Re: Transport ticket system collapses

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
3a94d161$0$25478$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:3a94d161$0$25478$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> WCRk6.549$Op3.65841@news4.aus1.giganews.com">news:WCRk6.549$Op3.65841@news4.aus1.giganews.com...
> | "Tezza"
>
> | > He still said that he and his workmates have had problems. One fault
can
> | > affect thousands of passengers before it's fixed.
> |
> | He also said *rarely* - for all you know, that one fault could have
> occurred
> | somewhere like Telopea, and only affects 20 people per day (since a lot
of
> | the paxs at Telopea arrive by State Transit bus, and already have their
> | $1.10 pensioner tickets).
> |
> | You are extrapolating that since some regular users *rarely* experience
> | faults, that the fact that they do means that the machines are
inherently
> | unreliable and that everyone always experiences faults. This is not the
> | case.
>
> And is probably why I haven't said that or anything remotely like it.

That is what you were implying.

> | Even if one faulty machione can affect thousands, for these "thousands"
to
> | be *regularly* inconvenienced, then countless machines owuld have to be
> out
> | of action on countless occasions.
>
> Who said anything about regularly?

You were implying that.

> | You, as someone who does not buy tickets,
> | cannot know if this is the case or not. I (and others who have posted
> here),
> | as people who *do* buy tickets, can attest to our own personal
experiences
> | on this matter.
>
> I probably see more machines, passengers or staff than any who have posted
> on this topic.

Of course you do, whilst whizzing past at 90 km/h.

> | > He's had problems, his mates have had problems, others on here have
had
> | > problems and hordes of others have had problems.
> |
> | They have *rarely* experienced problems.
>
> But everybody "rarely" experiencing probloms works out to lots of
problems.

And I have not experienced a problem since i moved back to Sydney, 5 years
ago, meaing (according to your logic) that nobody has experienced a problem
since then.

> | When I flew back from Melbourne, I had to wait for 95 minutes for my
> baggage
> | with QANTAS. This is the ONLY time I have had a baggae problem, so I
would
> | describe baggage problems with QF as "rare".
>
> But when you add everybody else in it's not. Airline baggage handling
> problems aren't an urban myth. If it was so rare they wouldn't need
> dedicated staff to handle it.
>
>
>
> | Using your logic, I would never fly QF again,
>
> That must be your logic cause once again, your dribbling on about someone
> I've said absolutely nothing about.
>
>
>
> | as they have baggage
> | problems - others had problems (everyone on that flight had delays with
> | baggage), etc.
>
> *That's* what I was saying, that one supposed "rare" problem can affect
> many, many people.

And if it is rare (once every six months at Berowra, for example) then only
those using Berowra would be affected, and then, only once every six months.
So we have 1000 people experiencing a problem once every six months. That is
reasonable in my book.

> | Using my logic, we recognise it was a one off (five flights
> | arriving when only two were scheduled, they only had two lots of staff
to
> | unload) and things go on.
> |
> | If things were as bad as you try to claim (and I note that nobody who
> | actually pays for tickets - so this excludes you, Tezza - is
complaining)
> | then there would be an uproar in the media, and this is not happening.
>
> It's in the media once or twice a year on a regular basis.

And we *know* how much sense the media makes.

> | > | Unless the problems *magically* occur
> | > | where Bill and his mates won't experience them, which defies logic.
> | >
> | > They did experience them.
> |
> | Rarely.
>
> They all still experienced them.

Rarely.

Dave