|
Sorry your pax-compatriots are slow as hell but gently caress paying extra for a "service" that already exists. Also gently caress United.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:59 |
|
|
What do you mean by "boarding from both sides?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:What do you mean by "boarding from both sides?" I suppose "boarding from both ends" would be a better way to put it, but it's exactly what it sounds like: people in the front half of the plane board from the front, people in the rear half board from the rear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
They already do that at gates without jetways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:They already do that at gates without jetways. Yes, my point is that, when the boarding process can be sped up, the turnaround time for the plane is decreased; therefore it's worthwhile to try to make the boarding process faster. Edit: Here's an article about this issue, perhaps people can read it and what the experts within say on the subject, so we don't poo poo up this thread any more: https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/travel/2015/11/19/time-banish-carry-luggage/YB9Q20EvGGrCoRkGLrvP7N/story.html PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, my point is that, when the boarding process can be sped up, the turnaround time for the plane is decreased; therefore it's worthwhile to try to make the boarding process faster. how exactly does busing passengers to a remote stand to board from both ends of the aircraft speed up the boarding process? The only reason they're boarding from both sides when they do that is because of all the lost time in the bus transfer process. And sorry, what experts exactly were quoted in that article? A design firm that flew on a regional jet once and thought the tiny bins were fab? Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, my point is that, when the boarding process can be sped up, the turnaround time for the plane is decreased; therefore it's worthwhile to try to make the boarding process faster. It's been pointed out to you that boarding is not the critical path for turnaround time, and speeding it up does not necessarily decrease turnaround time. Let's say you wave a magic wand and *poof*, the plane's ready to go *instantly*, all maintenance and cleaning and supply operations have been performed, crew's ready, etc. *Then* boarding would be the long tent pole and speeding it up would result in faster turnaround. But you can't do that, those things take X amount of time, so speeding up boarding so that it takes less than X time doesn't reduce turnaround time at all. quote:“The boarding process has devolved to absurdity,” Fitton said. “Part of the problem is that size restrictions are such a joke. Airlines never seem to enforce them. The size component could easily be handled at the TSA stage.” That's hilarious. Yes, let's give the utterly incompetent and incapable of rational judgement TSA employees the job of telling passengers which carryons meet different airlines' checked baggage size limits. Brilliant, you've just saved people ten minutes in boarding their flight by doubling the time it takes to get through security. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Or you could have airline employees actually check during checkin or connection, like BA does all the time. I've seen people have their bags checked all the time going through T5 at Heathrow because BA actually insists that their employees pay attention to the dimensions of cabin baggage. I do agree having TSA agents check bag size is dumb, though. PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's been pointed out to you that boarding is not the critical path for turnaround time, and speeding it up does not necessarily decrease turnaround time. Let's say you wave a magic wand and *poof*, the plane's ready to go *instantly*, all maintenance and cleaning and supply operations have been performed, crew's ready, etc. *Then* boarding would be the long tent pole and speeding it up would result in faster turnaround. But you can't do that, those things take X amount of time, so speeding up boarding so that it takes less than X time doesn't reduce turnaround time at all. the problem is, PT6A is coming at this from the typical "I am the only person flying at this moment, this airline operates for my benefit and mine alone" point of view, without considering any of the logistics that go into airline operations. PT6A, if you had your way, you'd be the first person to complain about having to turn up a minimum of 60-90 minutes prior to your flight because you have to check your carry-on now. Oh the time wasted in the bag drop queue! If only the airline had the wisdom to allow carry-on bags, we'd all get where we're going much faster!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Linedance posted:the problem is, PT6A is coming at this from the typical "I am the only person flying at this moment, this airline operates for my benefit and mine alone" point of view, without considering any of the logistics that go into airline operations. Not at all; I always show up early to the airport because I absolutely hate being rushed and stressed by the length of queues or what have you. Once I've dropped by bag and made it through security, I can relax, have a beverage, enjoy a lounge, etc. I hate really tight connections too, I prefer a minimum of two hours so I'm not rushing across the airport. Further, I don't see how passenger boarding can possibly not be the critical path when people here are claiming it's possible to turn a narrowbody in 20 minutes and yet it takes 30-40 minutes to complete the boarding process. If the boarding process were only taking 15-20 minutes, then it would cease to be the critical path, but as it stands now, it's clearly the limiting factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Wait just to be certain here, you are saying that AC, using one door of the plane, boards the airplane in 40 minutes, and BA, using two doors of the plane, boards the airplane in 20 minutes? How exactly does that make BA's boarding process "better" other than the doubled throughput due to operating the process in parallel?