Aviation Discussion

[anme]

Are you absolutely sure of that? I very much doubt it, because it would be too easy for someone to enter the UK sneakily if they were.

Indeed I am 100% sure, and others confirm below. The boarding pass check that passengers starting their journeys at Heathrow T5 go through before security is essentially one way, so transfer passengers can't go back through it. After this check, originating and transfer passengers are mixed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They typically were until about a year ago; there's now separate security zones (though I think still shared with priority security?). Security guards are there to stop anyone going land-side.

Strictly speaking, the southern security checkpoint was essentially unused until about a year ago, when they started routing transferring passengers through it. (It used to have one queue open for priority security and that was it, IIRC.) I presume this was always planned for capacity expansion?

Not sure this matches my experience. There were not separate security zones when I passed through recently as a transfer passenger. Maybe it depends how busy it is? And as far as I know it's always been possible to use both the northern and southern security check points (as an originating passenger) since T5 opened in 2007.

 

[miami]

Transfer always used to be northern only. The boarding pass check is very quick - it's for conformance (you get offloaded if you're not in good time) as well as to ensure anyone airside has a boarding pass.

 

[anme]

Transfer always used to be northern only. The boarding pass check is very quick - it's for conformance (you get offloaded if you're not in good time) as well as to ensure anyone airside has a boarding pass.

I think you're right that northern is originating and transfer passengers, and southern is originating passengers only. The boarding pass check is quick for originating passengers in my experience, but it is often very slow for transfer passengers - this is the problem.

 

[gsnedders]

Not sure this matches my experience. There were not separate security zones when I passed through recently as a transfer passenger. Maybe it depends how busy it is? And as far as I know it's always been possible to use both the northern and southern security check points (as an originating passenger) since T5 opened in 2007.

Could well be; I've only flown as an originating passenger out of T5 once (last year), though I transit through there maybe a dozen times per year on average (to/from Glasgow). Certainly the last half dozen times I've all been through southern, and I'd never been prior to last year.

 

[158747]

On the subject of aircraft noise, I remember being favourably impressed with the MD-11. Surprisingly quiet, at least towards the front. Are MD-11s still used on passenger services anywhere in the world?

The last passenger MD-11s were operated by KLM, the final passenger flight taking place on 11 November 2014.

 

[atillathehunn]

Flightradar have a fun new feature. If you go to their airport data tab, select an airport and click 'routes' it allows you to see scheduled direct services super imposed onto a map of the world in a spider web style (like you see in in-flight magazines).

Quite good fun.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/man/routes

 

[Airline Man]

What flight tracking apps do other people use? I have Planefinder which does the job for me. It's accurate and easy to use but I see flight radar 24 is very popular and whenever there's an incident you always see that on the TV news.

Are they all much of a muchness or is there a 'Deltic' of the flight tracking apps?

 

[Airline Man]

The last passenger MD-11s were operated by KLM, the final passenger flight taking place on 11 November 2014.

I was surprised how quiet the 146 was when it first came out. I worked at Southend Airport at the time and barely noticed it when it came taxiing in. Also, the A380 is extremely quiet when taking off and is one of the quietest aircraft inside as well.

 

[atillathehunn]

What flight tracking apps do other people use? I have Planefinder which does the job for me. It's accurate and easy to use but I see flight radar 24 is very popular and whenever there's an incident you always see that on the TV news.

Are they all much of a muchness or is there a 'Deltic' of the flight tracking apps?

Flightradar is my flight tracker of choice. They are very proactive at releasing data packets and releases to the press when an aviation incident comes around, getting them airtime and hence more visits to their site.

 

[gsnedders]

Right, so I'm sitting on a BA 787-9 still on the ground at Heathrow. First impressions: the seats are narrow compared to the A319 I flew down on. On the other hand, the flight is pretty dead at least in economy (business looked busy!), so nobody beside me and I'm skinny. The windows are so weird, though.

 

[anme]

Right, so I'm sitting on a BA 787-9 still on the ground at Heathrow. First impressions: the seats are narrow compared to the A319 I flew down on. On the other hand, the flight is pretty dead at least in economy (business looked busy!), so nobody beside me and I'm skinny. The windows are so weird, though.

Interesting you should write that. I've been on a couple of 787 flights on new "long, thin" routes. In all cases, the planes were pretty empty - much less than half full in economy in already small cabins (I counted). I wonder how well these new routes are doing.

I agree with you about the very narrow seats.

 

[miami]

BA 787s are horrendous in economy, or so I'm told. I believe premium and business are as normal (overpriced and poor service)

 

[fowler9]

What flight tracking apps do other people use? I have Planefinder which does the job for me. It's accurate and easy to use but I see flight radar 24 is very popular and whenever there's an incident you always see that on the TV news.

Are they all much of a muchness or is there a 'Deltic' of the flight tracking apps?

