Planes That Sit on Tarmac

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

Per Alan:
>As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex, I may have to walk
>across the linoleum for some milk of magnesia or an aspirin since I'm not
>sure I'm clear on the proper terminology. Is "ramp" what you feel we should
>be saying in place of tarmac?
>

From now on, I'm going to try to remember to play it safe and just say
"ground"....-)
--
PeteCresswell

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:47:41 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per Alan:
>>As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex, I may have to walk
>>across the linoleum for some milk of magnesia or an aspirin since I'm not
>>sure I'm clear on the proper terminology. Is "ramp" what you feel we should
>>be saying in place of tarmac?
>>
>
>From now on, I'm going to try to remember to play it safe and just say
>"ground"....-)

The pedants will have a field day with that one too...

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:02:08 -0700, "Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com >
wrote:


>As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex,

Did you mean "Coke"?

DaveM

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

"DaveM" <asma61@dsl.pipex . com > wrote in message
news:lm2pv21cib1aeit6rkm1lhougmftvu4obj@4ax . com ...
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:02:08 -0700, "Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com >
> wrote:
>
>
>>As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex,
>
> Did you mean "Coke"?
>
> DaveM

Come now. I did all that work and you only found one?

Coke
Kleenex
Linoleum
Milk of Magnesia
Apirin

are all trademarks.

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

"Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com > wrote:

> "DaveM" <asma61@dsl.pipex . com > wrote:
>
>> "Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com > wrote:
>>
>>> As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex,
>>
>> Did you mean "Coke"?
>
> Come now. I did all that work and you only found one?
>
> Coke
> Kleenex
> Linoleum
> Milk of Magnesia
> Apirin
>
> are all trademarks.

When you used a small letter to write "coke", I think he felt you were
talking about a powder, rather than a liquid.

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:54:19 -0700, "Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com >
wrote:

>"DaveM" <asma61@dsl.pipex . com > wrote in message
>news:lm2pv21cib1aeit6rkm1lhougmftvu4obj@4ax . com ...
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:02:08 -0700, "Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com >
>> wrote:

>>>As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex,

>> Did you mean "Coke"?

>Come now. I did all that work and you only found one?

>Coke
>Kleenex
>Linoleum
>Milk of Magnesia
>Apirin

>are all trademarks.

Or in the case of aspirin, was once, but was lost. And as someone has
already clarified the difference between coke on your face and Coke on your
face is a lot more serious than a trademark violation!

DaveM

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac


"Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:LeednaW55dRtWGHYnZ2dnUVZ_ragnZ2d@comcast . com ...
> "DaveM" <asma61@dsl.pipex . com > wrote in message
> news:lm2pv21cib1aeit6rkm1lhougmftvu4obj@4ax . com ...
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:02:08 -0700, "Alan" <alanb_lano2spam@yahoo . com >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As I sit here wiping the coke off my face with a kleenex,
>>
>> Did you mean "Coke"?
>>
>> DaveM
>
> Come now. I did all that work and you only found one?
>
> Coke
> Kleenex
> Linoleum
> Milk of Magnesia
> Apirin
>
> are all trademarks.
>

I have never ever heard of Apirin but Aspirin is definitely not a trademark
in the UK.

JohnT

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

Alan wrote:

> "Newby" <nobody@nowhere . net > wrote:

>> Would someone please identify an airport where the product "Tarmac" is
>> used
>> to park commercial airliners?
>
> Tough crowd. Did I use the wrong word? If so, please help me out.

No, you didn't. Newby is stuck in the past. Whilst 'Tarmac' is a
trademarked term in the UK, it has become known throughout the world as
a general term for runways and other airport areas.

--
Craig

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac


"Craig Welch" <craig@pacific . net .sg> wrote in message
news:oJLKh.12287$8U4.4147@news-server.bigpond . net .au...
> Alan wrote:
>
> > "Newby" <nobody@nowhere . net > wrote:
>
> >> Would someone please identify an airport where the product "Tarmac" is
> >> used
> >> to park commercial airliners?
> >
> > Tough crowd. Did I use the wrong word? If so, please help me out.
>
> No, you didn't. Newby is stuck in the past. Whilst 'Tarmac' is a
> trademarked term in the UK, it has become known throughout the world as
> a general term for runways and other airport areas.
>
> --
> Craig

The people who use the term tarmac are stuck in the past or just blindly
repeating what the talking heads are saying.

Long live Portland cement concrete!

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:17:28 -0500, "Newby" <nobody@nowhere . net >
wrote:

>Would someone please identify an airport where the product "Tarmac" is used
>to park commercial airliners?
>
Stupid friggin' pedant :)

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

Alan wrote:
> tarmac for hours. Can someone give me a quick summary? Basically, I'm
> curious as to why couldn't the plane taxi back to the gate:

If the crew have been told there is a chance they may be able to take off
"soon", going back to any gate would forfeit that chance and the plane would be
put back at the end of the queue.

Say they are told that in current condition, they allow 4 planes per hour to
take off (think de-icing and clearing snow from runway, and using time slots
between landing aircraft). And the aircraft is 4th in line to take off. An hour
later, that plane would be expected to be in the air. So it looks like it is
worth waiting.

But some other airport closes completely and inbound flighst are diverted to
this one, and the landings no longer give any time for anyone to take off. But
this only happens after the aircraft has waited many hours in the hopes of
taking off.

