Dear All,
Last week a meeting was held regarding JP Airline Fleets 2009.
As promised we are sharing our thoughts and conclusions with you on the forum.
Much concerned logistics and timetables but one of the key issues that will be of interest to forum users concerns the sort order.
We have weighed up the opinions expressed here and decided that changing the original order by pseudo MTOW to one based on manufacturer, model, registration etc remains justified. There are numerous reasons for this not least that the MTOW order was merely a legacy from early JP’s and useful when fleets were smaller, the number of models far less diverse and not straddling multiple categories. However, we acknowledge that some errors were made such as the sequencing of orders.
Further changes to the sort order yet again for 2009 would also alienate those who marked their book up last year! We feel the new order is more transparent and for the majority, easier to use and would therefore remain.
To confirm, the sort order for 2009 will be as follows:
Country (ICAO)
Government – including all forces in the same order as below manufacturer here
Operator (alpha)
Manufacturer (alpha) – or proxy to group same types together
Type (alpha)
Model Series
Registration (mother country first) except those identified by their nose number (eg CO)
Orders – delivery date
Other details agreed are:
Manufacturers – the company that built the aircraft should be the one displayed. Reduce unnecessary duplication.
Modify the definition of 'mfd' to be in synch with current CMS protocol; i.e. delivered from the manufacturer.
'del' = delivered to current operator.
JP Survey – this was sent via email and fax on Tuesday 03/02/09 – responses coming in.
JP airline fleets is due to be with the printer on 01/05/09 and available to the general public by 01/06/09.
We appreciate that this will not allay the concerns of the most vehement sort order protestors but we genuinely believe we can make JP an even better product. We certainly need more contributors to provide sightings, reports and raise general points of interest – accurate/reliable data is key. To develop JP further we also intend to establish a focus group of independent JP users. These members will be prepared to review early drafts and give an objective opinion. Expressions of interest from those interested in such a role would be welcome directly to Chris.Carter@flightglobal.com
Thanks for the update. So far I was undecided as to whether or not to buy the book again. Now it's clear, I won't buy the book again.
The MTOW sort order was the reason for the JP's past fame, or the unique selling point! If I'd want an alhabetical sort order then there are numerous cheaper/better(?) options around.
I have not received a survey. Wonder why? Is it because possibly I am classed as the most vehement sort order protestor? I have repeatedly asked to be involved in the consultation process. Never mind, too late now it seems.
Well done for all the years past, Gunther, Ulrich and the Swiss team etc. You are missed. But look what you have given it over to!
I can't believe the new editorial team has not listened. And it's just to me, it's almost everybody who actually took the time to post in these forums. As a concession to multiple protests, putting Continental back together and calling a Douglas DC-3 a Douglas DC-3 is all well and good, but neither of these minor changes go nearly far enough to make a difference. Sadly - and yes, I am actually quite sad about it - I shall shortly be looking round for a suitable alternative (and way sooner than sometime in June!). If I've got to use the "accepted" sort method I will be buying a book that has always used that for less than half the cost. As I have carefully said all along changing the sort order invalidates the JP claim to individuality. All in all a grave disappointment.
As discussed, I now predict sharply falling sales and very sadly the ultimate demise of this now bland (and therefore way, way over-priced) book in three to five years as cheaper alternatives / internet data / e-databases etc. come into more widespread use. You have worked hard this year to lose my trust. Would I pay £40+ for something well made but carefully modified to be like all the competition? No. I have always been willing to outlay that sort of money for something in the format I like to use. I will not bend to a format forced upon me when it is available so much cheaper. I hope others feel the same and vote with their feet. After a 29 year association with JP this is goodbye. Anyone got the number for Air Britain . . . ?
Ian Mc.
Greetings again Ian. As a completely dis-interested party (being a simple old soul, when I use a reference publication I merely figure out how it works, then just use it and move on.) However, I feel sort of sad for you that your views have not been complied with in their entirety. But am I incorrect when I thought that some of your inputs have been acted upon? It can be stressful when one does not manage to have everything go one's own way; it has happened to me many times. But one thing I have learned through experience is that just because a person, or a group, or a nation, does not agree with my views, that just maybe, I have not always been 100% correct. It is one thing to turn one's back on a product that one does not approve of and to seek another that better suits one's needs. Very natural. But I am getting an uneasy feeling that you may be reverting to that child-hood ploy of "chucking one's toys out of the cot" whilst also indulging in a little "spitting out of the dummy".
You have spake very forcefully Ian of the North...I do hope that I do not get "moderated" back to the Colony by my words. Please continue to contribute and fear not brave Scot to speak your mind in a well-reasoned manner.
Cheers. dakota67 of the Empire.
Thanks, dakota67. No offence taken. My words are carefully measured and not the least tantrum like. The issue is that the new editors have sought to change the book so that the data is presented in much the same format as the competition. This year I may as well fill in an Air Britain book for half the cost. The product no longer has individuality, and that makes it over priced.
I drive a Chrysler 300C. In spite of having a Mercedes engine and gearbox plus having all the same equipment etc., it still cost about £15K less than the equivalent E Class. Why would I pay that much more simply for the badge?
Cheers,
Well, it's a sad day. After 25 years of buying JP Airline Fleets (book and latterly CD also), I am now looking to an alternative product. JP no longer meets my needs and, it seems, the needs of most others.
The sort order is a bigger issue than the production team seem to have realised. Also, the quality issues of last year's JP Airline Fleets may not have gone away judging by the poor quality of this year's JP Biz-Jet product.
I feel that I can no longer trust JP for its accuracy, quality, value for money or customer focus. Sad day indeed.
Good bye
Bob Smith
Having just found the Forum I have read all the comments with interest.
Having seen examples of Company takeovers and resulting changes I can see why some comments have been made but I do think we should all give the new team a chance to see what they can do. I also have been a loyal customer for well over 20 years but the change to the sort order did not present the problems to me when transferring my data into the new edition.
Perhaps some people will look elsewhere this year for another publication but I will be buying JP again.
Beech
My disappointment with JP 08/09 was very clear and put forward in a reply on the original forum. My views on the sort order have not changed and I believe that the Flight team should have taken on board the idea that 'if it's not broken don't fix it.' Because the sort order was a 'legacy from early JPs' does not make it wrong or any less useful.
Having reiterated these comments I am however prepared to give the team the benefit of the doubt and will be buying this year's edition. This is due in many parts to the very positive impression given by this years JP Bizjet. The data is much improved and I am also much impressed with the paper, quality of the printing and the overall 'feel' of the book. It is quite clear that a large clearout and tidying operation has been carried out on the data and I hope that the same will be reflected in JP this year. I have purchased every edition since 1980 and I hope that I will be able to do so for many years to come. I also hope that the team will revisit the sort issue as a result of feedback from purchasers of JP 2009/10.
Brian