $28,000 at the
commuter airlines to about $77,000 at the largest airlines" [Right up
there with Martha and Oprah.]

-c

On 2006-04-13, gatt wrote:
" Pilot jobs are expected to increase faster than average through the year
2006, based on the geographical location of the employer. Jobs will continue
to be open due to the growth of the industry as well as replacement of
retired pilots or those who leave the field."

I think when they talk about a "pilot shortage", generally it means
there are only 20 applicants for each job instead of 100-200 applicants
for each job that are happening during non-shortage times.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-04-13, gatt wrote:
" Pilot jobs are expected to increase faster than average through the
year
2006, based on the geographical location of the employer. Jobs will
continue
to be open due to the growth of the industry as well as replacement of
retired pilots or those who leave the field."

I think when they talk about a "pilot shortage", generally it means
there are only 20 applicants for each job instead of 100-200 applicants
for each job that are happening during non-shortage times.

I had nine people send resumes/letters/emails for the short-term contract
position I posted. That posting was not in a widely read forum...just RAP,
RAM and a couple notices at airports where I know people.

In article , says...



I had nine people send resumes/letters/emails for the short-term contract
position I posted. That posting was not in a widely read forum...just RAP,
RAM and a couple notices at airports where I know people.


And of the nine, how many were really fit for the job?
What kind of job was it - Part 135? 91?