oliver2002

https://www.flightglobal.com/airline...156222.article

supine

I guess everything done by a computer needs the AI buzzword slapped on it to make it newsworthy.

If they more accurately described it as ML, folks might actually realise it's old hat and not the new LLM hotness.

the810

My local public transport operator has been using automated passenger counters for at least a decade now. They just didn't know it's called AI.

aflo

To be fair it's slightly more advanced and has to be more accurate than the technology used in a bus 10 years ago.

AI is the marketing name for ML. Just get used to it.

daumueller

ML is a subset of AI.

aflo

That's technically correct, but in nearly all non scientific texts, ML is substituted by AI.

daumueller

given that all ML is AI but not all AI is ML, that’s fair

aflo

Yes, as fair as calling the local public transport operator a European transportation agency

hugolover

Masters of Law?

Greenpen

The nice stewardess on my flight today was using a click counter; long may it continue!

AeroLXplorer

My computer science instincts are hard to ignore whenever I observe the stewardess manually tallying passengers. It is rather inefficient. Given that load factors are typically way over 50%, a more effective approach would involve counting empty seats and subtracting them from the total number of seats on the airplane (and then adding infants). Imagine how much faster that would be when the load factor is 95%. Anyway, my idea is getting obsolete as the AI/ML overlords are taking over.

oliver2002

Normally the cross check is done by counting the empty seats. Not every aircraft has the same config, so the 'count empty seats' method is error prone.

aflo

Counting people while boarding might seem inefficient if the load factor is above 50%, but you get the total as soon as boarding is completed. If you want to count the empty seats, you have to wait until (most) people have stowed their hand luggage and taken their seat, which might be quite a bit later. Still you might have people who get up or move around (kids, hand luggage, toilet, chat with others etc.) even after taking their place. This makes counting empty seats more prone to mistakes.

Therefore counting pax at boarding is tedious, but it less also error prone and most important it is quicker, leaving more time to reconcile a mismatch and therefore minimises the risk of a delay.

On the other hand, a cross check with empty seats, shortly before leaving the gate, when people are supposed to stay in their seat, seems to be a good idea.

Counting during boarding with ML seems therefore to be a very good solution. Depending on the accuracy of the ML/AI method, a cross check with empty seats should suffice or might not even be required.