Malaysia Airlines

[Nintendo]

First, the disappearance of Flight MH370 (Malaysian government conspiracy or extraterrestrial activity involvement?) and now the shooting down of Flight MH17 by pro-Russian separatists...all in the same year!?


What on earth is going on here?


My elder sister, her husband, and her 2 kids will be off to the Philippines for holiday during this Christmas.


Their flights are all booked and fully paid for and have been for quite sometime now.


From today on wards, Malaysia Airlines are offering people who have booked/fully paid for a flight...guess what? Full refunds if they cancel between now and the 24th of July.


This evening, I called my sister to let her know of these options


She disregarded it.

 

[rygD]

extraterrestrial activity

 

 

[bloodfalco]

Well, I really think, you should really persuade your sister, Malaysia Airlines is not doing so good these days

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

...


She disregarded it.

 

[ekianjo]

First, the disappearance of Flight MH370 (Malaysian government conspiracy or extraterrestrial activity involvement?)

ET, seriously ?

 

[ElPoco]

I'm pretty sure that if you look at the probabilities she has more risks to die in a car accident on the way to or back from the airport than during a Malaysian Airline flight...

Humans are pretty bad at evaluating risks.  We tend to overreact to such news and stories, and ignore the facts. Keep your head cool, and check the statistics.

 

[Null]

What on earth is going on here?

 

[erico]

hey, don´t rule out intraterrestrial activity involvement (IT), like the bermuda triangle or the Mu people...

 

[Neelix]

Honestly I think the main risk involved in planning any future flights with Malaysia Airlines is that they may go out of business before you get a chance to fly...   they were already making a loss due to budget airline competition even before MH370.    To then lose 2 aircraft in 6 months can't be good for their bottom line...

In terms of accidents though, given the relative rarity of airline accidents,  statistically speaking Malaysia Airlines is probably your safest choice right now.

- Neelix

 

[Granitehead]

In terms of accidents though, given the relative rarity of airline accidents,  statistically speaking Malaysia Airlines is probably your safest choice right now.

This sounds like you've misunderstood probability: If the probability of an airline accident is 10^-5 per flight and you have had more crashes than was likely in the last two months, then the probability for the next flight is still 10^-5.If you change anything then you would include those past crashes in the statistics, so the probability of another crash would be estimated higher.

 

[ekianjo]

If the probability of an airline accident is 10^-5 per flight and you have had more crashes than was likely in the last two months

If you consider the probability of the same airline crashing three times during the same year, however, the odds would look better for Malaysian Airlines than the others. I guess that's what he was referring to.

 

[ElPoco]

I guess Neelix is a Shadok

"When one tries continuously, one ends up succeeding. Thus, the more one fails, the greater the chance that it will work."

"If there is one chance out of a 1000 to succeed, rush failing the 999 first tries."

 

[Granitehead]

If the probability of an airline accident is 10^-5 per flight and you have had more crashes than was likely in the last two months

 If you consider the probability of the same airline crashing three times during the same year, however, the odds would look better for Malaysian Airlines than the others. I guess that's what he was referring to.

Yeah, that's what I assumed too. But that's for the past. Back before those crashes, the probability of three successive crashes was low. But now we have the past crashes, and can't include them in our calculations anymore, the only thing left is the probability for the next flight, which didn't change (or if anything, for the worse by updating the estimated probability).

 

[ekianjo]

"When one tries continuously, one ends up succeeding. Thus, the more one fails, the greater the chance that it will work."

You seem to be misunderstanding probabilities. That's not what he said.

The probability of getting a 6 the first time on a dice is 1/6, but the probability of getting a 6 twice is 1/36.

 

[Granitehead]

"When one tries continuously, one ends up succeeding. Thus, the more one fails, the greater the chance that it will work."

 You seem to be misunderstanding probabilities. That's not what he said.

The probability of getting a 6 the first time on a dice is 1/6, but the probability of getting a 6 twice is 1/36.

But, adding to ekianjo's reply, when you already have the first 6 lying there, the probability of another 6 is 1/6, exactly what it would be if there was a 5 already lying there.

 

[ekianjo]

But now we have the past crashes, and can't include them in our calculations anymore

Why can't you include them ? They are part of the pool of data.

 

[Granitehead]

But now we have the past crashes, and can't include them in our calculations anymore

 Why can't you include them ? They are part of the pool of data.

Like with the dice. The dice doesn't care whether the past 500 throws were all 6s, the probability for the next 6 is still 1/6.
Edit: As said, if you wanted to include them, you would use them to estimate a new probability, which would be worse than before. In the example of the dice, you would maybe assume the dice is broken and the probability for a six is actually much bigger than 1/6.

 

[ekianjo]

Like with the dice. The dice doesn't care whether the past 500 throws were all 6s, the probability for the next 6 is still 1/6.

The dice does not care, however people getting 6 500 times is extremely low. The cumulative probability decreases with the number of trials.

If you consider a single year the probability of a single crash, it may be something like 1/700 000 or something like that, but the yearly probability of 3 crashes in the same airline is something like 1/9000 000 000 (made up number). I'm not sure what you argue about here. Of course the next flights carry the same probability, but it's like thunder, it's unlikely it strikes 10 times in the same spot.

 

[ElPoco]

Over the year it's very unlikely for Malaysia Airline to get three crashes, but for the passengers boarding the plane, the probability to get a crash is the same every time, no matter if they're boarding before the first crash or after the second.

 

[ekianjo]

Over the year it's very unlikely for Malaysia Airline to get three crashes, but for the passengers boarding the plane, the probability to get a crash is the same every time,

And that's assuming the events are purely independent.

Which may not be true.

Malaysia airlines could suddenly put way more security measures and precautions and reduce the probability of crashes in their fleet.