Who cares about the probability that everyone gets their meal choice? The question is the expected number of people who don't.

Same total number of passengers. That's what matters; out of 100 passengers, how many don't get their meal choices?

But it's not a linear relationship, it's closer to a square root. Why are you unwilling to understand that?

That's not the correct sort of calculation to find the number of unhappy people.

If there are 2 passengers or 20 passengers not pre-selecting, and I choose last, there's a 50% chance I'm disappointed. If I choose first (or anywhere in the first 10 for the 20-pax case) there's a 0% chance I'm disappointed. If I choose between position #11 and #19 (inclusive) in the 20-pax case, there's a probability strictly between 0% and 50% that I'm disappointed.

So: in the 2 pax case, there's a 25% chance I'm disappointed (50% that I choose last, 50% that the other person wants the same meal).

In the 20 pax case, there's a 50% chance that I choose in the second half; and, given that, the chance that I'm disappointed is well under 50% (depending on just where in the second half I am). So my overall chance of being disappointed is under 25%, and I'm better off.

And once again, we see you proposing that Delta either commit False Advertising (the upgrade isn't to First Class but to something with some of the benefits of First Class, but not all of them) or have to change its advertising to admit it doesn't really provide First Class upgrades.

I don't think either of those will fly.

What's the flight number?

I suggested that a couple of years ago, but only for coach pax (and as a method to get them to actually not use the F lav).

Boy you are quite focused on advertising. From someone who makes his living off of advertising, I can tell you most of it comes with conditions and disclaimers. Hardly any can be taken at face value.

1455. :)

Or if FAs would just close the curtain on all flights, as opposed to just long-hauls.

OK, Bubbashow, if the advertising you sell comes with all of these conditions and disclaimers, then WHY would anyone buy it???

Likewise, either DL offers and advertises a product for sale and then provides it "as advertised" when purchased by a passenger, or they just stay completely out of the "add-on market" because they can't/won't provide what the traveler wants to pay for. If there are a lot of conditions/disclaimers regarding a PAID upgrade to a premium cabin then who would even consider this offer?

Because people choose not to see details. Sure you can lease a Chevy Cruze for 89 a month (see dealer for details). The details are the devil. 2000 down, 10k miles per year, plus tax title doc and transfer fees, by the way you must have GM employee pricing and a conquest lease.

So can you get a car for 89 a month? Sure. People come into the dealer for the 89 price. They ignore the details. False advertising? Not even close.

You're joking, right? Every-time you upgrade your software, you agree to terms, conditions and disclaimers. Do you really think people are not going to buy iTunes music because the arbitration clause states, IIRC, that the arbitration is to take place in Luxembourg or Egypt, or somewhere like that. Moreover, do you realize what an iTunes song would cost if Apple weren't indemnified?

No. An advertisement is not an offer to form a binding contract in almost all instances; rather it's an invitation to make an offer. Accepting your money and then not providing a service is an entirely different matter. Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands, of people are paying for upgrades on a daily basis under DL's terms of carriage. FCM?

DL is trying to improve the onboard premium experience here. With DL's strategy to limit upgrades to Y+, I can't see them creating a lot of 'add-ons' in FC. There's only so much the FA can do in a two or three hour flight window. I don't think a Sky Chef a la TK or OS to prepare meals to order is in the cards here any-time soon :D

Really?

Radio commercial with "the details" provided in the last 4 seconds by someone speaking at 5X normal conversational speed and several times faster than comprehension speed.

TV commercial with "the details" provided in 15 lines of minute font in white or light grey color superimposed over a barely contrasting background color, displayed for only a few seconds (not enough time to read it all even if it were legible).

Web page where "the details" must be accessed on another page and the link that must be clicked is half-way down the page in minuscule font and a color that barely contrasts with the background.

All of the above are very commonly encountered.

So, you would assert that the customers who would be disadvantaged by the above (by design, one must assume) "chose not to see the details"?

I suspect that there is a multitude of folks (P. T. Barnum reincarnates) in the advertising and media industries who would assert that advertisement, as exemplified above, is all-right because it is not expressly illegal.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

LOL. No. The only thing that would be higher would be their profit.

My head hurts after reading this thread......

Unless something changed, I seriously doubt extras are boarded. I know for a fact there were not extras in the past.

I also believe boarding extras would be wasteful and unnecessary.

The exception to this IMO is international J; given the cost boarding extras is justified.

I can count on one hand the number of times I have not gotten my choice in 30 years of flying....

I thought I was anal but I have never even thought about FEBO. Thanks for making me feel better!

I view this as a good thing, giving customers more of what they want.

I do hope they would focus more on quality......does not matter if I get my choice if it is no good.

Bon appetit :D

^

That, after all, was the original topic of the thread. :)

But, I have heard a lot about probability theory here. Now, if I only knew how much of it was correct. :D

Right or wrong, we live in a society in which we should know to look beyond the shiny headline or slogan. To be fixated on "false advertising" is a waste of time, especially with a company the size of Delta that has multiple lawyers that pour over copy and claims for a living.

Edited to add: Look at the pages and pages of upgrade complaints in the DL forum....dozens of people who refuse to look within the parenthesis at the words (space available). People see what they want to see and that often isn't the reality.

Delta would have to add more conditions and disclaimers, which they probably don't want to do.