"You do understand that in aviation a frequency represents a single flight operated between two points. Which means that, for example, a daily rotation is equal to seven weekly frequencies.
My comment related to XXX is fine. If let’s say the route goes double daily it will represent a total of 14 frequencies. Out of these 14, 7 could be operated by A319 while the other 7 could be operated with an Atr.
One would expect that all people visiting this blog would be familiar with the aviation lingo."
My question
Is it correct to use the word “frequency” as a synonym “for a single flight” in English?
Or it is invented by people who just wanted to invent something even though it was pretty wrong expression.
Should I accept the expression or throw it away?
It sounds strange to me. To call a single flight “a frequency”, or to talk in this sense of “14 frequencies”, is inconsistent with the normal meaning and usage of the word. However, fields such as aviation do develop their own jargon and language use, so I couldn’t categorically say that it’s wrong in that specialist context.
Of course, you can talk of “the frequency of flights”, e.g. three per week, or whatever.
I am familiar with what “frequency” means for I am an electronic engineer (e.g. number of oscillations/movements per second or any other time unit or space of time, number of occurrences in a time frame, (of the same nature) number of changes in a time frame).
I got stunned when I’d read the post.
Of course I accept, ‘What’s the frequency of the flights to that destination at that airport?’ and the answer could be, ‘Two per day.’
But, to say, there are two frequencies per day would be most idiotic jargon I have ever heard in my life.
What is worse, I’ve also ran across the expression in my mother tongue. Whenever it happens I get goosebumps on my skin.