Apologies for the double entry to this debate but it appears the forum is as screwed up as the the others things, I could not produce any paragraphs or edit my first post.
Marcelo MagalhaesPorto AlegreBRAZIL
Thanks for such a constructive post.
Just a few points to add:
ATCManch:Easyjet and Ryanair regs appearing within orders was very disappointing. I don’t think I need to mention anymore examples on this, I’d just like to show my support for going back to the old sort order and the way Boeing/Douglas etc are shown.
Rest assured that this error has already been dealt with and will not be happening again. We will be reviewing every comment on this forum before the layout for next year's book is finalised and will be taking into account the opinions of those who have called for the reinstatement of the old sort order, etc. Given the interest and loyalty that surrounds this publication any key changes will be run past the members of this forum. If you have colleagues or friends that are users of JP please encourage them to post their views here.
With regards to the bold 'marking' squares, we'll certainly look at keeping them if there is enough call for it.
ATCManch:Information is only as good as the information that is passed. Someone mentioned a couple of G dashes that were wrong 2 years ago and still are. Why didn’t they say anything then? Because they thought that someone else would? That’s the trouble with this.
I wholeheartedly agree. And that's exactly what we're up against when compiling a book of this magnitude. Some readers are very quick to criticise the data, but seeing as these forums are the first proper outlet they've been given for their frustrations you tend to expect a lot of this at the outset. I think I actually said in one of my earlier replies that, along with the research that we do here at Flight, JP is only as good as the information that the data team receives from the contributors around the world.
We want to ensure that JP remains at the forefront of its field - with the help of the masses, I'm positive we can achieve this.
Please keep your posts coming in.
Vidi, Vici, Veni. I saw, I conquered, I came.
I still have not had the promised contact from the Flight team. Here are a couple more another constructive ideas:
With the "airlines no longer appearing" section, why not have an "Aircraft no longer appearing" page? i.e. Scrapped, PWFU, w/o, parked by lease company, etc. etc. In fact, where specific lease companies have an entry in the book, any aircraft owned by them and not currently placed with an airline could be included in their entry. This would bring a kind of completeness to the world fleet lists that doesn't appear anywhere else, and closure for destroyed and scrapped airframes.
G-xxxx McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 4xxxx/3xx wfu 2/05 b/u Mojave 5/08
What about marking any new entry, or any aircraft where the data has changed since the last edition. A way to achieve this may be by inserting a dot, or similar, before the fill-in box at the beginning of the entry. That would provide a column with instant eye appeal for aircraft changing fleets.
well I am another user of many years (and yes they are still in the loft!) as a spotter I sadly pencil in the little boxes to show what I have seen (an annual chore that really cheers up the wife!). I have got half way through B- and stopped, decision time do I continue to try to work out where the aircraft now appears in the order for the airline or do I give up? It would be good for the publishers to announce a firm decision as to what order they will stick with, if they are bold enough to follow the wish of the posters here I will probably abandon this years book and await until next years (yes I might buy it) if it remains in the order of this year I may go through the pain of working it out or give up for good. Please note not meant as a threat but I also have a good software package I purchased for logging which does the job in any order I like plus I get updates 2-3 times a week not once a year.
I buy the CD version of JP and am very disappointed about the difficulty of locating data with the new search method.
Just found this forum and, as part of the team compiling one of the "spotters" books, having a quiet chuckle.
Interesting that you think putting a notation of a new entry or a listing of airliner demises would be significantly different - we have had both these features for some years.
However we also recognise that errors occur - we also know the feeling of the complaint that "this error is 2 years old" when the complainant has not told us directly.
As for order, we publish in registration order - something that is even a matter of debate within the editorial team. But when we ran a survey some years ago, this was what our users wanted, so we listened and did not change.
So why not run a survey - preferably not just on this forum as it seems to be a limited number of people compared to the total sales - and find out what users really want. You presumably have a mailing list from previous orders, even if only to send out an alert to a web-based survey.
Dear Flight publishing team,
I am another of those long time JP customers (all editions since 1980). Although I bought my 2008/09 copy back in July already, I only started seriously digging into it during my year end break. Therefore my feedback is not as late as it might appear.