Flightradar is really good. You can have the airline of the little aircraft icon displayed above it as well as various shapes of icon (If that is the right word) so without actually clicking on the aircraft you have a pretty good idea what it is. Arrival and departure boards when you click on the airports. I haven't really bothered using any other apps so if there are any better I would be interested to hear.

A friend has one which also shows military aircraft but it is not very accurate and not as user friendly, not sure what it is called.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Flightradar is really good. You can have the airline of the little aircraft icon displayed above it as well as various shapes of icon (If that is the right word) so without actually clicking on the aircraft you have a pretty good idea what it is. Arrival and departure boards when you click on the airports. I haven't really bothered using any other apps so if there are any better I would be interested to hear.

Flightradar24 is arguably the premium tracker but requires a subscription (not expensive) to access the more interesting features. If you use it as a non-subscriber it's somewhat basic these days though it's clear that it has the best coverage meaning aircraft are tracked more consistently accurately during manoeuvering phases of flight.

Planefinder is free and allows up to six pieces of information to be displayed in the data tags connected to the aircraft icons. This makes for much more convenient spotting whether for aircraft on an approach route or for "dot spotting".

Accordingly Planefinder is my tracker of choice but there are times when I have both running as a cross-check.

 

[fowler9]

Flightradar24 is arguably the premium tracker but requires a subscription (not expensive) to access the more interesting features. If you use it as a non-subscriber it's somewhat basic these days though it's clear that it has the best coverage meaning aircraft are tracked more consistently accurately during manoeuvering phases of flight.

Planefinder is free and allows up to six pieces of information to be displayed in the data tags connected to the aircraft icons. This makes for much more convenient spotting whether for aircraft on an approach route or for "dot spotting".

Accordingly Planefinder is my tracker of choice but there are times when I have both running as a cross-check.

The subscription on the mobile app is about £2.50 forever unless they change it. If you have the money it won't break the bank. One off payment. People spend more than that on a blag KFC after a night out and don't remember doing it.

 

[Drsatan]

BA 787s are horrendous in economy, or so I'm told. I believe premium and business are as normal (overpriced and poor service)

Can't be any worse than Norwegian Air's 787s, where unless you sit in economy plus the legroom is risible. I flew LGW-JFK with them in May and while the selection of films and TV shows provided by the IFE was good, the attitude of the cabin crew stank.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The subscription on the mobile app is about £2.50 forever unless they change it. If you have the money it won't break the bank. One off payment. People spend more than that on a blag KFC after a night out and don't remember doing it.

The ability to have more accurate tracking is somewhat negated when using the smaller screen of a mobile device though! The subscription for PC use is, I believe, US$10/yr. As you say hardly breaking the bank yet I am finding I can manage perfectly well without having to spend anything at all. And some historical data is available for free at sites like Flightaware or even airports' own sites, not to mention fan sites. If your interest is limited to airliners there is no need to pay for anything in this area.

 

[TheEscapist_]

I thought the Qatar 787 seating was really good. Good legroom, comfy seat and brilliant ife. However the business class on Qatar 787 was outstanding. But still can't fault the economy seats. Haven't been on a 787 with any other airline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fowler9]

The ability to have more accurate tracking is somewhat negated when using the smaller screen of a mobile device though! The subscription for PC use is, I believe, US$10/yr. As you say hardly breaking the bank yet I am finding I can manage perfectly well without having to spend anything at all. And some historical data is available for free at sites like Flightaware or even airports' own sites, not to mention fan sites. If your interest is limited to airliners there is no need to pay for anything in this area.

You can get flightradar for free also, just misses out a few of the trimmings.

 

[gsnedders]

Interesting you should write that. I've been on a couple of 787 flights on new "long, thin" routes. In all cases, the planes were pretty empty - much less than half full in economy in already small cabins (I counted). I wonder how well these new routes are doing.

I agree with you about the very narrow seats.

Probably a third to a half full in economy, business was nearly full, so they're probably doing okay economically given that's where the money is.

I've never been so okay getting off a long-haul flight (and certainly my last westbound long-haul flight on an Icelandair 757 killed me!), which I'd definitely put somewhat down to the openness of the cabin: it definitely felt more open than any 747 (downstairs!) or 777 I've been on, as if the centre luggage bins etc. were slightly higher up? It could just be that that was down to lighting, given the relative mass of natural light in the cabin from the larger windows, though. The 757 seemed very claustrophobic on such a long flight (KEF–SEA).

The seats, IMO, were fine. I wouldn't, however, want to be in one with anyone in the adjacent seat because of shoulder/arm room, especially if they were at all broad! At the same time, I find the same true of most 18.5" seats, so hey! Probably just slightly less tolerance.

I'd definitely take a 787 to SJC again if heading to anywhere south of SFO in preference to either the 777 or A380 operated SFO flights. Marginally nicer plane, seats effectively far better from the relatively low economy loading, way nicer destination airport (well, sorta: the international terminal at SJC is a bit of a joke when it comes to arrivals because there's nothing there!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably a third to a half full in economy, business was nearly full, so they're probably doing okay economically given that's where the money is.

