PDA

View Full Version : Number one priority


wings folded
13th Apr 2009, 14:12
Any other bored pruner with a streak of pedantry out there, who is irritated by spokespeople saying along the lines of:

"safety of our passengers (customers, clients, budgerigars - adapt as you see fit) is "our number one priority"

Or sometimes "our first priority"

If it is not "first" or "number one" it is not the priority, then, is it?

(It may however be important, but that is not the same thing)

OK, the weather is as usual lousy for a Bank Holiday, so I am just looking for things to do...


Sorry to everybody...

Meant to post on Jet Blast but hit the wrong button - Mods please move or delete as you think fit

davidjohnson6
13th Apr 2009, 14:21
In deciding what's important, it is possible to assign a ranking to a number of items in a list. An airline will have a number of things which it believes are critical for its continued operation - just because it is not top of the list does not mean that it is not considered a priority.

Passengers not dying during a flight, and having crew available to operate said flight are both priorities. Ensuring passengers remain alive does not mean that having crew available is not a priority !

Sqwak7700
13th Apr 2009, 14:26
That is the airline's way of using lawyer speak to lie, because as everybody who works in the airline industry knows, safety, is not the priority... money is. Money is the priority, safety is the first priority after money. But that is like blaming lawyers for sue-happy people.

Every decision taken by airline's, no matter where they operate or in which country, is to maximize their profits or minimize their short term loss - often at the expense of long term stability and profitability.

But like you said, if it is not the priority, then it is not #1. :hmm:

Binoculars
13th Apr 2009, 14:40
"Your call is important to us". Err, of course it is.

Safety is our number one priority.... I worked for an organisation that once didn't feel the need to stress this, and oddly enough, safety really was the priority in those days.

It was only when the bottom line was clearly and demonstrably the only thing worth considering that they felt it necessary to buttress their position that safety was all they cared about.

larssnowpharter
13th Apr 2009, 14:45
My first value in life is simple:

To look after my family.

In attempting to achieve this priority we felt the need for a holiday. After much research and discussion involving all members of the family we had booked our dream holiday knowing that this would recharge batteries etc etc.

Bags were packed and we were just about to drive to the airport when my son fell and broke his ankle.

Immediately our priorities changed. We rushed the lad to hospital where he was treated and in due course made a full recovery.

We never did get to take that holiday.

But my values never changed.

G-CPTN
13th Apr 2009, 14:49
Customers are probably the priority of most businesses, as without them the business would not exist.

Of course you have to provide the right environment (which might be safety-orientated - ask Bond just now) otherwise you don't have (enough) customers.

Rather be Gardening
13th Apr 2009, 14:50
The thing that drives me nuts is when a government spokesperson invariably states: "lessons will be learned from this", when it's patently clear that they haven't learned any lessons from the last time they were caught out.

foresight
13th Apr 2009, 15:00
Number one priority is tautologous.
However it has passed into the language like 'this moment in time' et. al.

Wince, then move on.

radeng
13th Apr 2009, 15:29
foresight, it's also usually a bl***y lie!

Binoculars
13th Apr 2009, 15:33
I understand the semantics, but is it not possible to have more than one priority? A list perhaps, where once the first is achieved we move on to the second priority? Or do we have to have a committee meeting every time THE priority is achieved to decide the next one?

It's not exactly being pregnant, is it?

wings folded
13th Apr 2009, 15:45
We might move on to the next most important, which becomes the priority.

No committees, please. With them we could not even establish what time of day it is, let alone what is important, and even less what is the priority.

Binoculars
13th Apr 2009, 15:57
Exactement! Which brings us back to your original post....... is it important?

wings folded
13th Apr 2009, 16:18
Well, Binos, I did say that it was lousy weather here, perhaps not where you are, and that I was bored as I cannot do my outdoor chores I had programmed.

So, important - not for me to decide.

Important enough, evidently, for you to respond, for which I thank you

Binoculars
13th Apr 2009, 16:22
Nada probleme! What is Jet Blast if not an avenue for talking garbage when one is bored stupid, or drunk as the case may be? I can't even find the link to Pprune Chat at the moment, which is probably a good thing for those in chat, and a good thing for me since I can now go to bed at 2.20am. Just wish I could find the time to finish my library book.

er340790
13th Apr 2009, 16:22
Sounds a bit like that garage advert....

'WE SPECIALISE IN ALL MAKES OF CARS'.

