Meli:I am most interested in ACCURACY and COMPLETENESS which have been totally lacking since the hand-over from the Bücher team.
Unless you're an employee of Flight, I'd be really impressed if you've actually experienced the ACCURACY and COMPLETENESS of the data since the hand-over from the Buchair team; the data used in the last JP was the Buchair team's data....
For your info, the 2009/2010 edition is now available.
Vidi, Vici, Veni. I saw, I conquered, I came.
My copy arrived last Thursday - It looks a bit better than last year.... but
Shaheen Air Intl of Karachi, Pakistan listed under China
Continental back in fleet number order - looks much better but Expressjet in registration order (which seems inconsistent)
Looks like some guesswork on seats - Virgin A380 showing as 853 pax - have they decided yet ?
Northwest showing seperately from Delta - mentions DAL-cs against repainted a/c - guess that is horses for courses
US Airways A330-200s showing as Y250 only - no premium seats ? - Wiki shows C20/Y238
KLM 747-400M showing as Y126 - Wiki shows C42/Y238
That is probably enough examples - as I said, it seems better but still some niggles
The listing of Shaheen Air within the Chinese section was a 'proofing' mistake. Data relating to the company had been changed unwittingly in the Flight source files and unfortunately this mistake slipped through the net. It has since been corrected.
The Northwest and Delta fleets are correctly shown as separate entities in this year's edition as the fleets are still operated on two distinct Air Operator Certificates.
With regards to the seat configuration data, at the time of press no confirmation was available from US Airways or Virgin Atlantic on the correct configuration of their A330's / A380's, therefore the aircraft were shown with a default value for the specific aircraft model. We will only confirm data direct with the airline and not from external sources such as Wikipedia.
Thanks to RJK for taking the time to feedback the above info to us.
A couple of aircraft that have long been withdrawn from use, have made a random re-appearance in this years fleet listing allthough they had been removed in previous years. Examples would be Antonov 24's of Lao Airlines which are all long gone, and Trislanders with Air Kiribati, which have been converted into rather reliable pig pens many years ago.
Well, I ate my words and bought the new edition. There is the good, the bad and the ugly to report so here goes . . .
GENERALLY - 95% better than last year. The data looks much more accurate. I am actually going to fill my book in, and yes I really enjoy doing that. Thanks a lot Flight. Go back to the top of the class. And I bet after my comments last year you didn't expect that!
SORT ORDER - Personally I still don't like it, but as I appear to be in the minority we will just have to beg to differ on that one. At least copying from last years edition will be easier. Apart from Expressjet RJ-145s, but more of those later . . .
GOOD - Continental Airlines now has fleet restored to "last three" order, matching the delivery order and therefore looking like a coherent fleet (Yes, apart from one 737-700 which they allocated out of sequence so was their fault - not yours) BUT - What! Expressjet, which was sorted by fleet numbers last year like Continental this year, has been retro-fitted to look like the mess Continental was last year. This is a great example of a fleet that just doesn't work in the raw sort registration format. SUGGESTION - Like Continental, a special case. Please go back to fleet number sort for the Expressjet entry.
GOOD - Most commuter fleets (mention Expressjet again) are now only shown once, rather than some being unnecessarily repeated within their mainline operators entries.
GOOD - Many aircraft on longer term leases etc. are only mentioned in the actual operators fleet (example - British Airways 767-300s with QANTAS). Aircraft still owned, but parked long term (dozens of Northwest and ABX DC-9s, UPS 727s etc.) are now removed. This results in a much clearer view of current fleets.