As mentioned by others, the 2008/09 edition was already out of date in several areas when it came out (e.g. most of the Venezuela entries), which was a major disappointment. No need to go into details, everything has been said already. I'm not blaming the Flight team for this, perhaps the old team was indeed tired or focusing on the transition and didn't do as good a job as in previous years. However, with the vastly improved resources available to the Flight team I expect the 2009/10 edition to be accurate and up to date.
Now regarding the areas on which Flight had an influence:
What has improved compared to previous years?- I like the bold 'marking' squares, keep them.
What is not as good as in previous years?- the printing quality: I'm not only referring to the images ('slightly dull' is definitely an understatement!). I have always used my copy carefully, yet it is starting to fall apart already. Also, some pages were not cut properly. Please change the printing company for the next edition.
- the choice of images: in the good old days, the editing team made a careful selection, aiming to show one image of each of the major airliners and their key versions. This year some types are included twice (737-800, MD-11, DHC-6), while others are missing entirely. In addition the quality of some of the pictures leaves a lot to be desired (cut noses/tails/wings, cluttered backgrounds etc); there are enough good photographers around, it should be easy to do much better in this area.
- the infamous sort order: I personally preferred the old system, which gave a good overview of the airlines' short vs. long haul fleet, the helicopter operators smaller vs. heavier machines etc. Given the choice, I would like to have the MTOW sort order back (including the sorting by fleet number for airlines such as AA, CO, DL etc). On top of that, the new system is not consistent at all: whilst some types are split ad absurdum (Cessna U.206 vs. TU.206, DC-8 models etc), others are not sorted at all (e.g. all Learjets); where is the logic?
- the strange way to list aircraft on order (already mentioned by others): I still can't figure out what the logic was supposed to be here.
- the use of normal font instead of italics for the test regs and remarks information (already mentioned by others): italics were used for a reason!
- the country information: I found it useful, and it did not use any space; why drop it?
Areas that could be improved in the future but were taken over from the old JPs - I support the point of view that the manufacturer's name should that of the company that actually (last) built and distributed a type, e.g. a DC-3 is a Douglas and a DC-8 a McDonnell-Douglas product and not a Boeing, whilst an MD-11 can indeed be called a Boeing. Similarly, Eurocopter never built Alouettes etc. Otherwise, with the consolidation of the industry, the selling of type certificates etc. it will soon become impossible to keep track of all the manufacturer name changes: how about Viking Air Beavers and Dash 7s, RUAG Dornier 228s etc. If you don't agree, then at least be consistent: NASA still operates a 'General Dynamics' F-16...
- in some countries (e.g. Spain, USA, Brazil) the military-operated transport and VIP fleets are listed under "Government...", while in others (e.g. Germany, Belgium, Netherlands) they appear among the commercial operators. Please try to be more consistent in the future.
- the book it thick and heavy enough, there is no need to list the same aircraft twice, e.g. the whole Expressjet fleet is also listed under Continental, the whole Mesaba and Pinnacle fleets are also listed under Northwest etc, the whole Swiss European fleet is also listed under Swiss International (but e.g. the Lufthansa Cityline fleet is not repeated under Lufthansa). Again, any efforts to be more consistent and to save space would be appreciated.
- finally I fully support the idea to have a dedicated website or e-mail address where readers could submit JP updates/corrections to the publishing team. Your customers are indeed a mostly untapped source of information, and this is worth a try.
Conclusion: I apologise for this long list of... no, not complaints, but what I would see as (mostly) constructive criticisms. The 2008/09 JP disappointed many long time customers, now is your chance to make the 2009/10 edition perfect; I can already tell you that I'll have a close look at it before deciding whether to buy it or not.
Hi team, it's Mac. Breathe easy guys, I'm not back to have another go. However, I would be interested to hear a progress report on this year's book.
You did indicate that there would be a meeting in October regarding the format and layout etc., and that forum contributors would be consulted. Would it be possible to publish the results of said meeting? Nobody has come back to me with any offers of discussion, when will I be expecting that to take place, and will it be before the issues are addressed?
Finally, when will the eagerly awaited, and in the continuing life of the book, absolutely vital 2009 edition be published? Will we be, as for many years, waiting many weeks after the supposed date, or will the "on the shelf" date actually be met? (One thing the original team had considerable difficulty with, and you could easily cure!).