The thought occurred to me when I saw a WestJet facebook ad about their Plus seats.
Why block the middle seats? Why not simply install two wider seats? Or are they the same seats with better pitch?
Its just the evolution of the product. Westjet likes to dip its toe in the water before it jumps in. I can't quite remember but I think the middle seat was sold as a plus seat early on in the program, then once they realized that was silly, they just "blocked" the middle seat from being sold. Then came the seat blockers, so that the guests would have a console type thing.
The plus product has been overwhelmingly successful so I'm sure it will continue to evolve.
Its just the evolution of the product. Westjet likes to dip its toe in the water before it jumps in. I can't quite remember but I think the middle seat was sold as a plus seat early on in the program, then once they realized that was silly, they just "blocked" the middle seat from being sold. Then came the seat blockers, so that the guests would have a console type thing.
The plus product has been overwhelmingly successful so I'm sure it will continue to evolve.
The Plus Seating is continuing it's evolution and Westjet is adding more Plus to some of their planes.
So Canada is mulling over a ban on electronics on flights? What purpose does this serve besides annoying people who will no longer be able to entertain themselves?!?
I saw the headline on globe and mail but don't pay so I can't read it.
Anyone hear this?
Edit:
Hmm, it seems only when they are coming from Africa and such?
So Canada is mulling over a ban on electronics on flights? What purpose does this serve besides annoying people who will no longer be able to entertain themselves?!?
I saw the headline on globe and mail but don't pay so I can't read it.
Anyone hear this?
Edit:
Hmm, it seems only when they are coming from Africa and such?
That's kind of the point though, it is always configured to make use of the winds. I'm sure you could have parallel operations, so, say, with a north wind, landings on the right side, takeoffs on the left. You essentially get 2 working runways out of it, no matter the wind direction. It wouldn't work in big airports, but for something the size of Calgary it might be suited?
The goal is a stabilized approach. You would have constantly changing winds to deal with due to the turn. Managing gusting winds would be a ####show. Not even to mention IMC.
With a circular runway if you have any combination of rejected takeoffs and/or long landings (in particular as you go around the circle you may experience tailwinds) you are going to have conflicts. Add runway surface factors (ice, snow, rain) and you are basically asking for disaster.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to automaton 3 For This Useful Post:
Airport runways are configured to line up with the prevailing winds for that area.
If there is much in the way of wind, big portions of that circular runway would become unsuitable.
And the risks of attempting any simultaneous operations is a whole another issue.
So.. this may be a dumb question but I've often wondered why the two major runways in Calgary are running North-South, when the prevailing winds are West-East?
I sometimes hate the public reaction to "blue sky" ideas like this. People's first instinct is to say "that won't work because..." But the point is not to actually start building and using these, but to use the concept to break the boundaries of traditional thinking and thereby find other, realistic ways to improve the problems. It is ridiculous right now...and that's why it's brilliant.
Publicizing ideas like this could spur research in other related industries (like GNSS navigation) or even in unrelated industries (like how to manage traffic through a seaport or a parking lot). Or even things that have nothing to do with traffic management...maybe it'll make someone stop and think about more efficient ways to change on-the-fly during a hockey game?
