|
Godholio posted:Nobody show Delta. None of these letters spell United 
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
I don't think I've flown on a domestic flight that wasnt operated by Delta since the 90s. SLC and Atlanta have been basically the only hubs nearby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Okay so from my (limited) knowledge of aeronautics, at high AoA turbulence is generated behind the wing which eventually results in a stall, would this turbulence have any effect on the engine performance due to how close the intakes are to the backs of the wing? You've got it mostly backwards. Turbulance is "one thing". Turbulant air is "another thing". Stalls can be predicted by turbulent air flow, but are not defined by it. A stall is what happens when the airflow over a surface separates from that surface. The air "under" the separation is going to be turbulent. I assure you the designers considered wing and fuselage effects on engine placement on that plane. However, it's not uncommon for jet aircraft, in general, to have engine issues when airflow is coming at weird directions. "weird" can be defined as anything more than a few degrees off the axis of the intake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Cross-quoting from the OSHA thread:Sanctum posted:Well this is not supposed to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Also, the windows would be at waist height.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Acid Reflux posted:Hey, if it's good enough for a CRJ200, it's good enough for everyone! gently caress those things. Only aircraft I'll specifically select different flights to avoid. Does United operate any of those? I only encounter them when I switched to Delta. Spent tons of time on ERJ145s with United.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:None of these letters spell United Actually 3 of them do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:gently caress those things. Only aircraft I'll specifically select different flights to avoid. Horrid little planes. Bombardier's entire pitch for the C-Series jet should just be: "we promise we've done better this time!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
"I saw a CRJ200 the other day." "Horrible planes. I avoid them whenever I can." This thread is giving me Oblivion flashbacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Horrid little planes. Bombardier's entire pitch for the C-Series jet should just be: "we promise we've done better this time!" Long CRJs / NextGens are fine though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
"Fine" is a bit of an overstatement. CRJ-705s and the like are better, certainly, but I'd still rather fly pretty much anything else. It really depends on how long the flight is; I'm fine for an hour or two, but gently caress Air Canada for running CRJs on YYC-IAH. That's far too long (nearly 4 hours) to be on such an aircraft. I would take E170s or E190s every time over that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I like CRJs because they mean I am almost home, or just starting a trip. Also I get bumped to CRJ first class which is totally baller and basically like coach on any other plane. Also they look cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:"Fine" is a bit of an overstatement. CRJ-705s and the like are better, certainly, but I'd still rather fly pretty much anything else. It really depends on how long the flight is; I'm fine for an hour or two, but gently caress Air Canada for running CRJs on YYC-IAH. That's far too long (nearly 4 hours) to be on such an aircraft. I would take E170s or E190s every time over that. Sure, but are you interested in an E135/140/145?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Sure, but are you interested in an E135/140/145? I haven't been on one, but I'd imagine not. Still, their maximum capacity is well below that of the "long" CRJs, which are more comparable to the E170 in terms of capacity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
To jump back on boarding pass on phone chat, I do recall one issue that my fiance ran into. I have TSA Pre-Check, and she does not. When she did the online check-in, her boarding pass showed TSA Pre-Check. When we got to the front of the line (DEN), the lady told her that she did not actually have Pre-Check and would have to go back to the normal line. Thankfully the lady up there let her use the Premier line. All around a confusing experience; not sure if a paper ticket would have made that any better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
There was a blessed time when CATSA was, for some reason, letting anyone with an electronic boarding pass use the priority security line. This has gone away since they've become commonplace, but what a time that was!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
I actually looked at kindle aviation books but oh my god the piles of poo poo were just unbelievable. Awful autobiopgrahies from people you don't care about with stupid titles, THE REAL CONSPIRACY books for any flight which has either gone down or disappeared ever, you name it. so bad. compared to all of those, I did you a favor 
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Kinfolk Jones posted:To jump back on boarding pass on phone chat, I do recall one issue that my fiance ran into. I have TSA Pre-Check, and she does not. When she did the online check-in, her boarding pass showed TSA Pre-Check. When we got to the front of the line (DEN), the lady told her that she did not actually have Pre-Check and would have to go back to the normal line. Thankfully the lady up there let her use the Premier line. All around a confusing experience; not sure if a paper ticket would have made that any better. Was she using your phone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Was she using your phone? Thank you for the title of my next computer security paper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Psion posted:I actually looked at kindle aviation books but oh my god the piles of poo poo were just unbelievable. Awful autobiopgrahies from people you don't care about with stupid titles, THE REAL CONSPIRACY books for any flight which has either gone down or disappeared ever, you name it. so bad. compared to all of those, I did you a favor Yea that's what I saw: tons and tons of unvetted books by no names with 0-5 reviews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Was she using your phone? Nope, it was on her phone. Boarding pass had her name on it and everything. One of the TSA people at the desk blamed it on United doing something screwy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
