What Data Can, and Should, Mean to Travel Advisors
经过保罗·鲁登/
It is, we are often told, the Age of Data. Everything seems to be “data-driven.” Data is much like the fog – you can see a lot at the same time, but you can’t really see anything until you cut through what it obscures.
A recent article inSilive.comreported on the “10 airlines most likely to bump you from your flight。”数据来自运输部的月度航空旅行消费者报告2022年4月。Silive.com文章依靠在另一篇文章中出现stacker.com基于非自愿颠簸,排名第十七航空公司。点的排名是指“当航空公司超越航班并随后转移或补偿乘客时,乘客会碰撞。”像这样的列表是查看有问题的情况的流行方式,但它们常常夸大风险。
2022年4月报告中的颠簸数据实际上是从2021年的最后一个季度开始,因此我们在5月中旬谈论的信息将近五个月大。并作为stacker.com笔记,
该报告中的航空公司还包括他们的品牌CodeShare Partners。本节提供了有关持有确认预订并因飞行而被拒绝登机(“碰撞”)的乘客人数的数据,因为它超卖了。这些数字包括仅在没有他们的情况下出售飞行的乘客。它们不包括受到取消,延迟或转移航班影响的乘客。
最后,stacker.com还指出:“虽然没有在这个指标上排名,但Skywest Airlines的自愿拒绝付款率最高,而西南航空公司的非自愿拒绝登机的绝对数量最多。”
Denied boarding (bumping) data might seem like information consumers would want to know when booking travel. Maybe. The articles raise the question of under what circumstances should a travel advisor alert a client to such information prior to final booking?
首先,我们需要通过查看所有可能相关的可用数据来解决问题。除了4个Th2021年的季度,点报告包括:
- Flight Delays (Overall and by Carrier, Airport, Time of Day)
- Cancellations
- 延迟原因
- Tarmac Delays (Domestic and International)
- 不幸的行李
- Mishandled Wheelchairs and Scooters and
- 十二类(有多个子类别)的消费者投诉。
All in varying degrees of detail for 56 pages in total length. The report is updated monthly.
The researchers atstacker.comranked the seventeen airlines reported by DOT for the 4Th2021年的四分之一以最差的顺序为基础,根据每10,000名乘客的拒绝登机。该排名与点显示它们的方式相反。Silive.com然后仅报告十个最坏的情况:
1. Frontier Airlines
- 非自愿拒绝登机:887(每10K 1.55)
- 登机的总乘客:5,734,906
2. PSA航空公司
- 非自愿拒绝登机:162(每10k 0.46)
- 登机的总乘客:3,522,061
3. Envoy Air
- 非自愿拒绝登机:165(每10k 0.45)
- 登机的总乘客:3,647,596
4. Southwest Airlines
- Involuntarily denied boarding: 1,304 (0.36 per 10K)
- Total passengers boarded: 35,778,696
5. American Airlines
- 非自愿拒绝登机:1,171(每10k 0.36)
- 登机的总乘客:32,951,348
6)地平线空气
- 非自愿拒绝登机:38(每10k 0.27)
- 登机的总乘客:1,430,372
7.共和国航空公司
- Involuntarily denied boarding: 101 (0.22 per 10K)
- 登机的总乘客:4,664,483
8. Mesa Airlines
- 非自愿拒绝登机:47(每10k 0.18)
- Total passengers boarded: 2,600,969
9. SkyWest Airlines
- 非自愿拒绝登机:160(每10k 0.16)
- 登机的总乘客:10,216,924
10.精神航空公司
- 非自愿拒绝登机:94(每10k 0.12)
- 登机的总乘客:8,160,830
仅基于这些数字,Frontier看起来很糟糕。其每10,000名乘客的撞击率是下一个承运人的三倍以上。第二个最差的载体(PSA)反过来的速度比第10级载体(Spirit)差三倍。
What does this really mean? From a bumping standpoint, is booking on Frontier really 12.9 times riskier than booking on Spirit? And if that’s true, since Delta, Endeavor, and Allegiant had no involuntary denied boardings in this period, is traveling on Frontier无限地比这些航空公司中的任何一个风险?不见得。
To understand the true implications, we must broaden the scope of the data to include more information. Using DOT’s 10,000 boardings standard, Frontier’s bumping ratio is .000155 or 1.55 percent. Since 10,000 is an arbitrary number, we can also consider 877 (Frontier’s total actual bumpings) as a share of its total passenger boardings of 5,734,906. Now Frontier’s ratio drops to only .015 percent. That is a small chance, and it is the more realistic way to consider the risk.
为什么?Because an accurate assessment requires that the risk be measured against the total population of people who可以经历问题。如果我们一个人考虑边境,那么包括飞行美国的乘客是没有意义的。但是,要让所有人都面临边境风险的人至关重要。那是所讨论期间登机的总乘客。
You can learn about all of this and more from the book,知道你的机会,,,,了解健康统计(Steven Woloshin M.D等,2008年)。或者,有关更长的理性思维的治疗,请参见史蒂文·平克(Steven Pinker)Rationality, What It is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters(2021).
这里的要点是避免隔离一小部分相关信息,因为这往往会夸大实际风险。更现实的评估必须考虑到问题的普遍流行率(基本利率)。
在这种情况下,查看所有相关信息还需要查看边境与其他“最坏”载体之间的碰撞差异。在这十名中,美国人排名第五,有1,171次撞击,相当于每10,000名登机的0.36。但是美国人的总登机牌为32,951,348(比边境大5.75倍)。因此,美国人的撞击仅占总登机榜的0.0036%。这比边境小得多,但是在这些层面上,这种风险是真正关心的问题吗?
考虑这一点。数据随着时间的推移可以改变很多due to circumstances that may not occur in the future. Looking backward at a small set of data can therefore be inherently misleading, creating risks of overstating a very small problem. For example, Spirit is the tenth “worst” airline for the 4Thquarter of 2021, but in 2020 it was the worst of the worst ten. And it had only 99 bumped travelers in the 4Th2020年四分之一representing .002 percent of its boarded passengers。
我认为,旅行顾问向每个潜力或实际旅行者提供此类信息既不是实际也不必需的。第一个原因是,大多数信息将与个人的计划和目标无关。使客户用无关的信息超载只是不良习惯。
On the other hand, the advisor who has properly qualified the client will know whether there are specific aspects of the planned trip for which concerns implicated by some of the data may be important. Take the case of the client who is the afternoon keynote speaker at a conference and is traveling to the conference city the same day. An airline’s history of involuntary denied boardings, flight delays, or cancellations may be of interest even if the risks are very small.
为什么?因为撞击的后果很大。顾问可能应该透露它们并提供背景。因此,客户这样通知就可以自己决定要承担多少风险,例如,是否在会议前一天旅行。长时间坐在机场周围坐在机场周围的老年旅行者也会产生类似的担忧。
同时,旅行顾问不应高估风险。这样做可能会产生不必要的压力。它可以导致决策几乎没有实际风险发生不利事件的依据。同样,这些评估最好留给旅行者,并在上下文中拥有关键信息。对于顾问而言,这可能是一个艰难的决定,因为如果乘客从当天的航班中撞到并错过了他的演讲订婚,他很可能会责怪“未能警告我”的顾问。
The ultimate rule of thumb is to assess the situation for the impact of a problem – how serious would it be to miss the conference? – and if there is a potentially serious impact, give the client the relevant risk information in context and let the client decide. Present alternatives – “you can travel the day before and I can get you a room in the conference hotel or one nearby.” Then the client who makes the wrong choice cannot really blame you for the outcome.