GOOD - It also looks like many outstanding orders which have been languishing unconfirmed and undelivered for years have been spring cleaned. New orders are no longer randomly scattered in and around the end of airline listings. SUGGESTION - Save space by only noting individual orders line by line say, one book ahead. Include a line at the end of the entry for further removed future orders (e.g. Ryanair - +32 Boeing 737-8AS Winglets - for del. 2012-2013)
GOOD - Aircraft from the DC-3 to the MD-11 correctly identified as non-Boeings. I am particularly pleased that you have done that. There was something quite offensive to many about a Boeing DC-3. BUT - There is still a disparity with some listings. As an example check Arrow Air and UPS. There are both DOUGLAS and McDONNELL-DOUGLAS DC-8s in their fleets. Similarly USA Jet and Northwest DC-9s. SUGGESTION - Douglas and McDonnell merged specifically to finance DC-9 production in 1967. Although DC-8s were produced by the new company they were not McD-D aircraft in the same sense the MD-11 was never a Boeing. What about marking aircraft up to and including all DC-8s as DOUGLAS and from the DC-9 onwards as McDONNELL-DOUGLAS ? That would accurately reflect how the aircraft were marketed and built.
JUST PLAIN WEIRD ? - Please explain to me about 767EREM. Sounds like it is clearing it's throat. I have never heard the term before. Personally I don't mark 757s and 767s as ER because they were all technically ER capable, and some varied role through their careers, or season by season. What's with this -EM ? What happened to the -ET notation for some 757s with extra fuel capability?
747 CARGO DOORS - Oh, good grief, what a mess. If you are going to change the format then get them all correct, or at least the same. The 747s were no problem last year, with the universally accepted -M -SF -BCF and -BDSF terms used. This year we also have the terms -LCD and -FM etc. added. But not all of them the same. Is an -FM a previous -M that's now an -F? What does -LCD signify for a cargo door, lifting, left or large? Why have some got the revised notation when fleet mates have not? (See Jade Cargo, some of theirs are not even marked -ER this year) Please decode these for me. APPEAL - Last year the 747s made sense in a book with precious little else to recommend it. This all looks to me like this years bright spark "it wasn't broken but we've successfully fixed it" moment. Please revert to accepted notation.
CONSTRUCTION NUMBERS - The last Beech 99 plate I saw was attached to airframe U-70, and definitely not U-070. Was this to do with sort order in the database? I can't vouch for ATRs or A320s etc. which appear in a different format this year, somebody will know if they are right or wrong. However, Airbus A330/340s definitely all have four digit c/s stamped on the plates (G-VHOL is 0002, not just 2).
TYPOS - unavoidable, but the overall number looks very low at a first skim. Three United 777s are missing unit numbers since last year (N227,228,229UA), but I haven't proof read the whole book yet. Doubtless more minor corrections to follow. SUGGESTION - I don't bite ! - Next year I would be happy to proof read an early copy . . . I did ask this year but nobody called. You could talk to me directly at home on 01202 600381.
Egad and Zounds chaps.....I reasonably happy Skotchpersonage. Must be all that porridge and strange firewater they consume. Or maybe the tartaned one has found love-in-the-Spring? Or can it be that his painstaking previous analysis has borne some fruit? Quite lifted my sagging spirits down here in the snowy wastes of New Zealand to read some positive comments. BTW, our morning TV news is detailing British Airways boss's ultimatum to the troops that if they do not agree to work for nothing, then BA is doomed. But what a generous gesture for him to donate one month of his 60,000 Pound per month salary to set a fine example to the "workers". What a noble sacrifice indeed. Perhaps he could also lead the peasants in rousing, rollicking songs such as "Land of hope and glory", and "Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag" et al...
Rather reminds me of a sign I noted, many years ago, on a staff notice board in a troubled Civil Aviation Authority: "The floggings will continue until morale improves!"
Merrie cheers northern troops.
Well, that first post didn't work....it's probably just as well. After missing out on 2008/9 edition due cost/recession it would appear that it wasn't a bad thing. I hoped that 2009/10 would see the return to the 2007/8 format - tried, tested and accurate but alas, the 2009/10 is rubbish. The sort out is awful, the token CO fleet is followed by the shambolic Expressjet listings....how can anyone make sense of the it. So many a/c missing, listed randomly or just plain incorrect. After 18 years of JP this will be my last, its taken me days to transfer the 2007/8 info and I'm only upto UA, I dread going further.
Can anyone suggest the new 'Gold Standard' in Fleet listings.
