Is a UA channel 9 possible on AC ?
Jan 19, 2003, 10:58 am
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 20,550
Is a UA channel 9 possible on AC ?
When flying UA, I enjoy listening to channel 9 (when available at captain's discretion)to monitor flight progress. I recognize that not everybody is a fanatic. 
I was wondering if there was interest on this forum to ask AC to implement such a feature. Is this technically feasible? Is is costly?
Any opinions?
I was wondering if there was interest on this forum to ask AC to implement such a feature. Is this technically feasible? Is is costly?
Any opinions?
Jan 19, 2003, 2:18 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 839
I heartily endorse the idea. Channel 9 is the only in-flight entertainment I've listened to in years. The music channels are pretty bland, imho.
If it's possible, I'll be first in line to sign the official letter of request!
If it's possible, I'll be first in line to sign the official letter of request!
Jan 20, 2003, 12:27 pm
#4
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: YVR
Posts: 9,999
Considering the popularity of the service on UA aircraft, and also that it would be a source of cost free material for the IFE, probably replacing the material on a channel that they do have to pay for, it seems like a no-brainer.
Hence my expectation that we'll never see it.
If you can save a penny a passenger by not assembling headsets...
Hence my expectation that we'll never see it.
If you can save a penny a passenger by not assembling headsets...
Jan 20, 2003, 5:18 pm
#6
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6
First I would like to apologize for this rather verbose post. If you feel it is inappropriate please let me know and I will refrain in the future.
I suppose that if the demand for this service were high enough Air Canada would consider providing it. That being said I doubt demand would reach a level –given our current financial shape- that would make it economically feasible.
Something of this nature might sound easy enough to implement but in reality would be very costly and difficult.
On the 767 fleet alone the differences from one aircraft to another would consume massive amounts of engineering manpower just to draw up an engineering package to modify the current IFE systems to include this service. Any modification to our aircraft generates lots of paperwork. All the manuals (Schematic, Wiring, Parts lists, Maintenance, Fault Isolation) must be updated to reflect the changes to the system. Each of these manuals comes in various forms (e.g. Microfiche, Paper, CD Rom, Intranet).
As the project cannot be accomplished overnight a supplemental version of these manuals is required to be updated routinely in the interim to reflect the change as each individual aircraft is modified. All this must be done to a very high standard to meet our quality assurance system and safety standards as outlined in our Technical Operations and Control Manual. Basically an operational bible we use to ensure we meet our and Transport Canada’s airworthiness standards.
This is just on the Aircraft level. On the systems components level you may have to modify some components or their software. Components are treated like the aircraft only in a shop rather than the hanger floor. Each component has its respective manuals and must also be handled as prescribed in the above mentioned TOCM manual
You may need to round up a spare ships set of components in some cases as it may not be feasible to complete changes to the components simultaneously to modifying the aircraft.
Aircraft parts are big bucks$$$$. A simple fluorescent tube you could buy from a hardware store would likely cost you 10X more if you were getting it for an aircraft.
Now you must consider if in the shops and in the hanger if you have the manpower to accomplish this project without disrupting routine and current obligations to your customers, be they internal or external. If not, do you farm out to a 3rd party or can you call overtime?
How long will an aircraft be out of service in order to complete the project? Can it be completed during a regularly scheduled check? Will it take longer than the planned downtime? Can it not be accomplished simultaneously with a check due to manpower or logistical reasons?
I’m not a professional engineer, planner or manager familiar with our process for something of this nature but I’m sure it is unavoidably costly and time consuming.
I would think something like this if incorporated would be most cost efficient if installed on an aircraft in the manufacturing stage.
It’s a wonder any full service airline makes money……oh ya they don’t.
Happy Landings
I suppose that if the demand for this service were high enough Air Canada would consider providing it. That being said I doubt demand would reach a level –given our current financial shape- that would make it economically feasible.
Something of this nature might sound easy enough to implement but in reality would be very costly and difficult.
On the 767 fleet alone the differences from one aircraft to another would consume massive amounts of engineering manpower just to draw up an engineering package to modify the current IFE systems to include this service. Any modification to our aircraft generates lots of paperwork. All the manuals (Schematic, Wiring, Parts lists, Maintenance, Fault Isolation) must be updated to reflect the changes to the system. Each of these manuals comes in various forms (e.g. Microfiche, Paper, CD Rom, Intranet).