ATNotts
13th Apr 2009, 16:57
OK, a bit of thread drift - but why don't you ever see "Grade B, C or D" chickens on sale in the supermarket.

If they are all Grade "A" then there no point in the grading system. If they are not, then what is a Grade B, and what use does it have???

foresight
13th Apr 2009, 17:04
WE SPECIALISE IN ALL MAKES OF CARS

Once visited a doctor in Mexico who had a sign outside saying

'Specialist in Children and Adults'

wings folded
13th Apr 2009, 17:42
ATKnotts

Have never encountered this particular nonesense (Grade A chickens) but then again I don't do much shopping in supermarkets.

But (and your drift is welcome), how about things promoted as "100% free"

Or the really irritating "Any duty frees at all?"

Begs the answer "No, I would like to purchase some partially Duty Frees if that's OK with you"

Or "Have a nice day!" which somebody wishes you at 11:55 pm. Peter Ustinov did a far more amusing sketch on this topic than I could do.

lomapaseo
13th Apr 2009, 18:27
then what is a Grade B, and what use does it have???

ever hear of buffalo wings or chicken McNuggets?

Jofm5
14th Apr 2009, 03:25
I dont see this one - priority is relative and sets the order of precedence.

1st priority is x,
2nd priority is y

etc.

It is the order of precedence - There is a big difference in the english language between "A priority" and "The Priority" - A priority is that an item exists in the list of priorities - 'The' priority is the top of the list as is 1st priority.

I therefore cannot see why there is any question over 1st priority - if you look at the dictionary definition it refers to an established rating that dictates precedence.

arcniz
14th Apr 2009, 05:15
I dont see this one - priority is relative and sets the order of precedence.

1st priority is x,
2nd priority is y

etc.

It is the order of precedence - There is a big difference in the english language between "A priority" and "The Priority" - A priority is that an item exists in the list of priorities - 'The' priority is the top of the list as is 1st priority.

I therefore cannot see why there is any question over 1st priority - if you look at the dictionary definition it refers to an established rating that dictates precedence.

yes, but...in a realistic environment where the response to a priority is a PROCESS, which takes some period of time, once the highest priority has been handled to the extent that its process is launched and underway, then the next highest priority becomes the focus and often must be handled as the HIGHEST priority during the interval when the process to handle the second priority is in the non-interruptable middle of being launched - so it becomes the highest priority for that duration of time.

Point of this is that priorities exist in a specific hierarchy at discrete points in time... they may be shuffled in importance from one such decision-point to the next... and then subsequently reshuffled.

Is that clear, or does it beg for another try?

Jofm5
14th Apr 2009, 05:27
Point of this is that priorities exist in a specific hierarchy at discrete points in time... they may be shuffled in importance from one such decision-point to the next... and then subsequently reshuffled.

Is that clear, or does it beg for another try?


In reference to pedantry.....

YOUR own personal interpretation of any one given situation bares no difference on the definition of priority and how what it means.

Now if you want to be classified as one of those that can only deal with a single issue at a time carry on but I am sure alot of others on here take all things into consideration and when required prioritise accordingly.

There is no misdefinition - like it or not, rather than argue look it up.

Sorry to add another post - I felt I need to elaborate, because you seem to think the changing situation changes priorites.

I will concede from a some practical points it can be described this way - e.g. pitching forward your priority may be to pull back. Banking left your priority may be to correct to the right.

But on generalised terms, how can you say anything could override the priority of safety - surely the above were only being tried to be achieved to achieve the first priority of safety.

Like it or not there is an order of definition in priority, it is always a means to an end and the ultimate priority is the the preferred ending.

Where am I really going wrong on this I dont know, pendatic and symantic its the same.

If you can see a situation where there would be a bigger priority than safety please enlighten me as to what it is.

foresight
14th Apr 2009, 07:13
'Our first priority' and 'our priority' mean the same. The 'first' is unnecessary but is used for emphasis. It is a question of style and purists may argue that 'first' should not be used, others may say the impact is not the same without it. I feel comfortable with it, although it is probably something I would avoid myself, were I trying to produce a 'good' piece of writing (not very often!).
There are far worse solecisms to watch out for.

arcniz
14th Apr 2009, 08:05
Jofm5 says
Quote:
Point of this is that priorities exist in a specific hierarchy at discrete points in time... they may be shuffled in importance from one such decision-point to the next... and then subsequently reshuffled.

Is that clear, or does it beg for another try?