Flight - you have dumbed down JP from a once leading authority to a amateur and second rate book.
Hello, hello, testing - no replies from Flight people - anybody paying attention any more?
Add Let’s 410UVP-E20 PR-CRX (912617) received on 10.2008 (ex-CRUISER Linhas Aéreas)
Oh my God, I forgot to mention this:
In the RICO Linhas Aéreas Fleet you mention Boeing 727-214 (21513) PR-RLJ!!!!!
But this acft is actually a member of the a new freighter airline named RIO Linhas Aéreas (not RICO) based in Curitiba....
This was the last I've bought JP.....
Dear Filght Team:
May I suggest that you make a simple subscription to Aviation Letter magazine and World Airline Fleets News magazine.
They both run monthly updates on everything concerning airline fleet activities on a worldwide basis (i.e. new acft, new registrations, movements, fates, deregistrations, etc..) an also news about airline ceasing operations or begining ops, etc...
In the April cover of World Airline Fleets news for exemple there was a photo (taken by myself) of RIO Linhas Aereas Boeing 727-214 N751US (tbr PR-RLJ). If you have this issue in your hands you could have probably have saw that this was a new airline and not have this acft listed on the RICO (sic!) fleet....
Also, could you please check on a regular basis the large files of Airliners.net and Jetphotos on the Internet and verify the exact status of some acft that are liste wrongly as active when they are actually STR.
Seems like all the feedback is one way. Shame, but highlights how the take-over has changed not only the quality, layout sensibilty and accuracy of the data but also the lack of concern for any comments. Sadly, I will not be buying the JP Fleets again after the 2009/10 shambles, however, many of my colleagues working in BA ditched JP after 2008/9 and it seems the issues of data mistakes that litter this edition are being noticed Worldwide.
What a shame.
Integrating the original BuchAir data into Flight's existing database took considerable effort. The Flight database was already larger than the BuchAir dataset and contained the majority of the data needed to re-create the JP Airline Fleets and JP BizJet books, albeit in a differing format.
The data team at Flight are responsible for numerous additional products, including ACAS, ACAS Business Aviation, HeliCAS, MiliCAS and Air Transport Intelligence, covering a total of over 350,000 individual aircraft. They also undertake the majority of the surveys that feature in the pages of Flight International and Airline Business magazines to name but two.
Thanks to those of you who continue to supply constructive comments. All of the data sent in will be checked and amended as necessary. Ideas for the formatting of future issues of JP Airline Fleets will be put forward for possible inclusion into the next edition of the book.
We are always looking to add new contributors to our ever-growing stable. If you are interested and have access to movements, register changes and/or regular sightings from the following countries we would love to hear from you:
There you go Ian, give up the ATSA job and work for Flight I'm sure they pay handsomely! Or more likely - they'll pay nothing counting on volunteers to do all the work for them
Looks like they haven't employed anyone specifically to deal with the book, and just grap people from their other jobs when and where they're needed to fill gaps
Haven't finished this years book but to find a missing/misplaced airline on page 2 really isn't a good start
OMG some of you guys are so nit-picky. I have just completed marking up my copy and i must say much better than last year. I purchase a lot of reference books and, name me one that does not have errors...This is becoming a bit one sided and is it a get back at the guys at Flight...Give them a chance for crying out loud. So stop bitching and support the guys. You only have to look at this forum, I havee been here a while and it's coming along well...So lets at least give them some support if you want to see JP become the best fleet book out there. And don't ever tell me it did not have errors when the Swiss guys had it. I re-call a year when they missed all the 747s out of the book...so everyone makes mistakes. I will certainly buy another JP next year...
Oh and whilst i am on my soap box..well done to the guys on an excellent JP Biz book...certainly better than previous years....so come on guys get your rattles back in your prams and support the book
Yep, you're right, nit-picky some of us are, but at £40 ish a pop you can see why some people are a bit miffed. You're also right in saying give them some time, but they have had 2 years of running the book now and so should have these basic issues sorted.
