Air Southwest
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torpoint
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi guys
pretty new to the forum (posting wise), just wondered if anyone could shed some light,
i saw one of the asw dash 8's overhead today, but this time it leveled off and was flying really low over my house (in torpoint) and continued to circle the town twice before flying off.
nothing worrying i was just wondering if anyone knew what it as in-aid of.
thanks
adam
pretty new to the forum (posting wise), just wondered if anyone could shed some light,
i saw one of the asw dash 8's overhead today, but this time it leveled off and was flying really low over my house (in torpoint) and continued to circle the town twice before flying off.
nothing worrying i was just wondering if anyone knew what it as in-aid of.
thanks
adam
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torpoint
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey,
it was beautiful weather again today, but this wasnt the path ive ever seen them take,
it must have been about 1.30ish, but it came in from the dockyard (500-700ft) maybe. flew straight over did two 360 turns around the town, then flew off on its normal route.
not sure why, just know it was great to watch, ^^
anyways was just a general inquiry, thank you asw for making my day
adam
it was beautiful weather again today, but this wasnt the path ive ever seen them take,
it must have been about 1.30ish, but it came in from the dockyard (500-700ft) maybe. flew straight over did two 360 turns around the town, then flew off on its normal route.
not sure why, just know it was great to watch, ^^
anyways was just a general inquiry, thank you asw for making my day
adam
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's official, from May 31 WOW will be no more 
. Previous posts were correct and they'll be adopting an IATA code of SZ. Shame for WOW to go but definitely a good move to increase their products/services.
Air Southwest Air Southwest seeks global audience
. Previous posts were correct and they'll be adopting an IATA code of SZ. Shame for WOW to go but definitely a good move to increase their products/services.Air Southwest Air Southwest seeks global audience
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it must have been about 1.30ish, but it came in from the dockyard (500-700ft) maybe. flew straight over did two 360 turns around the town, then flew off on its normal route.
It doesn't make sense, to me anyway, to land if there are no pax to disembark/board but the flight would have to approach in case of last minute arrivals , but once the gate closes could depart en-route.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North East
Age: 37
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
byeeeeeeeeeeeeee WOW!!
Well it's official, from May 31 WOW will be no more
But then, I remembered it was me who brought up the subject previously
Good for them, and good for the Southwest as well, it'll hopefully put the region on more travel agents' maps and increase tourism.
How much does it cost to list on a GDS, and does this represent a substantial investment for WOW, sorry, SZ? Maybe a travel/res agent will know?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God when I saw that I thought they were shutting up shop!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to admit I have never been entirely certain how things like this actually work. I know most airlines have Iata and ICAO codes, but who decides which is used?
At Newcastle, as far as Passengers are concerned Eastern Airways operate under T3, rather than EZE, British Airways use BA rather than BAW, yet Thomas Cook use TCX rather than MT, and Viking use VIK/SGX
Is there any set rule about what has to be put in the public view?
RTG!
At Newcastle, as far as Passengers are concerned Eastern Airways operate under T3, rather than EZE, British Airways use BA rather than BAW, yet Thomas Cook use TCX rather than MT, and Viking use VIK/SGX
Is there any set rule about what has to be put in the public view?
RTG!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Age: 66
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two different codes one for airtraffic ICAO three letter identfier and radio call sign and the two letter(or number) IATA code orginally for ticketing and GDS. A lot of the displays in terminals are run from the scheduling computor based on slot allocation using the IATA SSIM(Standard Scheduling Information Manual) format. For this they normally used two letter code is displayed but some airlines use there three letter code instead. The Icao code is issued via NATS at LHR. You go to them with a suggestion and the proposed call sign and they check with ICAO to see if it will conflict if its ok you get it allocated. The IATA code is a bit of a lottery you may get one that is appropriate but most of the time its random. Eastern is a good example being issued T3 as opposed to EA(The old Eastern Airlines in USA) that i am sure they would have preferred. Also the ICAO number is free the IATA costs $2000 per year to have(or it did the last time i applied for one).
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for that, xtypeman... but that still doesnt explain why the travelling public (who doesnt particularly care about IATA or ICAO) should see a difference. If the Air Southwest pax are used to seeing the three letter ICAO (WOWxxx) flight numbers on ticketing and airport departure boards, why should the fact the airline now has an IATA (SZ) code make a difference.
If you check-in for a KLM flight at NCL, you'll see an IATA "KLxxx"
If you check-in for a Thomas Cook flight at NCL, you'll see an ICAO "TCXxxx"
Will this actually change anything? Will "WOW" really disappear? I mean surely if Thomas Cook can use TCX (which is far more representative than MT), and Viking Airlines can use VIK (rather than 4P), why can't Air Southwest not continue to use "WOW"
Its not like the travelling public pays that much attention to anything more than destination anyway! ;p
RTG!
If you check-in for a KLM flight at NCL, you'll see an IATA "KLxxx"
If you check-in for a Thomas Cook flight at NCL, you'll see an ICAO "TCXxxx"
Will this actually change anything? Will "WOW" really disappear? I mean surely if Thomas Cook can use TCX (which is far more representative than MT), and Viking Airlines can use VIK (rather than 4P), why can't Air Southwest not continue to use "WOW"
Its not like the travelling public pays that much attention to anything more than destination anyway! ;p
RTG!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most scheduled flights are two letter ICAO. Even Monarch, who use MON for the most part use ZB for the scheduled services. That's just the way it is.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 3rd Jun 2009 at 23:18.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To confirm at the moment SZ is appearing on departure/arrival boards. Swallow/WOW still being used for ATC purposes.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: iom
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will probably take some time for all airports to catch on to the change is usually the way when this type of thing happens. When Blue Islands went to 'SI' from 'BCI' the same thing happened.
Originally Posted by ReadtToGo
but that still doesnt explain why the travelling public (who doesnt particularly care about IATA or ICAO) should see a difference
Carriers had to do the change for the technical ICAO usage (eg ATC). But for reservation and public-facing purposes, etc, they were happy to continue to use the old two-character codes, as this saved them considerable costs in reprogramming their old (at the time) generation reservation computers. Furthermore, this would have been expenditure which would give them no direct benefit, but would just facilitate more competitors coming along with meaningful codes.
For example, I can be at Edinburgh travelling on BA to London Gatwick. I can see BA up on the departure board, which I know is British Airways. I can also see U2 going to Gatwick, but that gives no clue to who the airline is. Meanwhile if I am on Easyjet and waiting for my U2 flight then I can see BA also going there. Obviously British Airways.
So why would BA want to spend money to make a change that just makes carriers like U2 more recognisable as EZY ? The same applied through all the old-school at IATA. Don't change the IATA codes, and internally live with two codes for different purposes. So that's how we ended up with two codes.
One day we will wonder why there are also two sets of codes for airports, why they are related in the USA (eg MIA = KMIA) but not anywhere else.