For information or feedback regarding JP Airline Fleets 2013-14 place your post here.
Deliveries are only shown up to the end on 2014, non due before that so non listed.
Thanks Spotterpete, out of interest, did that change this year or last (2011/12 had complete order listings)
First time his year. Thinking about it, showing deliveries much beyond the end of next year is all subject to change ( production rates moving up and down all the time ) and eats up pages with little on them, adding to price probably.
I guess but then you lose the feel for fleet renewal programmes. A better compromise might be a summary for post 2014 orders.
Also notice a lot of test reg data isn't included this year.
Summary table would be something to consider I guess, don't have a copy to hand now but doesn't it say something about no test registrations in the notes?
I'm a bloke, I don't read notes
Just received my printed copy; have the following initial comments:
1. Noticed in the introduction page that piston engined data is no longer included? Therefore, carriers such as Buffalo Airways and Everts, who still have a substantial piston fleet, no longer have a complete fleet listing (interestingly, Aurigny does show the Trislander fleet. Last I checked, they were piston aircraft). If JP claims to provide "Full Fleet Listings.....", then please include ALL applicable piston aircraft.
2. I would suggest a separate column for fleet numbers. There seems to be plenty of space available, and generally, fleet numbers are not more than four or five digits/characters.
3. In the remarks field, aircraft names have disappeared (see jetBlue, for example). Why? Notes on aircraft "Stored" are shown, which are far more transient.
4. I would say that the base of operations (airport), normally shown on the right side of each carrier's header information, is missing in the majority of cases. In some cases, it's shown in the text description of the carrier's operations, but you have to look for it.
5. The remarks field is right justified. On the left-hand pages, this makes reading any comments/remarks difficult as they are very closed to the spine of the book (e.g., fleet numbers shown in this field are diffcult to read now).
Thanks for your comments.
Producing JP is a balancing act of providing the most up-to-date data available whilst appealing to the broadest audience. The quantity of data at our disposal is vast and whilst we have cut back on areas such as order books and leasing company entries that are of less value, total pagination remains virtually unchanged i.e. we are supplying more fleet data.
As you rightly point out, fleets such as Buffalo Airways have been hit through the removal of piston types which is regrettable. Regarding a "Full Fleet Listing" JP has always operated an aircraft weight restriction and consequently, certain types/fleets have never featured, although Page 2 does highlight the BN-2 being the exception to the rule in this edition. From a publishing perspective we are compelled to consider the costs involved. Producing an even larger tome will result in yet higher printing/binding and distribution costs.
The remarks field is updated but there is a dearth of feedback regarding aircraft names etc. Of course if this were to change we would review our decision. We will take steps to improve our base of operations information and make it more prominent.
Given the number of operators that use fleet numbers it wouldn't be prudent to devote a separate column to it as this would impact on other fields which have been increased to allow fuller descriptions across the board.
I hope this answers your queries Howard but do please keep feeding back your observations as you take a more detailed look at JP 2013.
You can not see that your are providing "more fleet data" when you are cutting all piston engines. Also all orders with delivery more than a year or two, are not included.
The JP is getting less and less accurate in order to keep cost down. Cost cannot and should not be a factor to provide ACCURATE fleet data. Yes, there was always a limit with weight which I think very few people had a problem with but to not include piston and orders, the JP does not accurately provide a full picture of airline fleets which is the whole purpose of the book.
Thanks for your response to my post. I appreciate the challenges you face in producing the JP. My applogies for overlooking the statement on Page 2 about the Islander - I completely missed that. However, if possible, I'd like to address some of your responses:
1. With respect to the remarks field, you state that there has been "a dearth of feedback...." Since the book has only just been published (I only received my copy a few days ago), isn't it possible that readers have yet to notice the ommission of aircraft names? Adding the aircraft names in the remarks field does not add to pagination, and I think provides useful data to those of us seek a more detailed picture of an airline's fleet. I hope you reconsider and include this data in future editions.
2. With respect to the fleet numbers, you mention that other fields have been increased to allow fuller descriptions. Not sure that I see where this is? Which columns now have fuller descriptions? Perhaps I'm missing something.
3. On the ommission of piston aircraft, I understand your point about the exception for the Islander. But what about the DHC-2 Beaver? If commercial success is measured by sales, the Beaver has sold more units that the Islander. Excluding the DHC-2 has not only reduced the accuracy of several fleets in North America, but some airlines/carriers no longer appear at all because of this decision!! Same is true for Everts Air Fuel, by the way.
4. In the photo section, the balance and quality of the subjects is far better than previous editions under Flight's oversight, but for some reason, the MD-11 is not pictured?
5. The claim of data accuracy appears a little questionable. I took one item, an A320 TS-INN which I saw at LHR last week operating for and in the colours of Libyan Airlines. It is not listed under Libyan Airlines in the new edition, so I thought maybe it was a recent lease (since April 2013). However, there are many photos of this aircraft on various internet sites in Libyan Airlines colours going back to November 2012.
I have every JP since 1974, but given the changes since Flight/Reed took over the publication a few years ago, I'm afraid that the 2013/14 edition will be my last one.
You comments are appreciated.
We are very lucky to have a wide audience for JP and recognise just how knowledgeable and passionate about aviation our readers are. Hence, since adopting JP, Flightglobal have always welcomed feedback via an open forum and acknowledge the terrific efforts our contributors make. However, aircraft names and colour schemes are not areas we actively research and despite very detailed reports from individuals we don't feel confident delivering data of which only a fraction has been updated/verified.
Character numbers have been increased in the type description and c/n. The latter is perhaps most visible when reviewing Russian aircraft/fleets.
The BN-2 is a somewhat different case as it remains in current production.
I'm delighted you feel the image section has improved. Flight we have increased coverage here and attempt to deliver a good cross-section of types. Unfortunately, this year we simply didn't have an MD-11 that made it through.
We remain confident that our data is the best available but acknowledge TS-INN remains with Libyan Airlines. It was our understanding in April that this aircraft had returned to Nouvelair Tunisie. It is currently correct in our database - a pitfall of all reference texts of this kind and one that harps back to my earlier point regarding our readership.
I sincerely hope you will continue to support JP and look forward to any further insight you can offer.
I am proud to receive the JP since 1977, when I was 12 years old. But this time I was very dissapointed! Without piston-engine aircrafts like Buffalo Airways and without the name and/or fleet no of the Airlines (Swiss, Lufthansa, JetBlue etc.) there is no real reason to buy it any longer. I know the market is growing and work is getting harder. But maybe you should raise up the MTOW to publish aircrafts to get less large numbers.
But a JP without the last classices like L-1049, what is it? And what is next? Will you cancel all last B707 and DC8 in the next issue?
And think about the fleet no of Delta aircrafts are different to the regs. So if someone only gets a fleet no at a gate with the reg hidden, how should he found out???....The same with name on an aircraft...
Do not forget that a JP is always hight quality!!! I also do not understand why you do not publish any dates to the phtos any longer...Maybe it is because I am German and we have the same thinking of hight quality as the Swiss have, who were responsible for the JP for many years.
So please improve the quality next spring. To give me a reason to buy it the next 20 years (as I did now for 37 years)
Just recieved my JP and have spent the last week or so going through it and my first impressions are that its been done on the cheap. So much information has been stripped out, information such as in last years edition the BA 787 fleet registrations were listed but a year on and the 787's now being delivered the 2013/14 JP doesn't list the registrations?? How can that be justified - apart from the saving of the ink. It seems that Flight Global have simply tried cutting costs - less paper, less ink and have taken out some basic information that was listed last year.
JP on the cheap....