Yes, the "Swiss guys" did accidently miss the 747 classics out one year, I emailed them and got a good response from them saying sorry, they also came out with a free print out of the missing details very quickly indeed.
If you read JP/Flights response above they do say that the staff involved with this book do other tasks for the company, to me this reads "Our other publications for the Aviation business are far more important than a book that is purchased, in the majority, by spotters". Commercially, most airlines etc would not purchase this book as it is out of date the moment it is printed, instead they would use something like OAG (used to be Back Associates) that provides daily updates on fleet lists etc.
They are also asking for volunteers to help them out, again this reads that commercially this publication isn't really worth that much to them. What was worth it to them was the database itself, very useful for compiling all the other information required for the magazine etc
What all this reminds me of is this:
A group of UK Airlines purchasing part of an ATC network that covers the whole of the UK and half the Ocean. They don't care about ATC except for making life easier and cheaper for them. They can't charge less for the ATC services for themselves as this would be unfair for the other airlines, but what they could do is run the ATC service as cheaply as possible, filter as much money from pensions, no pay rises, longer hours, not update systems as fully as they should be and basically cream as much off the workers as possible, calling for "volunteers" to work longer hours for nothing for fear of losing their jobs in the current climate - whilst filling their own pockets with nice fat bonuses.
Now, I know this sounds drastic, but its what businesses do now. To be honest, I can't see JP being around in 10 years time, probably less than that. This isn't really part of Flights business strategy except for getting their hands on information cheaply.
While I can understand you're 'miffed', some of your comments are way off the mark.
ATCManch:they have had 2 years of running the book now and so should have these basic issues sorted.
Wrong. How many times does this need to be discussed before it starts sinking in? Re-stressing the same point over and over is starting to get a little old. This year's book was the first (yes, that's right - the first) produced by Flight. The 2008/2009 edition was produced by Buchair using their own data; Flight merely acted as the publisher; the data was all ready to go to print before the take-over had been announced - rather than push back the release of the book the original schedule was followed to appease the general public. As stated countless times on these forums, this was explained in detail in the 'Dear Reader' section (page iii) of the 2008 edition, but I guess the majority overlooked that....
ATCManch:"Our other publications for the Aviation business are far more important than a book that is purchased, in the majority, by spotters".
Again, wrong. I know for a fact that 95% of the research team at Flight are active enthusiasts and long-term users of the JP books. But let's put things into perspective here: Flight is a business. JP is a product of that business. Just because the majority of Flight's products are aimed at the professional sector, doesn't mean that anything to do with 'spotters' is classed as second-rate. The detractors out there need to get over this 'woe is me' mentality - JP is not the same book (with the same tired format) that it was 20 years ago. I'd like to think that Flight's take-over from Buchair will give the JP books a well-needed facelift to bring them (finally) into the 21st century.
ATCManch:Commercially, most airlines etc would not purchase this book as it is out of date the moment it is printed
Sadly, that's the nature of the print industry as a whole and the same principle can be attributed to every single magazine, book or manuscript that is produced nowadays. Any customers that need a fleet list that is updated on a daily basis would do well to look into subscribing to Flight's ACAS database. I know that this is in the process of being upgraded to a daily update schedule.
ATCManch:They are also asking for volunteers to help them out, again this reads that commercially this publication isn't really worth that much to them.
Okay, so what would you rather put your faith in, spotting-wise? A book that is updated purely from occasional sightings from the far-flung reaches of the globe, or one that is updated using the resources of enthusiasts and professionals actually based in these places who have a greater understanding of the local aviation scene than any of us here in the UK? Personally, I'd rather see a greater number of contributors from all over the world feeding data into one central place so that the rest of us can enjoy a publication that contains the most current data available anywhere.
ATCManch:What was worth it to them was the database itself, very useful for compiling all the other information required for the magazine
Tony, you're entitled to your own opinion of course, but this comment is ridiculous. I was personally involved in analysing the data that Flight obtained from Buchair and I'll tell you now that the vast majority of the Buchair data was way behind in detail and accuracy compared to the data that Flight already held in their in-house database for the aircraft types that were covered in their other premium products. I can tell you for a fact that some of the aircraft data in JP had not been updated since the early part of the decade, especially where the smaller piston-powered types were concerned.
