|
StandardVC10 posted:So the Mitsubishi MRJ just made its first flight. I hope for the sake of all those who fly on it that it's much better built than their cars.
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
ehnus posted:I seem to recall that Air Canada ended up dusting off a bunch of their L1011s that were in the boneyard in the mid 90s to fill a capacity gap until some new Airbus of sorts arrived. I think that's still my favourite Air Canada livery. The new one still looks like minty garbage, IMO. I flew on an L1011 once, when Air Transat still operated them. I don't really remember much about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Not the Bosniaks! I heard the Bosnian (and some other Eastern European and Central Asian) muslims are less observant about the alcohol prohibition compared to Arab muslims, on the basis that the Prophet was talking about wine, not vodka.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Here's some real aeronautical insanity: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/air-transat-pilots-arrest-1.3684955 Why would you even risk loving up your career that badly? Buy some scotch at the duty-free and drink it when you get home for gently caress sake.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Ola posted:It's kind of weird that the airlines don't mention hand luggage in the They don't? It's always printed on the card that they tell you to read, and I'm sure I've heard at least one airline (BA perhaps?) mention not to take hand luggage down the emergency slide (along with removing high heels).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Is there a particular reason that pusher props fell out of fashion? The only thing I can think of is weight and balance considerations, and possibly the ability for the pilot to see the engine in an emergency situation (for example: is it on fire?).YF19pilot posted:So, here's the rule: Also, out of curiosity, has there been any significantly-produced jet with conventional gear (as opposed to tricycle)? I can't think of one offhand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Cool stuff. Re: pusher props, I hadn't thought about cooling, but that makes perfect sense. Beyond that, there's probably a certain amount of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Even if the issues could be solved, there's no particularly compelling reason to come up with a novel design that works but doesn't improve on existing, conventional designs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
That's not a shitpost, it is in fact very cool. We expect pictures from now on, though 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Don't count on many, if any pictures...lots of shops have strict FOD regulations, and cameras (even phones sometimes) fall afoul unless they are being used expressly for work. Hence the Don't actually do anything that would endanger your employment, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
I don't know what the laws are like in the US, but in Canada I think the "you may not takeoff or land an aircraft in a built-up area except at a registered aerodrome" is going to cover most things pretty nicely. We already have reasonably tight controls on drones, theoretically speaking. Enforcement is the most difficult thing, but that will change as soon as we're talking about something that's large enough to actually carry a human and is actually practical enough to be used for transportation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
I can't imagine having money enough to buy any aircraft, and then going "hmm, I don't think the safety afforded to me by a handheld radio that costs perhaps a few hundred dollars is worth it." Even if you don't have a radio that can transmit, you can still listen to other people's radio calls and react accordingly, so it's better than nothing. It's like filing a flight plan: even in situations where you don't have to, the fact that it's not legally required doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Is there any reason that couldn't be done with a "hoverbike" provided the hoverbike had variable-pitch rotors like a helicopter? That would add a whole bunch of expense to the thing, but it seems like it should at least be possible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Take those retarded hoverbikes you see on youtube, put a bunch of equipment in them to make them not horrific death traps and then put the rotors on top because quite frankly having them below/beside you is a horrible design choice. Very, very true. I'd rather fly a fully-equipped and certified airplane than an ultralight or some experimental homebuilt, and I'd rather just have a proper helicopter than a hoverbike or some nonsense. Realistically, getting an actual pilot's license is not all that difficult (I've only encountered people who don't like it and quit, or lack the money and quit, never anyone that's flat out unable to do it) and then you can fly all manner of aircraft that probably won't kill you and can actually be used for practical purposes. I've never been flying and thought, "You know what would be really great? Something like this but less reliable and with worse equipment." My friend got a powered parachute license and bought himself a powered parachute. That seems like a slightly less lovely compromise because it still involves a parachute, but it's still not something I'd go for.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Meanwhile in Calgary... That wasn't at the airport, it was near the airport. And frankly, anyone dumb enough to work on the metal roof of a building in the middle of a thunderstorm probably has that coming.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Uhh, those hangars are *on* the airport. And since they are on the federally-owned airport grounds, they must abide by Calgary Airport Authority rules, which include lightning safety protocols. Ugh, you'd think at least one of the numerous news articles on the subject would loving mention that, but they all just said it was "near the airport." God our media is useless.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Or you could just use your loving brain and realise that a hangar would be, you know, at the airport They didn't call it a hangar, every article said the men were on the roof of a building near the airport, which could conceivably be any building close to the airport, which is a huge area that includes industrial areas and houses as well as aviation-related businesses. Obviously you saw a different source than I did which was more specific, both in regard to the building that was struck and the location thereof.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Hello I know gently caress all about aircraft and gently caress all about software development and it's my opinion that this wildly impractical thing is in fact a great idea.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I was so stunned and tired when I was at the airport on Tuesday that I stuck my baggage tag to itself without attaching it in any way to the suitcase. Luckily, the airline person noticed I was being an idiot and saved me from myself. Regarding online checkin, apparently on Air Canada you can't get an upgrade after you complete check-in unless you complete the five Herculean labours, which must all be done in person at the airport. I'm not sure why I didn't get offered a paid upgrade during checkin since there's still business class seats available on my flight and I'm more than willing to pay.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
