|
Post by Allen Peterson on Dec 19, 2013 16:47:38 GMT -5
Right on, Ed.
|
|
|
Post by granitesquare on Dec 28, 2013 12:41:11 GMT -5
I realize that I am coming in a bit late on this discussion but the points that have been brought up are quite valid. It would be a mistake to just let them lay out there. BGA has so many fine features which reflect the time and effort put into this VA by a dedicated group of pilots. I would not want to see any of them dropped. Being a historic airline does not necessarily mean the BGA is totally limited. It was pointed out that many simmers prefer new jets to older props and I think that was an accurate observation. Bluegrass Airlines was absorbed by Imperial which was then absorbed by Delta so in a small way Bluegrass it is part of a modern airlines. I would venture to say that jets that have been out of production for 30 or more years are historic. The question is, do they fit into the framework of our BGA? Could this be considered?
|
|
|
Post by marcel de boer on Dec 28, 2013 16:11:37 GMT -5
Another somewhat late reaction. I am one of those pilots that wil fly some hours and be out of action for a while. Mostley due to work or other conditions. I have been with a few va's and the great thing of this va is that you can fly what you want and where you want. I think that is a great aspect and advantage. And that is the reason that i Always find my way overhere. I like the older props but also the first jets. Maybe it is an idea to allow pireps with older jets as granitesquare already pointed. There are enough pilots interested in classic prop-liners and jets, just look at the Calclassic website and the Historic Jetliners Group. Too bad that there are only a few that uses the forum, and yes i am one of those, who do not post items . So i am guilty as charged..... I think the monthly flights and rally's are great. (despite i never did a rally). We should find a way to get more aktive members. Greets Marcel.
|
|
|
Post by Allan_Lowson on Dec 28, 2013 18:22:01 GMT -5
Just to clear up a potential misunderstanding, we never reject any pireps regardless of what has been flown.
The system occasionally throws a wobblie and fails to register a pirep or loses the total hours, but that's just the ones and noughts getting scrambled by a stroppy bit of code.
If anyone wants to fly the routes in an early jet that's fine by me, after all a de Havilland Comet was the first jet to fly the Atlantic on a scheduled flight and also to circumnavigate the globe on a test tour.
If you look at the development of airline routes down the years you will see how frequently the core routes stay the same as airlines grow or merge. So any route that was successful in the prop days will as like as not have a jet service these days.
The simplicity of the earliest routes does of course make life easier when writing up features.
A chance to join in a rally will be coming up shortly, do give it a go.
|
|
uhug
Member
I‘m only retired... but not out of service!
Posts: 265
|
Post by uhug on Dec 29, 2013 18:54:03 GMT -5
I was just study your the entries about "Is it time to reorganize?" Isn't it rather the case, that we should enjoy our possibilities - which we have - and all the spectrum without borders?
|
|
|
Post by marcel de boer on Dec 30, 2013 2:49:35 GMT -5
Hear Hear ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by louross on Dec 31, 2013 10:32:55 GMT -5
I'll drink to
that !
|
|
|
Post by Allan_Lowson on Jan 1, 2014 10:26:52 GMT -5
Looking at the pireps for 2013 the overall breakdown is approximately:
Piston 80% Jet 9% and turboprop 11%
Going back about 5 years the breakdown was:
Piston 69% Jet 21% and turboprop 10%.
...and the DC-3 is somewhere over 10% of the piston hours logged for both time periods.
So why have jets declined in percentage of hours? It is probably due to the personal preferences of individual pilots as the membership changes with time.
|
|
|
Post by johnl on Jan 2, 2014 16:48:25 GMT -5
I seem to remember we once had a "Turbo Division", with Comets (and Caravelles?).
|
|