My guess is that the TSA pre-check status was getting stored in the database as a property of the reservation, not a property of the individual boarding pass, because a software developer or database administrator did a stupid thing at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:EDIT: ^^^^ That works, too. Most of the time they don't waste time with the "cabin baggage allowed" tags unless you fly lovely cheapskate airlines who will rear end rape your face for a nickel but okay, let's say they are now 100% used everywhere in your fantasy land. How do they now enforce that you aren't putting an unauthorized bag overhead? Have the cabin crew examine everything as it goes up? Examine every bag before they close the bin, including pulling down every bag without a visible tag to inspect it? How do you handle bags within bags? How about coats? How do you combat tag reuse by the same person? How do you prevent tag theft? Keep in mind that you can't add much extra time to boarding and that you have to make money from this whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Apropos marshallers: I've never seen them at airports in europe, they seem to be able to get planes into the gate without them. Why do US airports feel the need to have extra ramp labour waving planes around?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Because the US doesn't spend money on automatic marshaling systems? Canada doesn't even want to spend money on precision approaches.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Canada doesn't even want to spend money on precision approaches. That's news to me...
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
luminalflux posted:Apropos marshallers: I've never seen them at airports in europe, they seem to be able to get planes into the gate without them. Why do US airports feel the need to have extra ramp labour waving planes around? Jobs program for unskilled labor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's news to me... Did that Halifax crash change things?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Most of the time they don't waste time with the "cabin baggage allowed" tags unless you fly lovely cheapskate airlines who will rear end rape your face for a nickel but okay, let's say they are now 100% used everywhere in your fantasy land. Like, uh, British Airways on a Club World ticket? They do it so that the tagged item is guaranteed in the cabin, with the provision that it must be placed under the seat in front of you. There's already a flight attendant welcoming people on board, they can visually check that all hand-baggage is properly tagged at the same time as they look at your boarding card and direct you to your seat. Also, if there's some level of fraud, that's still better than the system that exists now, where boarding takes forever and there's never space for anything in the overhead bins. It doesn't have to work 100% of the time to represent a really, really big improvement over the current system, and a massive new source of funds for airlines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Did that Halifax crash change things? I just want to point out it touched down next to "Old Guysborough Road."
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
There's a reason Stan Rogers preferred the Guysborough Train.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 00:14
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
hobbesmaster posted:Did that Halifax crash change things? No...the thing is that apart from a few cases NAV Canada is spending huge amounts of money rolling out RNAV and RNP approaches at as many airports as they can...ILS is slowly starting to go the way of the NDB and (increasingly) VOR. It will be used in a few select applications still, but RNAV and RNP is the way of the future. Not that any of that would have made a difference for that A320, as it was one of the few A320s at Air Canada that did not have GPS installed (if what I read is true, that is...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Like, uh, British Airways on a Club World ticket? They do it so that the tagged item is guaranteed in the cabin, with the provision that it must be placed under the seat in front of you. They aren't going to deny boarding to someone who hasn't got a tagged bag though, or go through the even more complicated and time consuming step of gate checking it on the jetbrige either. Not to mention passengers connecting from other airlines who might not have a tagged bag. In addition to this, you're looking at it from a passenger convenience angle, which is fair enough, but turn times are generally not limited by the time it takes to board the self loading freight. It doesn't matter if it takes 20 minutes or 40 minutes to get everyone on board, the aircraft isn't leaving any earlier. This is especially true in places like Heathrow where the departure slots are so strictly controlled. As long as it takes less than 45 minutes or so to board a widebody or 20 minutes on a narrow, it all works out fine. When there's delays on a minimum turn, it's usually not because of passenger boarding, unless there's some no-shows and they need to pull their bags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
