Air replacements question

[Toddr22_slith]

What does this mean?

Delayed planes for the aircraft pool:
4 (7) x I-153, 2 (2) x SOC-1 Seagull

[Sredni]

At some point in the recent past you sent some of those planes back to the pools, disbanding squadrons with those planes equipped. Mostly they don't immediately go back into the pools and you have to wait a bit before they appear and you can reuse them in other squadrons.

I've never understood the fine details though, like 4(7) x I-153. I dunno if that means 4 ready now and 7 needing repair or what. TBH I've just always figured they'd eventually make it to the pools and not worried about it heh.

[Puhis]

I think it means 4 planes were added today, 7 is still delayed.

[Rainer]

At some point in the recent past you sent some of those planes back to the pools

The delay has nothing to do with sending planes to pool.
After delivery groups have to wait a week before another batch arrives.
That's what the message is saying.

[USSAmerica]

It does refer to planes being returned to the pools.

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I think it means 4 planes were added today, 7 is still delayed.

Puhis is correct. [:)]

[Rainer]

Yes, Puhis' remark is correct.

When a group receives replacements further replacements always will be delayed a week.
The message informs the player that there are planes in the pool but not delivered (yet).
Why do you think this is affected by planes returned to pool?

[vonTirpitz]

Perhaps it is just semantics. However, this message only refers to planes being returned to the pools from airgroups that have upgraded to another airframe or otherwise reduced their numbers by reducing the reserve planes in an airgroup or the airgroup resizing.

The delay was added a few revisions ago to eliminate airframes instantly returning to the pools. The message was added to inform the player that their planes didn't just vanish.

[Rainer]

You're right. I misread the whole thing.
My apologies to USS America, Sredni and especially the original poster Toddr22.
Participating in a discussion is one thing, but giving misleading and confusing "advice" should not happen.
Again, I'm sorry.