dark light

Skymonster

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 1,877 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: BA 146 at Luanda #519331
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Wonder if this was your bird…? According to Skyliner:

    BAe / Avro RJ85 2385 ZS- South African Airlink delivery 25-26nov10 EGBP-GIB-NDB-…-JNB , ex G-LCYC

    in reply to: East Midlands in the Snow – 27th Nov #508002
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Slightly off topic but does anyone local to EMA, or not come to that, know if Airtrans are still in the terminal there? Thanks for any info.

    Yup, still there… Open rather early through until 6PM every day except Fridays when they’re likely to be open a little later until 7-8PM (phone first for Friday evening just to make sure)

    Andy

    in reply to: BA 146 at Luanda #519369
    Skymonster
    Participant

    An ex-British Airways 146 ferried from Kemble to South Africa middle of last week…

    in reply to: Ryanair passengers protest in Belgium #521391
    Skymonster
    Participant

    As far as I’m concerned, the bottom line is Ryanair’s approach to the business attracts these sorts of people. So in part, both the passengers and the airline get what they deserve. Pay peanuts, get monkies. Charge peanuts, get… chavs (being polite!).

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not condoning what the passengers did – and indeed I fully support Deano’s view as I hate Ryanair and never have and never will fly with them – but having travelled through airports that Ryanair uses its often all too easy to tell who the Ryanair passengers are. I know not all passengers are the same, and I know that these days all airlines are susceptable to adverse passenger reaction to some degree or another… But Ryanair play with fire more often than most, and so for better or for worse sooner or later something will inevitably kick off…

    Andy

    in reply to: LBA New York routes #525333
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Just to let you know grey area i have again informed the webmaster re admin bullying /taking the miickey ,what happened to the if you have nothing sensible to say re the post dont say anything ??

    Is it really worth getting all bent out of shape about what people say here? I’m damned sure the management at LBA aren’t sharing their thinking with a bunch of spotters, so speculation is pretty meaningless really – and thus a light-hearted joke has about as much validity as anyone suggesting the name of a “real” airline.

    Andy

    in reply to: LBA New York routes #525667
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Nnah, Yorkshire Airlines! :dev2:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm6VC5gdaFA

    Andy

    in reply to: Three year old airliner scrapped. #528447
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Three Frontier A318s have already been parted out – two at Greenwood, MS and one following CFM engine recovery by GECAS. Three more are to follow – again two at Greenwood and one for its CFMs by GECAS. It is the newer a/c in the fleet that are being parted out – the first [six?] remain with Frontier as of now. Frontier is rolling over its smaller Airbus fleet into new-build A320s, and the A318s being a bit odd-ball are worth more as parts than they are on the second hand market.

    Andy

    in reply to: 707 or DC8 in pax config – any left? #528700
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Saha Air of Iran, as has been said, is about the only chance – it is ironic that the 707 carries passengers on scheduled services after any chance of flying the DC-8 on such is gone, even though there are far more (freighter) DC-8s flying than there are 707s.

    * The NASA DC-8 doesn’t carry “passengers” – just observers of the programs it operates
    * UPS DC-8s didn’t carry passengers – when UPS operated pax flights (for a short time) they were done with 727s
    * ATI have one or two DC-8-62s/-72s in a combi configuration with several rows of seats at the back. However, they primarily operate military charters
    * The FAA/LADE 707s in Argentina nolonger fly passengers

    The only other option is to make friends with John Travolta, or charter the exec 707 N88ZL for your own use! 😉

    Andy

    in reply to: Flummoxed by certain websites screening criteria for photos #445745
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Well I’m no expert on airliners.net these days because its quite a while since I uploaded there (and even longer since I was a screener there). But I will offer some observations…

    The screeners have a concept called ‘centred’ which clashes with the classic photographic ‘rule of thirds’ and also is at odds with the shjape of modern airliners (pointed noses/sharply raked tail-feathers)

    It matters not a jot whether the pictures on airliners.net comply with the “claissic” photographic rule of thirds – airliners.net set the criteria for the pictures they accept, and if they want neatly centered airplanes with a minimum of space around them that’s what you have to provide if you want pictures on their database. You and I may disagree with the criteria they apply, but we won’t be able to change it! So for the most part (and in this I mean “run of the mill” type pictures as the one’s you’ve linked to are) you work to it, or forget about airliners.net

    The same applies to cropping ratios, quality etc… They set the rules, and we either work to them, and if not we should expect rejections or move to another platform to display our images.

    One I admire
    http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan…346/0067206/L/

    No point in sarcastically pointing fingers – that image was accepted by airliners.net TEN YEARS ago and the quality criteria has moved on hugely since then – heck, that probably wasn’t even a digital image but more likely a scan from a print, negative or slide. If the airliners.net photo ID isn’t at least into SIX figures (excluding the leading zeros, i.e. 01XXXXX or above) then the quality of the image in the airliners.net database is going to be absolutely no guide to what they will and will not now accept.

    This got rejected for poor quality but I’ve seen much worse A380 shots on that website.