I use the phone/watch boarding pass as a backup, as it's possible I could misplace a flimsy bit of paper. Remember when boarding passes used to be printed on something stiffer than thermal paper? What a time that was! Edit: Air Canada wanted $1700 for a business class upgrade YYZ-YYC. I paid $200 less than that for BA Club World from Heathrow to YYC for the full fare, not an upgrade from economy, they must be out of their loving minds. PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Linedance posted:No they ain't, because that's a loving cash cow route for business class, even with the oil slump. It almost never goes with empty seats up front. Yeah it was indeed 100% full. Obviously CanPol is wrong about me being out-of-touch rich if folks are paying $2000 each way for AC domestic business class. Although I suppose I could afford it, I can't abide the thought of paying that much money for business class on a 4 hour flight. At least I have an aisle seat so I can get up and walk around as the doctor advised. Probably better for me than a business class window seat.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Linedance posted:
They're all moaning about their constant poverty and how Notley has murdered their puppy, so I didn't expect they'd blow that amount of money on an upgrade like cocaine-addled halfwits. No wonder none of them have any money anymore. Edit: so business class costs more than a month's rent and yet the most premium wine they serve is $8.50 for a 8 oz. pour, at airline markups. Apparently everyone is either dirt poor or fabulously rich. Ridiculous... But I'll stop derailing the thread now. In more interesting news, I saw a few CF-18s do low-level fly-bys at YYZ while I was waiting. Nifty, but I didn't get any photos unfortunately. PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
The only airline I've seen that doesn't use Wallet/passbook/whatever it's called, is Air Europa*. Wallet works great and the pass is always displayed on the lock screen. There are plenty of Android apps that can handle passbook-format too. * The custom app is poo poo. Is it some kind of SkyTeam thing or just a coincidence?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
There should be a way in which baggage receipts can be sent to a mobile device, too. Yesterday, Air Canada gave me a piece of paper with the sticky baggage claim tag attached to it -- it wasn't even a duplicate boarding pass, even though it easily could've been. I don't know why that part of the system hasn't been improved.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:It's not integrated into iOS like boarding passes are, but American's app incorporates baggage receipts. I should've figured some airline had eventually figured it out. Hopefully more do so soon. Frankly, I don't see the need to have them at all, except in cases where you need to track lost luggage, so as long as it gets recorded electronically somewhere and associated with my name, I don't care. I know my suitcase is my suitcase because it has my suitcase's identifying marks, my suitcase's three digit locking code, and at least one (usually two, in case one gets detached) distinctive tag with my home address (which matches up to my government ID, for verification purposes) and my contact information while I'm travelling, written in my handwriting. A tiny six-digit number on a baggage tag is, by comparison, very difficult for me to verify. Furthermore, I don't want the baggage claim tag to be considered evidence that a suitcase belongs to someone, since that tag can be so easily dropped and picked up by anyone else anyway. Speaking of baggage handling, are there any airlines that offer free checked luggage but charge for bin space? I think that would work so much better, since boarding and de-boarding would take a fraction of the time if people didn't attempt to take their entire collection of worldly possessions with them as cabin baggage. I'm guessing fewer than one in ten of those loving roller bags actually fit in the sizing device properly, either.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
luminalflux posted:Lookit all these people without apple wallet, that poo poo just works. It works when the airline provides the right format of electronic boarding pass, and even on Android there are plenty of apps that can handle Apple Wallet formatted passes. Sometimes it's a massive-rear end pain to get that format though, or outright impossible to do it. Air Europa was a loving pain in the rear end to do it with, let me tell you! I think I finally got it working, but I had to tether my iPhone to my Android's cellular data (since I didn't have a local SIM for the iPhone), then download the Air Europa app on my iPhone, get the Apple Wallet boarding pass through the buggy app, and then share it via e-mail so I could download it on my Android phone, which would then display it via a 3rd-party app.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
EDIT: ^^^^ That works, too.Midjack posted:How do you propose to implement this without massively complicating boarding? How do they tag hand baggage with "cabin baggage allowed" tags prior to the flight? It would be exactly like that, except these are ones that you pay for at check-in instead. How would this be even slightly difficult? It's easier than everyone trying to bring a "slightly" oversized roller-bag and dealing with the resulting Tetris. People would spend less time standing in the aisle, boarding times could easily be cut in half I imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
"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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:48 |
|
|
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
|
|