In the case of Jet Blue, one problem was lack of an operations manager who had
the power to pull the strings to get "non normal" stuff done, such as bringing
the plane back and getting airstairs or a bus or whatever to get the pax back
indoors. The employees at the airport had probably long forgotten about that
flight that had "left" many hours ago and had other priorities such as handling
angry passengers because of flight delays/cancellations.


Many years ago, there was a similar situation in Austin due to a series of
thunderstorms at Dallas which forced many flights to land at their alternate
airports and wait for the storms to move away. There was a huge backlog of
aircraft waiting for a landing slot at DFW once the later would resume
operations. Most airlines used various rules as EXCUSES to not do anything. But
Southwest found a way to at least bring pizza to its aircraft.

Where there is a will, there is a way.


There is one caveat. And this was seen at the smaller canadian airports on 9-11
which were deluged with jumbos. If that small airport only had one airstair
large enough to accomodate jumbos, then no matter how hard their tried, they
could only process one aircraft at a time, and it would take time to unload
every aircraft.

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac


"Nobody" <nobody@nobody.org> wrote in message
news:8ece1$45fc6cbd$cef8887a$11912@TEKSAVVY . com ...
> Alan wrote:
>> tarmac for hours. Can someone give me a quick summary? Basically, I'm
>> curious as to why couldn't the plane taxi back to the gate:
>
> If the crew have been told there is a chance they may be able to take off
> "soon", going back to any gate would forfeit that chance and the plane
> would be put back at the end of the queue.
>
> Say they are told that in current condition, they allow 4 planes per hour
> to take off (think de-icing and clearing snow from runway, and using time
> slots between landing aircraft). And the aircraft is 4th in line to take
> off. An hour later, that plane would be expected to be in the air. So it
> looks like it is worth waiting.
>
> But some other airport closes completely and inbound flighst are diverted
> to this one, and the landings no longer give any time for anyone to take
> off. But this only happens after the aircraft has waited many hours in the
> hopes of taking off.
>
> In the case of Jet Blue, one problem was lack of an operations manager who
> had the power to pull the strings to get "non normal" stuff done, such as
> bringing the plane back and getting airstairs or a bus or whatever to get
> the pax back indoors. The employees at the airport had probably long
> forgotten about that flight that had "left" many hours ago and had other
> priorities such as handling angry passengers because of flight
> delays/cancellations.
>
>
> Many years ago, there was a similar situation in Austin due to a series of
> thunderstorms at Dallas which forced many flights to land at their
> alternate airports and wait for the storms to move away. There was a huge
> backlog of aircraft waiting for a landing slot at DFW once the later would
> resume operations. Most airlines used various rules as EXCUSES to not do
> anything. But Southwest found a way to at least bring pizza to its
> aircraft.
>
> Where there is a will, there is a way.
>
>
> There is one caveat. And this was seen at the smaller canadian airports on
> 9-11 which were deluged with jumbos. If that small airport only had one
> airstair large enough to accomodate jumbos, then no matter how hard their
> tried, they could only process one aircraft at a time, and it would take
> time to unload every aircraft.

Thanks. Just what I needed.

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

On Mar 17, 3:33 pm, Nobody <nob...@nobody.org> wrote:
> If the crew have been told there is a chance they may be able to take off
> "soon", going back to any gate would forfeit that chance and the plane would be
> put back at the end of the queue.

other reasons as well:

- all the gates are usually being used, so to go back to a gate, they
would have to displace another flight. this could cause a domino
effect.

- something about # of hours that crew has worked, if they returned to
gate, crew would not be able to resume work.

- in some cases, the plane was sitting on the *pavement* (there, you
happy Newby? =) so long that the tires froze to the ground.

Not that those are valid excuses for holding passengers hostage for 10
hrs, but just some addtl reasons.

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac


"Bucky" <uw_badgers@email . com > wrote in message
news:1174289656.022992.194590@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups . com ...
> On Mar 17, 3:33 pm, Nobody <nob...@nobody.org> wrote:
> > If the crew have been told there is a chance they may be able to take
off
> > "soon", going back to any gate would forfeit that chance and the plane
would be
> > put back at the end of the queue.
>
> other reasons as well:
>
> - all the gates are usually being used, so to go back to a gate, they
> would have to displace another flight. this could cause a domino
> effect.
>
> - something about # of hours that crew has worked, if they returned to
> gate, crew would not be able to resume work.
>
> - in some cases, the plane was sitting on the *pavement* (there, you
> happy Newby? =) so long that the tires froze to the ground.
>
> Not that those are valid excuses for holding passengers hostage for 10
> hrs, but just some addtl reasons.
>
Congratulations!

Re: Planes That Sit on Tarmac

Per Bucky:
>other reasons as well:
>
>- all the gates are usually being used, so to go back to a gate, they
>would have to displace another flight. this could cause a domino
>effect.
>
>- something about # of hours that crew has worked, if they returned to
>gate, crew would not be able to resume work.
>
>- in some cases, the plane was sitting on the *pavement* (there, you
>happy Newby? =) so long that the tires froze to the ground.
>
>Not that those are valid excuses for holding passengers hostage for 10
>hrs, but just some addtl reasons.

- The airlines don't want to put out the additional money to ensure that
sufficient numbers of portable stairways are available and to provide
procedures/manpower to move the customers to a waiting area.
--
PeteCresswell