If you don't have a tagged bag because you're connecting from another airline, they can let you pay on the plane during the flight, just like they do if you'd like something to eat. And, like I said, if it doesn't work 100%, we're still better off than if we just let people jam all of creation in the overhead bins, as appears to be the current system. It's clear you just don't like this idea, probably because you don't want to pay for overhead bin space. That's fine, but don't pretend that charging for overhead bin space represents some insurmountable logistical issue. If a narrowbody could be turned in 20 minutes, it wouldn't be necessary, but most recently, my flight began boarding 40 minutes prior to the stated departure time and it left the gate after schedule. If we could get it down to 20, I'd agree no changes should be made. Mainly because people loving with the goddamn overhead bins gently caress everything and everyone else up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If a narrowbody could be turned in 20 minutes, it wouldn't be necessary Uhhhh except they can be? Just because it happens to you once doesn't mean that it is anything near approaching the norm. When I worked on the ramp for a major airline going through college, our average turnaround time on their 120-150 seat narrowbodies was under 30 minutes. It can be done in less than that easily too depending on the type of passengers too...turns flying oilfield workers on a similar type can be as short as 15-20 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Uhhhh except they can be? Just because it happens to you once doesn't mean that it is anything near approaching the norm. Well yeah, they can be, but they aren't, and at the moment the limiting factor is passenger boarding time (and likely de-planing time too), which is why it's possible to go so fast when you have passengers who know what they're doing. That's why it would be beneficial to limit things that result in long boarding times, like passengers with large quantities of hand baggage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well yeah, they can be, but they aren't, and at the moment the limiting factor is passenger boarding time (and likely de-planing time too), which is why it's possible to go so fast when you have passengers who know what they're doing. That's why it would be beneficial to limit things that result in long boarding times, like passengers with large quantities of hand baggage. It isn't though. Even if you could get everyone on board instantaneously, the limiting factors are maintenance, servicing, catering, cargo, fueling, crewing, and pilot prep, much of which happens during boarding. Whether your boarding begins at 40 minutes prior to departure or 20 minutes prior to departure makes no difference to the departure time, which took all the above factors, including boarding, into account. The difference to you is how long you're waiting at the gate before they commence boarding proceedings, which is entirely arbitrary because you're waiting at the gate anyway. That's why I said it amounts to a convenience issue. You're perceiving it as "oh God, I had to queue for 15 minutes before I got on board, and when I did, there were all these people trying to stuff the overhead compartments full of their poo poo". The airline sees it as aircraft arrived on time, turned on time, and pushed back on time, job done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's clear you just don't like this idea, probably because you don't want to pay for overhead bin space. That's fine, but don't pretend that charging for overhead bin space represents some insurmountable logistical issue. Bad form, man, bad form. Consider, on an industry-wide scale, is it really the root cause? I'd say there's plenty of evidence it's not: Linedance's post is an excellent example, and the fact that airlines like fast turnarounds and can change whatever policy they want to screw you because they've got what amounts to an essential service. If it would be faster, don't you think they would have done it and eaten customer unhappiness? Instead, the status quo suggests the chance of missing a slot is low enough that it's not worth the costs - logistical and otherwise - it would introduce. or, to be real blunt: PT6A posted:Well yeah, they can be, but they aren't, please cite your evidence average narrowbody turnaround industry-wide is greater than 30 minutes due to passenger loading Psion fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Like, uh, British Airways on a Club World ticket? They do it so that the tagged item is guaranteed in the cabin, with the provision that it must be placed under the seat in front of you. Wow you got absolutely dicked, whenever I have flown club world including a couple of months ago they've had absolutely zero issues with any of my hand baggage, tagged or untagged. Hell, I can't think of the last flight I flew on where club world overhead bins were full before dirty peasants put their chicken coops up there because they're out of space in the cargo hold or whatever is behind club world
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
sellouts posted:Wow you got absolutely dicked, whenever I have flown club world including a couple of months ago they've had absolutely zero issues with any of my hand baggage, tagged or untagged. There was room in the bins, it's just that the tag meant there was no possibility on either the Club World segment or the connecting Club Europe segment, that I'd have to gate check the bag. Psion posted:Bad form, man, bad form. There's plenty of airlines in Europe that restrict hand baggage to increase turnaround speed. Fine; perhaps there's no feasible way to charge for overhead bin space, but the general principle is sound in terms of reducing boarding times. Maybe Air Canada is especially useless, but I watched them take 40 minutes from the time the first person stepped on board until the door was closed, twice in a row. I've seen BA board the same type in 20, boarding from both sides and with a more sensible hand baggage limit. Therefore I have deduced that, in this case, passenger boarding is the bottleneck in turnaround speed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 13:53
|
|