    That pic is never going to be accepted. It is not sharp (I suspect that the underlying original is not sharp) and there is evidence of minor motion blur that can be seen in the “MA” on the top of the tail.

    Furthermore, even if the base image was really sharp (I don’t believe it is) there are artifacts fringing the border between the blue tail and the sky which to me may be indicative of either (a) too much compression in the original jpeg as produced by the camera or (b) too much compression when saving the image as linked to on this topic or (c) rather clumsy re-sizing and or sharpening. So even if the original was sharp (and not over-compressed out of camera), then some improvements to the post-processing is required. Photoshop Elements (already mentioned) is a good cheap package for photo processing – its bicubic resizing works really well and its unsharp mask (with the right parameters set) will also do a good job on sharpening up the image. But of course all that is irrelevent if the base image is NBG.

    Please tell me why you think this is overexposed. I don’t think it is. “Oh lets check the histogram – oh yes it says it’s overexposed”. Why don’t people just look at photos not start checking histograms. People are obsessed with histograms !!! Is there any loss of detail due to overexposure here ?

    Actually I don’t think its overtly overexposed… But there is some clipping of the whites at the top end and that’s noticable both on screen and looking at the histogram. If you can’t see it, maybe you need to consider recalibrating your monitor?

    —–

    It would help diagnosis to know things like:

    (i) what camera are you using (this may give some clues as to whether there is any salvation or not)?
    (ii) are you shooting raw or jpeg (I suspec the latter)?
    (iii) what compression / quality settings are you using on of the camera (these MUST be set to best quality, minimum compression)?
    (iv) what post processing are you doing – what are you doing with levels (histogram), resizing, sharpening, etc?
    (v) what quality settings are you using when saving the reworked photo?

    Of course, the above is all irrelevent if all you want to do is go against what airliners.net wants – because as I said at the top of this reply, you aren’t going to change their minds!

    Andy

    in reply to: RR Trent for 787 fails on test rig #532671
    Skymonster
    Participant

    It’s an “A Package” engine with the “B Package” already underway.

    My understanding is that the failure was in the IP turbine, which is not subject to change between A-package and B-package – or wasn’t, before this happened! :rolleyes:

    Engines must pack up all the time when they’re being tested.

    Well not “all the time”, but occasionally for sure. But as the failure is suggested to have involved an uncontained failure, it’s likely to be a cause for concern – not only should the IP turbine not have failed, but the failure should have been contained…

    Why would it be a set back?

    Anything that results in an unexpected failure (or two failures – turbine and containment), is inevitably going to be a set back to some degree or another. I suspect RR aren’t just going to sit back and say “never mind”… Whilst it may not impact the overall timescales of the program, its going to involve manpower, time, computer time and cost to understand and possibly fix the problem. That’s a set back!

    Andy

    in reply to: Air Astana KC902 LHR-ALA 10-AUG-2010 #402151
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Air Astana KC901 ALA-LHR

    Having completed my work in Almaty, it was time to fly home again. This time (maybe because I’d done a good job at Air Astana), they offered to upgrade me to business class and so the report is worth continuing…

    The international check-in desks at ALA are “protected” by a customs check-point, and passengers for Air Astana flight KC901 were only allowed through to the check-in desks two hours before the flight was due to depart – having arrived at the airport slightly before that time (the fault of the hotel that suggested I be at the airport “at least two hours prior to departure”!). When the check-in desks were opened and the passengers let through, check-in was very efficient and quick – at least for business class passengers, although at this early stage of the check-in process there were only a few passengers waiting for the economy desks too. My baggage was despatched into the depths of the airport appropriately “priority” tagged (although I sometimes question the benefit of such tagging, as it seems they are sometimes treated rather disdainfully, especially on arrival at LHR).

    Outbound immigration was relatively perfunctory (photo taken on a web-cam type camera a la USA, passport stamped), and security efficient – laptop separate, belts off being the mirroring the usual elsewhere these days.
    ALA’s modern terminal is not huge and the international departure lounge would be quite packed should there be two 757 loads waiting to depart. However, at 10:45 the next departure was the London flight at 12:30 and the following flight was an Etihad flight to Abu Dhabi at 14:30 and therefore passenger numbers were not too much of an issue. The international departure area has a single fairly small and simple common-use business class lounge, a large duty free shop, a small café charging rather extortionate prices (equivalent of almost GBP£2.50 for a bottle of coke, whereas the vending machine land side charge around GBP£0.40), and views of the ramp and runway through two layers of glass. Aside from the assorted Soviet hardware dumped around the ramps, several of Air Astana’s Airbus, Boeings and Fokkers were parked around the ramp, and again the glorious IL-18 UP-I1804 was seen performing a rather noisy start and smoky departure.

    Two Air Astana 757s sat on the ramp – P4-FAS and P4-MAS. Hoping for the latter, the London flight was sadly allocated to the former so it was to be the same aeroplane as I flew out on. I was quite surprised to see that the baggage was loaded in pieces, rather than containerised. Boarding for KC901 was called around 20 minutes before scheduled departure time, again through one of the four jetway served contact gates in front of the terminal. The boarding process was somewhat disorganised – no distinction was made for business class passengers – and very slow due to the close scrutiny each passenger’s passport and boarding was given at the top of the jetway.

