Ogden Johnson III wrote:
Not likely, the Korean War Armistice dates to July 27, 1953. No
"combat losses" in "1954 alone."

I'd be interested in the citation in the footnote that Andrew S
Erickson and Andrew R. Wilson provided in the paper to support
their statement. By 1954, the USN wasn't "working to master jet
aviation off carriers, ..." they had been doing it operationally
for some time by 1954, supporting that war that the Armistice of
July 27, 1953 put on hold for 54 years and counting.

Which is not to say that I don't believe that the Navy didn't
lose 800 jet aircraft during their entire transition of pilots
from prop aircraft to jet aircraft during that entire transition
over a period of several years, whether in land based training or
carrier training - I doubt it, but I'm not going to do the
research to find out how many losses were suffered. I just don't
buy the Erickson/Wilson statement.

[Why do I suspect that the statement isn't supported by a
footnoted/endnoted citation?]

You just gave me the answer actually, as the footnote included an URL to
an article. So I can answer it myself:

(The quoted article I questioned can be found on p 25 in Naval War
College Review Vol 59 no 4, autumn 2006, also available he
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review...s/NWCRAU06.pdf )

Source quoted for the paragraph mentioned is an article by Sandra Erwin
in National Defense Magazine oct 2000:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Navy_Aims.htm

There the sentence reads:

....."In 1954, said Dirren, the Navy lost 776 airplanes, an average of
two a day. But even though fewer planes are lost in accidents today, the
cost of naval aircraft has gone up so much that the financial
implications of mishaps are more significant than ever, he explained.
“We lost 22 in 1999. But those 22 airplanes were worth 10 times what the
776 airplanes were worth in 1954,” he said. The A4 Skyhawks were
$240,000 a copy. Today’s premier naval fighter-bomber, the F/A-18E/F,
costs $57 million.

Back in those days, said Dirren, such high rates of mishaps were
acceptable and viewed as “the cost of doing business.”....

The "master jet aviation"-bit seems to be added by Erickson/Wilson to
illustrate the difficulties of carrier operations.
Anyway, I have to assume these are correct numbers.