@yukawa ... is it really true? I mean in ratings such as onboard service, seat pitch, flight attendants .. do you really personally think that there is a scale even within a bar? If it would be so, why the AS does not simply put a numerical value instead of bars? It would be much simpler and clearer for making decisions.
@yukawa ... is it really true? I mean in ratings such as onboard service, seat pitch, flight attendants .. do you really personally think that there is a scale even within a bar? If it would be so, why the AS does not simply put a numerical value instead of bars? It would be much simpler and clearer for making decisions.
Probably because we’d derive the formulas and optimize things down to the number of olives on the salad. mmmmmmmmm olives.
@yukawa ... is it really true? I mean in ratings such as onboard service, seat pitch, flight attendants .. do you really personally think that there is a scale even within a bar? If it would be so, why the AS does not simply put a numerical value instead of bars? It would be much simpler and clearer for making decisions.
Hi,
I tend to agree with Yukawa on this one.
It is quite possible that popularity of a plane type with passengers is a simple straightforward rating: 20, 40, 60, and so on. It is a fixed rating that does not change with distance of the route, age of the plane or any other variable.
Other ratings have to be calculated. Take for example on-board service... a little change doesn't show a different number of green bars. Does that mean a better headphone makes no difference ? The rating of on-board service also goes down gradually with the distance. Are you sure that rating goes down per 20 points ? The same goes for seats. Different distances give different ratings. I guess the same goes for seat space... 5 extra inches would give you an extra green bar, but 4 inches would give you nothing ?
I would guess that ratings that have to be calculated, are calculated more precisely than just to the nearest green bar.