YOUR own personal interpretation of any one given situation bares no difference on the definition of priority and how what it means.

Now if you want to be classified as one of those that can only deal with a single issue at a time carry on but I am sure alot of others on here take all things into consideration and when required prioritise accordingly.

There is no misdefinition - like it or not, rather than argue look it up.

Sorry to add another post - I felt I need to elaborate, because you seem to think the changing situation changes priorites.

I will concede from a some practical points it can be described this way - e.g. pitching forward your priority may be to pull back. Banking left your priority may be to correct to the right.

But on generalised terms, how can you say anything could override the priority of safety - surely the above were only being tried to be achieved to achieve the first priority of safety.

Like it or not there is an order of definition in priority, it is always a means to an end and the ultimate priority is the the preferred ending.

Where am I really going wrong on this I dont know, pendatic and symantic its the same.

If you can see a situation where there would be a bigger priority than safety please enlighten me as to what it is.

Well, this is going to be an interesting challenge in communication for all concerned:

first: on behalf of Rainboe, who I have never met but still somewhat appreciate for his prissiness about language. (I embarrass myself regularly in several languages, so take no offense, please): You appear to have misspelt/misspoken slightly in regard to:

a) situation bares no difference s.b. "bears", as in bearing
b) pendatic and symantic its the same s.b. pedantic.. semantic


second: It is not really necessary, or appropriate, that you should insult me personally because you disagree with what I previously wrote. If you want to engage in a slanging match, I am not above that. It usually accomplishes little, but can be fun. My preferred style is no-holds-barred, no prisoners taken, so you might wish to be a bit careful or wary. Grrr.

third, and finally nearing the nominal point of discussion:

Your staunch position about priorities and safety and so forth seems quite Chaucer-like in its shade-tree simplicity. Taken thus, I do not disagree.

However, things have changed a mite in the seven centuries intervening his pilgrim narrative and our daily toil today.

Your perspective about priorities seems oblivious to time -- quite appropriate for the middle ages, but maybe not so much in 2009.

My perspective about priorities is actively qualified by time. Actual reality, (such as it is) is wholly derived from and is contingent on the action of time and process interleaved together.

From early teens and forward for quite a number of decades I have lived and breathed this subject in the frame of reference where each and every second is divisible into millions or billions or trillions of individual components, each of which offering a new and distinct opportunity for a totally different set of actions, priorities, choices, decisions, and results. I have worked and specialised in designing machines - various forms of electronic logic or combinations of computers and software - that actually control missile steering systems and aircraft flight controls and very thoughtful fuses for very nasty weapons and electric-shock things that keep hearts beating, and things that patiently wait a long time for a racing engine running at maximum speed to rotate another ten-thousandth of a revolution before making new adjustments in the tune, plus a lot of more banal similar things that hardly matter much at all.

Although it would be a waste of everyone's time to explain in detail here, I can assure you that the best art humanity has devised for decision-making in machines about priorities acts as written above: higher and lower priorities may be interleaved artfully in regard to their frequency of acting, but with the effect that low priorities may sometimes rightly be highest for a time in the dynamics of the process.

I can also bring some generations of study and reflection about the human thought processes to bear in suggesting that the handling of priorities in your own mind is likely much more agile and much less rigid than you let on.

So... we have a difference of perspective... which does not alter facts, but possibly the perception of them.

wings folded
14th Apr 2009, 08:21
a) situation bares no difference s.b. "bears", as in bearing
b) pendatic and symantic its the same s.b. pedantic.. semantic



b) s.b. pedantic and semantic it's the same

Jofm5
14th Apr 2009, 09:04
second: It is not really necessary, or appropriate, that you should insult me personally because you disagree with what I previously wrote. If you want to engage in a slanging match, I am not above that. It usually accomplishes little, but can be fun. My preferred style is no-holds-barred, no prisoners taken, so you might wish to be a bit careful or wary. Grrr.


If You - is an implied first personal which whilst I agree could be taken person was not intended so.

If you want to have a go at me about what the definition of the english language is and what it means go ahead.

I dont really give a damn how people use here there and anywhere - the discussion was about what was meant and how it was used. Now if you want to argue about the east end dialect of cockney english then say so - its way different to whats used in the north.

I personally use the dictionary as a point of reference not some stroppy sod off here.