As the project cannot be accomplished overnight a supplemental version of these manuals is required to be updated routinely in the interim to reflect the change as each individual aircraft is modified. All this must be done to a very high standard to meet our quality assurance system and safety standards as outlined in our Technical Operations and Control Manual. Basically an operational bible we use to ensure we meet our and Transport Canada’s airworthiness standards.
This is just on the Aircraft level. On the systems components level you may have to modify some components or their software. Components are treated like the aircraft only in a shop rather than the hanger floor. Each component has its respective manuals and must also be handled as prescribed in the above mentioned TOCM manual
You may need to round up a spare ships set of components in some cases as it may not be feasible to complete changes to the components simultaneously to modifying the aircraft.
Aircraft parts are big bucks$$$$. A simple fluorescent tube you could buy from a hardware store would likely cost you 10X more if you were getting it for an aircraft.
Now you must consider if in the shops and in the hanger if you have the manpower to accomplish this project without disrupting routine and current obligations to your customers, be they internal or external. If not, do you farm out to a 3rd party or can you call overtime?
How long will an aircraft be out of service in order to complete the project? Can it be completed during a regularly scheduled check? Will it take longer than the planned downtime? Can it not be accomplished simultaneously with a check due to manpower or logistical reasons?
I’m not a professional engineer, planner or manager familiar with our process for something of this nature but I’m sure it is unavoidably costly and time consuming.
I would think something like this if incorporated would be most cost efficient if installed on an aircraft in the manufacturing stage.
It’s a wonder any full service airline makes money……oh ya they don’t.
Happy Landings
Jan 20, 2003, 5:37 pm
#9
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 6
airbus320: You presume correctly.
kenhAAmer: About the headsets. I don't know why some come assembled and others don't. I do know that the catering companies supply them and remove them. What happens in between is a mystery to me.
I'm on the first of 4 days off so I can't ask just yet. If I do find out I will let you know.
My daughter is just up from her nap so I gotta go....
Happy Landings
kenhAAmer: About the headsets. I don't know why some come assembled and others don't. I do know that the catering companies supply them and remove them. What happens in between is a mystery to me.
I'm on the first of 4 days off so I can't ask just yet. If I do find out I will let you know.
My daughter is just up from her nap so I gotta go....
Happy Landings
Jan 20, 2003, 5:56 pm
#10
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 5,075
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by ACAV:
I suppose that if the demand for this service were high enough Air Canada would consider providing it. That being said I doubt demand would reach a level –given our current financial shape- that would make it economically feasible.
</font>
I suppose that if the demand for this service were high enough Air Canada would consider providing it. That being said I doubt demand would reach a level –given our current financial shape- that would make it economically feasible.
</font>
In other words, it would never be "economically feasible".
Jan 21, 2003, 10:42 am
#12
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,665
Although I like to listen to ch 9 on UA, I guess it didn't give them enough competitive advantage to avoid ch 11. I asked a pilot on another airline about it and he pointed out that AA had TV cameras and then there was a crash where it all played out on the TV - which was awful for the pax and AA stopped it. So if ch 9 is on and there is a safety or security issue, it is one more thing for the crew to deal with when they need to focus on the task at hand. And these days...
Jan 21, 2003, 12:34 pm
#13
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Smellington, NZ
Programs: AA EXP 2MM, UA 2P, Marriott LTPP
Posts: 1,453
I remember hearing that the AA cameras were mounted in the cockpit in that DC-10 that lost an engine on take-off from ORD in 1979. Is that right? That would have meant they were operating the IFE projector during take-off which I didn't think was a normal prodecure.
Jan 21, 2003, 1:10 pm
#14
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 839
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bpauker:
I remember hearing that the AA cameras were mounted in the cockpit in that DC-10 that lost an engine on take-off from ORD in 1979. Is that right? That would have meant they were operating the IFE projector during take-off which I didn't think was a normal prodecure.</font>
I remember hearing that the AA cameras were mounted in the cockpit in that DC-10 that lost an engine on take-off from ORD in 1979. Is that right? That would have meant they were operating the IFE projector during take-off which I didn't think was a normal prodecure.</font>