Aviation Discussion

[AlterEgo]

I found the cabin noise in a 777 from Buenos Aires to Heathrow for 13 hours to be quite excessive. About 14 hours in an A340 from Auckland to Santiago was no where near as bad. I am guessing BA are using 777's on their new longest route from Heathrow to Santiago.

BA are using a 787 on the SCL route. It's a "long and thin" one as they say.

 

[atillathehunn]

You youngsters don't know what you missed in the past before your time... now if you were including extinct types for this question I would have to say things like the VC-10, Trident, Concorde... they all made proper noises on take off...

Before my time, anything piston powered would surely be worth listening to...

I've heard Concorde take off, though alas only from the outside. It was quite the experience.

If we have to go for things still flying, and commercial jets, it has to be the 777 for take-off, though the noise wears a little thin after the first hour or so as everybody has noted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've heard Concorde take off, though alas only from the outside. It was quite the experience.

If we have to go for things still flying, and commercial jets, it has to be the 777 for take-off, though the noise wears a little thin after the first hour or so as everybody has noted.

I must admit Boeings are incredibly crude and noisy in general compared with Airbuses - the 737 in particular seems prehistoric in comparison with the A320 series.

 

[atillathehunn]

Stuff paying £30! My £3 pair of earphones from Asda knock out a surprising amount of noise. Not as good as the pair I'd had before for £8 (which knocked out almost all the MK2 noise on the Cally Insomnie last time, which made them worth their weight in gold!) for noise cancellation, but still a good performance and I'd suggest trying them.

I'm still on the fence with my route of choice to Norway, I can see it being Ryanair but I'd love to fly from Heathrow. Never ever been airside there in the terminals. I've decided I'm not flying with Norwegian though!

You haven't missed a lot at LHR, Tech. If you want to go via a larger airport, book a connection with SAS or KLM out of Birmingham, Bristol or Manchester.

 

[AlterEgo]

You haven't missed a lot at LHR, Tech. If you want to go via a larger airport, book a connection with SAS or KLM out of Birmingham, Bristol or Manchester.

The advantage with KLM is some routes are operated with Fokker 70s. Now there's an enthusiast's aircraft if ever there was one.

It also performs flapless takeoffs, almost unheard of in jet airliner operations.

Only downside is they only operate 1-2 rotations a day from LHR, and from regional airports. When booking regional UK airports with KLM, in general, the smaller and more obscure the airport, the more expensive the fare becomes...

KLM are retiring all of their F70s this year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You haven't missed a lot at LHR, Tech. If you want to go via a larger airport, book a connection with SAS or KLM out of Birmingham, Bristol or Manchester.

I disagree there. LHR used to be pretty rubbish, and T4 still is. But the new Queen's Terminal (T2) and T5 are excellent world-class airport terminals. It's been quite a transformation.

 

[anme]

I disagree there. LHR used to be pretty rubbish, and T4 still is. But the new Queen's Terminal (T2) and T5 are excellent world-class airport terminals. It's been quite a transformation.

Have to say that I don't agree with you. Terminal 5 is like a nightmarish version of the provincial shopping centre on Christmas eve - brightly lit, overcrowded, noisy and full of shops you don't want to visit. It's also one of the worst places to transit in Europe, very poorly designed and with multiple long queues. In fairness, B and C buildings are more pleasant. Terminal 2 is strange and small, nicer than terminal 5 but also too brightly lit and with quite disappointing facilities. My personal favourite is terminal 3, not so much for the terminal itself as for the fact that going there usually suggests an interesting destination.

Also, the Queen's Terminal is an embarrassing name - surely not the kind of image that UK wants to present to the world any more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have to say that I don't agree with you. Terminal 5 is like a nightmarish version of the provincial shopping centre on Christmas eve - brightly lit, overcrowded, noisy and full of shops you don't want to visit.

Or well-lit, busy, eventful and full of shops you *do* want to visit? Very much opinion I guess

Also, the Queen's Terminal is an embarrassing name - surely not the kind of image that UK wants to present to the world any more.

You're a Republican, I guess?

 

[anme]

You're a Republican, I guess?

Not necessarily. I don't have strong feelings about the monarchy and whatever one's views the royal family is hardly one of the UK's larger problems right now.

It's a question of which aspects of the UK we choose to present to the world. The British monarchy tends to be seen outside the UK as a bit ridiculous and embarrassing. It seems something that would be better kept to ourselves. After all, there are other aspects of British culture we wouldn't name an airport terminal after - e.g. binge drinking, pacers or xenophobia.

 

[Spamcan81]

You youngsters don't know what you missed in the past before your time... now if you were including extinct types for this question I would have to say things like the VC-10, Trident, Concorde... they all made proper noises on take off...

Before my time, anything piston powered would surely be worth listening to...