From early teens and forward for quite a number of decades I have lived and breathed this subject in the frame of reference where each and every second is divisible into millions or billions or trillions of individual components, each of which offering a new and distinct opportunity for a totally different set of actions, priorities, choices, decisions, and results. I have worked and specialised in designing machines - various forms of electronic logic or combinations of computers and software - that actually control missile steering systems and aircraft flight controls and very thoughtful fuses for very nasty weapons and electric-shock things that keep hearts beating, and things that patiently wait a long time for a racing engine running at maximum speed to rotate another ten-thousandth of a revolution before making new adjustments in the tune, plus a lot of more banal similar things that hardly matter much at all.


You evaluate the priorties - the most important comes first, the next comes after. No matter which complex situations you wish to throw - it always evolves that way - and if your algorithms are flawed in figuring out that process you have an escalation procedure to get round it. So no matter what billionth of a nano missile or flight control reverse tardis - you at least should know that your piroritise a list mathmatically (based upon know priorities and seeds) and for those even priorty items you randomise (with a predetermined seed) so they sort.


Want to argue some more ?

arcniz
14th Apr 2009, 09:14
I personally use the dictionary as a point of reference not some stroppy sod off here.

Well, that's all right then. No offence taken and none intended.

Didn't really want to argue much, but thanks for offering. P'raps some day on a weekend.

In the example I gave about handling priorities in machines (which admittedly is out of normal reference not a very human-intuitive thing), the mechanisms are such that higher priority activities have more working time available to them - as much as they need, up to some limit - and so they can have quicker and possibly greater effect at what they may choose to do.

Jofm5
14th Apr 2009, 09:17
Aplogies if your offended - but the question was about using the term "Safety is our first Priority" and then it was implied there can only be one priority - it is this assertion that I am trying to disprove.

arcniz
14th Apr 2009, 09:28
Aplogies if your offended - but the question was about using the term "Safety is our first Priority" and then it was implied there can only be one priority - it is this assertion that I am trying to disprove.

....and, in my clumsy way, I was trying to give ammunition for that premise by pointing out a well-accepted mechanism or context in which there may be a very large number of priorities that are co-acting, but still rigourously prioritised.

Blacksheep
14th Apr 2009, 11:15
The priority of Britain's fastest growing industry is Health. Safety comes a close second.

When travelling by aeroplane, be sure to wear a hard hat, high visibility jacket, goggles and boots with steel toe-caps.


Oh, I nearly forgot.... carry a clip-board.

TwinAisle
14th Apr 2009, 12:35
If we are on the OP's original point about irritating sayings, can I nominate:

"please remain seated until the aircraft has come to a complete stop".

WTF is a partial stop? Do bits of the aircraft carry on??

TA

Blacksheep
14th Apr 2009, 13:37
A partial stop is the one the aircraft makes while the ground crew debate whether or not they will have to hook up a tow-bar and tractor to get it to line up with the gate. The complete stop is the one it makes after they decide it needs to move a bit more (and they can't be bothered with a tow-bar or tractor)

In this case, number one priority is to get back to the crew room as quickly as possible (but not so quick that you're first and have to get the teas in.)

Overdrive
14th Apr 2009, 21:25
Safety is our number one priority.... I worked for an organisation that once didn't feel the need to stress this, and oddly enough, safety really was the priority in those days.

It was only when the bottom line was clearly and demonstrably the only thing worth considering that they felt it necessary to buttress their position that safety was all they cared about.

You've perfectly summed up much of the last 15 business/government years there. The same held true with the whole "quality/service" thing: barely mentioned until they were being cut.

wings folded
15th Apr 2009, 16:41
If we are on the OP's original point about irritating sayings, can I nominate:

"please remain seated until the aircraft has come to a complete stop".

WTF is a partial stop? Do bits of the aircraft carry on??




Ah!

You have caught the spirit of the thread. Thank you.

What are your feelings about "in the unlikely event of a sudden drop in cabin pressure, oxygen masks... etc."

What does the "unlikely" add to to the safety script?

I have yet to encounter an airline which announces "In the unlikely event that your baggage and you have followed the same itinerary, your suitcase will pop out on Carousel 3"

Also, and American friends take note, I well remember a moment or two of hesitation when being transported by air in America for the first few times.

Apparently, in American English, "momentarily" means "in a moment". In English English, I think we understand it to mean "for a moment"

So, imagine the slight discomfort of this English English passenger to hear on the PA that "we will be landing momentarily at La Guardia"

I just hoped it was long enough for me to get off......