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Wait just to be certain here, you are saying that AC, using one door of the plane, boards the airplane in 40 minutes, and BA, using two doors of the plane, boards the airplane in 20 minutes? I'm not saying that, I'm saying that when the boarding process is sped up, the turnaround time is decreased, and the boarding process is more pleasant for everyone. Therefore, we should take whatever steps we can to speed up the boarding process; limiting hand baggage is one of the ways of doing this, and it's more practical in cold climates than using remote stands and boarding planes from both ends. You know what? I'm changing my opinion: gently caress charging for overhead bin space, just ban everything larger than the current "personal item," and strictly enforce size constraints. There! No more logistical difficulties, and suddenly the boarding process becomes a simple and fast experience for everyone. No one gets bumped by giant luggage, no one has to fight for space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Ban the elderly and disabled if you want to fly through the bording process Makes about as much sense as the poo poo you're suggesting
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
can we  please  stop  arguing  about  loving  LUGGAGE 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
I tried by posting that article and telling everyone to shut up about it, but people seem to want to continue it. I'm okay with a probation for anyone that posts on the topic from this point forward though, provided it applies to everyone, because it's derailing this thread for no good reason. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Not even one picture of a Hustler
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Not even one picture of a Hustler poo poo, you're right, i hosed up  and while we're at it, how could I forget the bone?  (i have a thing for night shots of afterburners) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:and while we're at it, how could I forget the bone? whoa bro let me know beforehand when you're gonna give me a boner e:   
marumaru fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tZWddo2dHk quote="Linedance" post="463985900" how exactly does busing passengers to a remote stand to board from both ends of the aircraft speed up the boarding process? The only reason they're boarding from both sides when they do that is because of all the lost time in the bus transfer process. ---- Just a PS, but you don't have to bus. I flew a couple times with Norwegian this summer, on every flight they asked passengers seated behind row X to walk down the stairs, across the tarmac and enter through the rear entrance. Ahem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFjROsovWs 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Not even one picture of a Hustler Its one of the most AI of all planes
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:(i have a thing for night shots of afterburners) Do any such images of the B-70 exist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:There's a reason Stan Rogers preferred the Guysborough Train. He didn't prefer it enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
i desperately want to know the story behind this
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
It was part of the USAF's pollution program in the 50s, back when they were trying to find a way to warm up the entire Earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:i desperately want to know the story behind this Normal operations? Water injection+JATO bottles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:i desperately want to know the story behind this "how many JATO bottles can we put on a plane? Let's find out." Combine that with old engines being smoky as hell (especially with water-injection, I believe) and well, fuck_the_environment.jpg. Early B-47s had built-in JATO racks which were abandoned for removable racks (so as not to carry deadweight around) - carrying up to 33 bottles. That'll get you going in the morning, alright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:i desperately want to know the story behind this Late 40's jet engines didn't have a lot of thrust, and had even less at low speeds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Psion posted:"how many JATO bottles can we put on a plane? Let's find out." "When you absolutely, positively have to nuke the Reds in just a few hours, choose JATO"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
 Because screw the runway
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Sorry your pax-compatriots are slow as hell but gently caress paying extra for a "service" that already exists. You mean like baggage check? Edit: Oh, we've moved on. Ok. Here, have a Caribou that was shot down by friendly artillery in Vietnam:  Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:
Zero-length launch system. Because when we're all dying in a nuclear war, who needs a place to land?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Zero-length launch system. Because when we're all dying in a nuclear war, who needs a place to land? The program was originally called ZELMAL: Zero Length Launch/ Mat Landing. The mat part was a 300 foot long inflated rubber mat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:i desperately want to know the story behind this A totally normal by-the-book B-47 launch? e: beaten. A slightly different angle on the B-47 (and its older brethren):  HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
\  
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
buttcrackmenace posted:i desperately want to know the story behind this Cold War Viagra
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
I never knew about a Thud buddy tanker. Edit:  Thuddy tanker
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I'd say best plane but I don't want to get chastised by the thread. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I never knew about a Thud buddy tanker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:59 |
|
|
   quote:PAK-FA, friend of trees  quote:Q: How do you tell the difference between an Su-27 and a MiG-29?   
LostCosmonaut fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:41
|
|