Flew on a DC-3 to Ireland and yes, was an audio treat as they wound up those big Pratt and Whitneys along with the rattling and banging that went with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The British monarchy tends to be seen outside the UK as a bit ridiculous and embarrassing.

It really doesn't. Quaint, maybe, but a massive source of tourist revenue.

Wherever did you get that idea?

 

[fowler9]

BA are using a 787 on the SCL route. It's a "long and thin" one as they say.

Ah right, of course, cheers mate. I was just thinking 777 because I got one from Buenos Aires to London. What do they use on that now?

 

[ivanhoe]

Flew on a DC-3 to Ireland and yes, was an audio treat as they wound up those big Pratt and Whitneys along with the rattling and banging that went with it.

The noise from a BAC1 11 taking off on the short runway on the old Liverpool airport was some sound.

 

[fowler9]

The noise from a BAC1 11 taking off on the short runway on the old Liverpool airport was some sound.

Were the ones at Liverpool Aer Lingus? I remember seeing their 737's there but not 1-11's, or maybe I do, it was a long time ago. Ha ha. My dad used to take us to the viewing balcony all the time. All I remember taking off on the short runway are British Midland Viscounts.

On a different subject I was having an argument with a lady recently about Chemtrails. She was saying how you never used to see them, I was saying you did used to see contrails, there were just less planes. She asserted that Liverpool Airport used to be much busier than it is now. I had to disagree on that one, ha ha. (I had made the point that there are more aircraft flying at high altitude now using the example of the number of flights from Liverpool).

 

[anme]

It really doesn't. Quaint, maybe, but a massive source of tourist revenue.

Wherever did you get that idea?

From living and working outside the UK for a significant proportion of my life and travelling regularly for the rest. Trust me, it really does.

I've never met someone who said they visited/wanted to visit London for the royal family. And even if they did, that doesn't mean they respect the monarchy. You don't watch Fawlty Towers because you respect Basil Fawlty. You watch it because it's funny.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From living and working outside the UK for a significant proportion of my life and travelling regularly for the rest. Trust me, it really does.

Please provide references, for example newspaper articles, taking that line - because I am similarly well-travelled and have never heard anything quite so ridiculous.

 

[daikilo]

Were the ones at Liverpool Aer Lingus? I remember seeing their 737's there but not 1-11's, or maybe I do, it was a long time ago. Ha ha. My dad used to take us to the viewing balcony all the time. All I remember taking off on the short runway are British Midland Viscounts.

On a different subject I was having an argument with a lady recently about Chemtrails. She was saying how you never used to see them, I was saying you did used to see contrails, there were just less planes. .

1-11s could have been BEA, Court Line or Cambrian.

Correct abbreviation is contrail meaning "condensation trail". They are a high altitude thing and we did see them above Liverpool, but yes, there were fewer aircraft then. Also, it may be that turbine engines are more susceptible than piston, or that jets are more susceptible than props.

 

[fowler9]

1-11s could have been BEA, Court Line or Cambrian.

Correct abbreviation is contrail meaning "condensation trail". They are a high altitude thing and we did see them above Liverpool, but yes, there were fewer aircraft then. Also, it may be that turbine engines are more susceptible than piston, or that jets are more susceptible than props.

Yeah I know, it was more an argument with someone who thinks it is civil airliners spraying out mind control drugs or something hence chemtrails. I was trying to tell her they are contrails not chemtrails. One of the daftest conspiracy theories going.

 

[ivanhoe]

Were the ones at Liverpool Aer Lingus? I remember seeing their 737's there but not 1-11's, or maybe I do, it was a long time ago. Ha ha. My dad used to take us to the viewing balcony all the time. All I remember taking off on the short runway are British Midland Viscounts.

On a different subject I was having an argument with a lady recently about Chemtrails. She was saying how you never used to see them, I was saying you did used to see contrails, there were just less planes. She asserted that Liverpool Airport used to be much busier than it is now. I had to disagree on that one, ha ha. (I had made the point that there are more aircraft flying at high altitude now using the example of the number of flights from Liverpool).

Hi Fowler9, it was the British Eagle ones I was talking about. As for how busy JLA is compared with 1960's,1970's old airport, there is no comparison. I used to go spotting in the 60's at Speke and the faire on offer were Aer Lingus Fokker Friendships, Cambrian Airways Viscounts and British Eagle one elevens and even the odd Bristol.Would often see an Aer Lingus take off, see its arrival back and take off again. It never hit the heights of what is now JLA. Manchester Airport, even in the late 60's and 70's was miles busier. That was one of the advantages of living in Speke was the closeness of the airport.

 

[anme]

Please provide references, for example newspaper articles, taking that line - because I am similarly well-travelled and have never heard anything quite so ridiculous.

