A Lurker
As you so politely put it:
...to make this as simple as possible...
In your explanation, you have gone from saying:
...in fact our passenger numbers where (sic) down circa 0.2%...
to agreeing that the FT was correct, as you now say:
...Our passenger numbers where (sic) down 4.4% on the same period last year - in this case December...
Good, we can all agree that your earlier innumerate post, that passenger numbers were down by only circa 0.2%, was wrong, and that the correct figure was 4.4%.
Also wrong was another part of your post:
...and our load factor was actually UP 1.9%...
In the report you so kindly directed me to, BA gives the correct increase as only +0.1%.
Undeterred, you now go on to another mathematical non-sequitur:
...it would be obvious that numbers would be down if you had reduced your frequency of flights...
No, it isn’t obvious that numbers
would be down.
Possible, certainly; arguably even probable; but, mathematically, unless there were fewer seats available for sale in Dec 2009 than the number of passengers carried in Dec 2008, there is no
direct correlation between the number of seats on offer and the number of passengers carried.
The price of each seat will pay a major part in determining the number of passengers, as Ryanair continues to demonstrate.
...We all have our views and opinions on the traffic figures and why customer numbers are down - however can we get back to the thread topic now?...
Certainly, as soon as those who quote numbers in support of their arguments which are, either deliberately or inadvertently, incorrect, have the good grace to acknowledge their errors.
As I did recently, to your colleague
Meal Chucker!
Pesky things, facts.
Best Regards
Bellerophon