    Turning left at the L2 door gave sight gave first sight of a 20-seat business class cabin. Seats were again covered in blue leather at a fair pitch, with in seat audio but again no PTVs. Air Astana’s business class seats are of a mechanical cradle type, with a good recline but by no means offering a lay-flat option. As with the economy cabin, the interior was clean but fairly well worn. Champagne (fizzy wine?) was offered, in addition to water and juices, prior to departure and boiled fruit sweets were also distributed just as pushback occurred. Doors closed and departure were around twenty minutes late, seemingly primarily due to the convoluted boarding process the resulted in passengers still coming down the jetway some fifteen minutes after STD. Nineteen of the twenty business class seats were occupied. A short taxi to ALA’s long runway and an immediate takeoff got KC901 airborne around 25 minutes after STD.

    Climbing into clear skies, this time the cabin crew were let loose fairly soon after takeoff, although again passengers were kept strapped in until top-of-climb. Amenity packs were again offered, these being somewhat better than those offered in economy class and included, with shades, socks, toothbrush and paste, ear plugs, safety razor, lip balm etc. As there are no PTVs on Air Astana’s 757s, portable digital players and in-ear headsets were offered to business class passengers, the players being pre-loaded with around 15 new release and classic movies, a selection of TV shorts (that were also played on the overhead monitors), an increased audio selection over that offered through the seat, and several games. The digital players had plenty of battery power for the entire flight, and could be hung over a strap on the seat in front so that they didn’t encroach on table-space.

    Menus were brought around as pre-dinner drinks were offered, with the selection including a good range of spirits, wines, beer and soft drinks. Meal service was accomplished onto linen cloths with each course being served separately – an appetiser of mozzarella and picked herring (nice) was followed by a salad with balsamic dressing (good); then spicy pumpkin soup (nice – only the second time I’ve been offered soup in flight – the first being on Delta first class over 20 years ago); a choice of chicken stuffed with goats cheese and tomato (far too hot and somewhat over cooked), beef, or stuffed trout; desert; cheese; and finally tea or coffee. On the whole, the meal service was not a bad offer and was served by very efficient and friendly staff.

    The flight progressed overhead Moscow and onwards through eastern Europe and northern Germany, the Netherlands and thence over the UK to Clacton VOR. The digital players provided plenty of entertainment, the cabin crew offered further drinks on a regular basis, the seats were comfortable and the flight smooth. Some seven hours after departing ALA, things were looking good for an on-time arrival despite the delayed departure, and this continued right up to the point where KC901 was put into the BPK hold for four holds after which a rather extended downwind for Heathrow’s runway 09L put the flight on the ground about 20 minutes behind scheduled arrival time. A rather extended taxi over to terminal 4, with an extended wait to cross runway 09R, meant that the flight blocked on around 40 minutes behind schedule. However, as the flight was parked on one of the gates closest to the immigration facilities, quick deplaning and a very short walk put Air Astana’s passengers into the very congested immigration hall within very short order. Having used IRIS (for which there was no queue), I was in the baggage hall ten minutes before the bags, but surprisingly the “priority” bags did seem to be the first up on the carousel.

    A

    in reply to: Air Astana KC902 LHR-ALA 10-AUG-2010 #402162
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Nope, due to the short duration of the trip I didn’t take the camera 🙁

    There are some on this photopic gallery taken by a guy who works for Air Atlanta – the situation is largely unchanged since he took them:

    http://superspottersgallery.fotopic.net/c1832209.html

    Andy

    in reply to: Air Astana KC902 LHR-ALA 10-AUG-2010 #402167
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Although I am a little skeptical of the 757s existence in 1898! :eek::D

    Dammit! 😮 1989! :p

    in reply to: Farnborough Orders #538397
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Am I correct in the assumption that the 40 ‘purchase right’ options means that Flybe have negotiated the price and have the option but not the obligation to acquire the a/c. Whereas the 65 options will require further purchase negotiations.

    No… Usually:

    Option = paid deposit, pre-agreed price AND delivery date/position, with the “option” to go ahead or cancel before a pre-agreed date

    Purchase right = pre-agreed price but no committed delivery date/position (can be converted into an option or an order, but only when that is done will delivery date/position be determined)

    That is, options are a bit more firm than purchase rights, and purchase rights usually need further negotiation but options less so.

    Andy

    in reply to: London Gatwick name change #543171
    Skymonster
    Participant

    Whilst the airport may brand itself as just “Gatwick”, what name is actually shown on individual airline websites could be something different – airlines may chose to continue to use “London Gatwick” or maybe even show it as “Gatwick – London” (to use a regular Ryanair trick for out-of-town airports).

    And as far as the major airline reservations systems (e.g. Amadeus, Sabre, etc) and the major travel sites are concerned, as long as “Gatwick” remains as designated a co-terminal with the other London airports, flights operating to/from there will continue to feature in any flight requests for London (e.g. using the LON city-code designator), and even on flight requests for LHR, STN etc.

    Andy

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 1,877 total)