|
Post by FabienA380 on Jan 22, 2015 13:04:14 GMT 1
Just my two cents: the sequence is now up to msn 190. The next would be msn191, then 192 193 194....... 200 is out of sequence. In my opinion, 201 can only be in sequence (again) once 192, 193, 194 ..... 199 have been convoyed.
While I understand this version, I think it cannot always work, as for example some AF frames (MSN067, MSN117,...) took so much time to be convoyed (MSN067 was convoyed when MSN098 was already at TLS and MSN117 was convoyed when MSN152 was already at TLS....), we wouldn't have had 'any' sequence during all this time, waiting for them to be convoyed?..... Also all the EK sequence MSN106 to MSN109 convoyed in a row wouldn't have been 'in-sequence' because other lower MSNs weren't convoyed yet at the time (MSN093TG, MSN094MH, MSN095BA etc...)?..... I think these 2 example don't make a real sense to me..... or should we change the wording and swap 'in-sequence' for 'following MSN'?..... Then by 'in-sequence' are we speaking about 'following MSN' or are we speaking about 'lowest MSN not yet convoyed'?......
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Jan 22, 2015 13:18:56 GMT 1
Well, Peter's suggestion is another wording of Fabien's : only when MSNs 191 to 199 have been convoyed will MSN 201 become in-sequence. Sorry philidor I was thinking the other way around Sorry philidor to me the in-sequence would rather be the 'following MSN' in fact..... (MSN201)...... how about if for some reason MSN191 was delayed by EY for 2 years, we wouldn't have any sequence for years..... Also how about if in 4 months of MSN191 not being convoyed, for some reason we find out MSN191 could be a MSN cancelled?... (same as we all thought until the end that MSN060 was for EK and we found out as MSN076 was already at TLS that MSN060 wasn't a passenger-MSN for EK(probably ex-freighter) and wouldn't be convoyed)...... MSN191 was just an there example, but another concrete example could be MSN196, how about if Transaero delays MSN196 for 1 year for the reasons that we all know, we wouldn't have any sequence for this one year, as probably MSN210 and up would already be convoyed?..... Another idea if we follow this 'lowest MSN' trend, how about if MSN091(plannedQF) was considered 'in-sequence' after MSN090EK's convoy, and we discovered months later that eventually that frame had been delayed by QF, and eventually we found out (1 year later? or more?) that that MSN091 had been cancelled...... all this time hoping that MSN091 would be convoyed we would still have considered it being the one 'in-sequence' (=lowest MSN) and we wouldn't have considered 'following MSNs' the 'in-sequence' MSN, but MSN091 being cancelled we would discover that eventually we would have been wrong for one year+....... and if we had the points game at this time, it would have been ALL wrong...............
|
|
|
Post by peter on Jan 22, 2015 14:33:01 GMT 1
MSN091(plannedQF) was considered 'in-sequence' after MSN090EK's convoy, and we discovered months later that eventually that frame had been delayed by QF, and eventually we found out (1 year later? or more?) that that MSN091 had been cancelled...... all this time hoping that MSN091 would be convoyed we would still have considered it being the one 'in-sequence' (=lowest MSN) and we wouldn't have considered 'following MSNs' the 'in-sequence' MSN, but MSN091 being cancelled we would discover that eventually we would have been wrong for one year+....... and if we had the points game at this time, it would have been ALL wrong............... So after last convoy msn201 would be in sequence on 2015/3. If that were true msn202 would be so on 2015/4. But, if convoy 2015/3 is msn191 than msn192 would be in sequence on 2015/4 and not msn202. However this leaves another problem. If msn196 (Transaero) should be cancelled or postponed, there is no chance to vote for msn197 as "in sequence"...
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jan 22, 2015 15:25:09 GMT 1
Well, if anybody had guessed MSN 200, he would definitely have deserved a bonus ! Must ask FabienA380, what is the most number of MSNs Airbus has skipped in a convoy after the last one? Here, we have 9! Alright, my position has evolved. For simplicity's sake, I'll go with FabienA380's suggestion that MSN following the one convoyed shall be deemed "in sequence".
|
|
henge
Final Assembly Line stage 2
Posts: 346
|
Post by henge on Jan 23, 2015 2:28:31 GMT 1
On a side note... In my original "Jackpot" suggestion (which was deemed 'too complicated'), we would now be in the situation that the sequence is broken, so the number of most recent MSNs convoyed in sequence is ONE, awarding ONE point for an out-of-sequence bet in the coming round. As that would be the same as for an in-sequence bet, the whole discussion about what "out-of-sequence" now exactly means would be moot...
|
|