I've never been so okay getting off a long-haul flight (and certainly my last westbound long-haul flight on an Icelandair 757 killed me!), which I'd definitely put somewhat down to the openness of the cabin: it definitely felt more open than any 747 (downstairs!) or 777 I've been on, as if the centre luggage bins etc. were slightly higher up? It could just be that that was down to lighting, given the relative mass of natural light in the cabin from the larger windows, though.

Quite possibly it was actually down to the higher level of cabin pressure and moisture made possible by the composite rather than aluminium structure.

 

[AlterEgo]

BA 787s are horrendous in economy, or so I'm told. I believe premium and business are as normal (overpriced and poor service)

Only overpriced if you pay the "proper" fare. First is great and competes with the F on an A380.

If you listen to the drivel posted on FlyerTalk by spoiled, balding middle aged men who all have Tumi bags, then you'd think BA was worse than Air Koryo.

 

[atillathehunn]

I thought the Qatar 787 seating was really good. Good legroom, comfy seat and brilliant ife. However the business class on Qatar 787 was outstanding. But still can't fault the economy seats. Haven't been on a 787 with any other airline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you very, very small? And perhaps with no legs?

Tiny, cramped seats, with the IFE box under the seat in front with a sharp metal corner on the box to stab you in the leg when you finally get comfy.

 

[TheEscapist_]

Are you very, very small? And perhaps with no legs?



Tiny, cramped seats, with the IFE box under the seat in front with a sharp metal corner on the box to stab you in the leg when you finally get comfy.

Nope I am not small and have two legs.... I found the 787 brilliant and the Qatar A330 awful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butts]

Are you very, very small? And perhaps with no legs?

Tiny, cramped seats, with the IFE box under the seat in front with a sharp metal corner on the box to stab you in the leg when you finally get comfy.

Does the Embraer 195 have superior seating to these 787's ?

 

[miami]

Only overpriced if you pay the "proper" fare. First is great and competes with the F on an A380.

If you're going away for a typical business trip in WTP - out on a Sunday evening/Monday morning, back on Thursday/Friday evening/Saturday morning, you're looking at £3k return to a typical destination. Qatar is often cheaper in business, and their business (especially on the 787 and A350) beats BA's First hands down. Finnair also often cheaper.

Last time I flew first on BA, the seat was dirty, the cabin crew were rude, and they were dangerous. Haven't flown BA since, but friends who do still fly them have complained about service and food quality (in economy and premium economy) going downhill a lot in the last couple of years.

 

[berneyarms]

If you're going away for a typical business trip in WTP - out on a Sunday evening/Monday morning, back on Thursday/Friday evening/Saturday morning, you're looking at £3k return to a typical destination. Qatar is often cheaper in business, and their business (especially on the 787 and A350) beats BA's First hands down. Finnair also often cheaper.

Last time I flew first on BA, the seat was dirty, the cabin crew were rude, and they were dangerous. Haven't flown BA since, but friends who do still fly them have complained about service and food quality (in economy and premium economy) going downhill a lot in the last couple of years.

What does WTP mean?

Any chance you could follow forum rules and explain acronyms the first time you use them?

We are not all mind readers!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does the Embraer 195 have superior seating to these 787's ?

The Lufty E195s (expect they're all the same) have 18.25" wide seats. The BA 3-3-3 787 has 17.5" wide seats. That is quite a difference, not to mention that the E195 has no bad (middle) seats as it is a 2+2 layout.

Mind you, some of it depends on seat design. I am pretty big in most dimensions, and I flew to Canada and back with Air Canada a couple of years back, out on an older 3-3-3 777 and back on a near brand new (I think it had been in service a couple of weeks) 3-4-3 777. I actually found the seats in the latter more comfortable - mainly because the thinner backs meant more legroom, but the narrower width wasn't actually that noticeable in that case. The seats on those are 17" (same as the rather cramped Ryanair 737-800).

As for IFE boxes, yes, they get in the way, but TBH I think airlines should abolish IFE. Most people who want to take entertainment with them will have their own device, so they might as well save the cost and pass it onto the passengers in fare cuts.

 

[atillathehunn]

What does WTP mean?

Any chance you could follow forum rules and explain acronyms the first time you use them?

We are not all mind readers!

I think in defence of whoever used the acronym, BA is discussed reasonably extensively here - and it appears a few here are familiar with the Flyertalk forum - and so assumed people would know WTP is World Traveller Plus, the name BA use for their premium economy cardboard box.

 

[atillathehunn]

Does the Embraer 195 have superior seating to these 787's ?

In almost every way.

Qatar, choose one: poke me in the leg all night, or cramp me in at the top.

To do both is a cruel and unusual punishment.