I don't want to start a big argument about this, but have you actually lived and worked abroad for a significant length of time (I don't mean business trips or holidays)? I have probably spent more of my life amongst non-British people than British people, and most of my close friends are not British. So I do seriously know what I'm talking about. People outside the UK tend to see the British royal family in the same way as other celebrities (to the extent they think about them at all, which is not very much) - with all the respect and tawdriness that implies.

Of course, we shouldn't assume that the 99%+ of the world's population who are not British all have the same opinion. So maybe our experiences are from different places.

 

[cf111]

Ah right, of course, cheers mate. I was just thinking 777 because I got one from Buenos Aires to London. What do they use on that now?

It's a 777-300ER on BA's LHR-EZE flights.

 

[fowler9]

Hi Fowler9, it was the British Eagle ones I was talking about. As for how busy JLA is compared with 1960's,1970's old airport, there is no comparison. I used to go spotting in the 60's at Speke and the faire on offer were Aer Lingus Fokker Friendships, Cambrian Airways Viscounts and British Eagle one elevens and even the odd Bristol.Would often see an Aer Lingus take off, see its arrival back and take off again. It never hit the heights of what is now JLA. Manchester Airport, even in the late 60's and 70's was miles busier. That was one of the advantages of living in Speke was the closeness of the airport.

Cheers mate, that was an interesting read. I was born in 74 and live in Mossley Hill so again the airport isn't too far. Probably the late 70's/early 80's when I was at the old airport the most.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't want to start a big argument about this, but have you actually lived and worked abroad for a significant length of time (I don't mean business trips or holidays)?

Yes.

Of course, we shouldn't assume that the 99%+ of the world's population who are not British all have the same opinion. So maybe our experiences are from different places.

Where's your experience from? Mine is primarily Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands.

 

[fowler9]

It's a 777-300ER on BA's LHR-EZE flights.

Ah right, nice one. Do you have any idea if the flight on 08/02/2012 from EZE to LHR would have been a 300? I'll be honest, despite loving planes and flying I had been travelling for 6 1/2 months and never took note of the aircraft I was on. From looking out the window at EZE and from being on the flight I knew it was a 777 but had no idea if it was a 200 or 300. I was completely burned out. Ha ha.

By the way if there is a website I could easily find this info on that would be great, I have struggled with Flightradar to try and find out but don't think I can. I know we flew on VH-OEB from Hong Kong to Melbourne but would love to know which A340 we were on from Auckland to Santiago and which 747 we were on from Heathrow to Hong Kong as well.

 

[berneyarms]

I also heard somewhere that Ethiopian were considering their Europe stop on the North American traffic from Dublin to Manchester - oh let this be true! Such convenient connections.

I find that difficult to believe - they've got a very good deal from the Dublin Airport Authority with three sets of flights refuelling in Dublin most days (the LA flight being the only passenger transit stop).

What is your source for this?

 

[gsnedders]

I find that difficult to believe - they've got a very good deal from the Dublin Airport Authority with three sets of flights refuelling in Dublin most days (the LA flight being the only passenger transit stop).

What is your source for this?

Especially combined with US pre-clearance, which means the stop is beneficial time-wise for passengers too.

 

[anme]

Where's your experience from? Mine is primarily Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands.

Sadly I'm not prepared to say.

This article is quite interesting - http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ritish-royal-monarchy-queen-elizabeth/411388/
It's an American view and quotes some bizarre claims ("10% of visitors to the UK come because of their interest in the royal family"). But it shows how tawdry the whole thing is, and I think it perfectly describes the nature of interest in the British monarchy abroad - "the glamour of backwardness". This is why naming airport terminals and railway lines after the royal family is a bad idea.

But this whole conversation overstates the level of interest people generally have in the British royal family, which is close to none. And to be clear, I'm not calling for a republic - there are far more important problems to solve.

I think I will leave it there, as we're straying quite seriously off topic.

 

[berneyarms]

Especially combined with US pre-clearance, which means the stop is beneficial time-wise for passengers too.

Ethiopian don't use the pre-clearance at Dublin.

The LA flight leaves Dublin very early so would beat the transatlantic rush to the US West Coast so pressures at the US immigration and customs in LA may not be as bad as other flights.

 

[anme]

Ethiopian don't use the pre-clearance at Dublin.

The LA flight leaves Dublin very early so would beat the transatlantic rush to the US West Coast so pressures at the US immigration and customs in LA may not be as bad as other flights.

LAX now has self service terminals for immigration that hugely speed up the process even when busy. Not sure how widely these are deployed elsewhere yet, but they will reduce the benefits of pre-clearance in Europe.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Just on this clearance topic, I am considering a trip to the US in 2018 and will need to get a visa, I heard that you can get through a lot quicker with these than with an ETSA, but is this only at certain airports?

When we arrived at Phoenix for example, terribly long queues but didn't see a fast-track option for people with visas.