I agree, some aspects of the database were never covered by Flight (i.e. colour schemes, aircraft names and airline bases) and I imagine that this information was useful to boost their dataset, but to insinuate that the company purchased the JP dataset to enhance every aspect of their data is utterly incorrect.
People tend to view JP Airline Fleets as always having been the 'spotters bible', myself included, but having had the opportunity to look thoroughly at both the JP and Flight datasets, that wasn't always the case. I'd guess that it was because nobody ever had anything to compare JP against.
ATCManch:This [JP] isn't really part of Flights business strategy except for getting their hands on information cheaply.
I'd love to know what your source is for this. Even I'm not privy to information like that and I work for them!
I completely support this opinion. See my comments, when at first I in my free time corrected several wrong (not old ones) entries. It seems that volunteers will make all corrections and additions , as Flight "Team" has another jobs, as they openly write above: Several other books.
Better would be when we, real enthusiasts, will try to find ANOTHER reliable source...irrespective sort order, but a source with COMPLETE AND ACCURATE DATA, which JP 2009/10 - what a shame - absolutely is not !!!
I completely agree with you. The only difference is that sort order is NOT SO IMPORTANT for me.
Lack of completeness and accuracy is much more important.
It must took great effort of Flight Time to introduce 17 years old data into perfect BuchAir Database (see Czech CAA aircraft divided between real CAA and "Czechoslovak SLI") or to divide one real airline between two airlines (see Job Air - Central Connect Airlines listings).
And so on.
To IhmCallister: you are joking when you write "much more accurate than last year"...
See my entries in this Forums concerning ABSOLUTELY WRONG LISTING OF CZECH REPUBLIC and see corrections sent by Brazilian spotter concerning SEVERAL WRONG ENTRIES in Brazil. Pakistani Airline listed under China, Rossiya shown as one airline, while actually there are two "Rossiya"s.
It must took great effort to introduce so many mistakes like Russian Presidential aircraft IL-96 now with 280Y seats when until last issue properly shown as "VIP44 seats" etc.etc.etc.
team at Flight are responsible for numerous additional products,
including ACAS, ACAS Business Aviation, HeliCAS, MiliCAS and Air
Transport Intelligence, covering a total of over 350,000 individual
aircraft." - this is NO EXCUSE for so many mistakes you introduced into PROFESSIONAL PRODUCT. This could be an excuse for some amateur which is short of free time.
Why you added 17 years old data (see "Czechoslovak SLI " entry) into correct BuchAir 2008 data ?!?
It must take a long time to divide proper listing of Central Connect AL between Central Connect AL and Job Air.
And to introduce one aircraft twice with a remark "lsd from Job Air" under CCA and "leased from CCA" under Job Air.
It is not possible to introduce such mistakes by chance only. Somebody had to manually introduce these mistakes...
JP was my favourite, heart-affair for more than 20 years. This is the only reason, why I write into these forums so many entries...Another wrong book - I just put it away and forget about it.
WHAT A PITY, WHAT A SHAME, that after some 25 years of my COMPLETE SATISFACTION WITH JP I am now pressed by conceited - puffed-up Flight data team (see their "explanation") to LOOK SERIOUSLY FOR ANOTHER SOURCE !!!
You've made your point over and over and over.... Everybody gets it - you're not happy. Please (for the sake of all the users of this forum) try and condense your posts into ONE reply rather than four.
Petr Fox:Another wrong book - I just put it away and forget about it. What a shame, that after some 25 years I am now pressed to LOOK SERIOUSLY FOR ANOTHER SOURCE !!!
If you're that unhappy with JP, nobody is forcing you to purchase the book - it's entirely your choice.
As someone who is involved with the "conceited, puffed-up Flight data team" that "has no moral right their salary for such miserable work" (your words, not mine) your comments disgust me and I'm sure that I'm not the only member of this forum who is becoming rather bored reading the same old complaints day-in day-out.