Pet Peeves

[yflyer]

Was going to post this in another thread, but rather than sidetrack a legit discussion, thought I would start a new thread just for this...

There are some errors commonly made that are quite trivial, but somehow get under one's skin when repeated over and over...here are some examples, starting with the minor ones, before the #1 most egregious (In my view). Any others?

All this came to mind because I browsed the SQ seat maps and saw this:

https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/p...s-LongHaul.pdf

SQ calls this plane the Airbus 350-900...
Nope! The IATA code may be 359 without the A, but the plane is an Airbus A350-900, with the A!

Some folks refer to the 787-800 or 787-900...
Nope! It's 787-8 or 787-9....No Double-0 Licence to Kill...

More recently with the A350-1000, I have seen references to the A351...this doesn't look right, and it isn't!
Nope! No such thing as an A351...While the IATA code for the A350-1000 is 351, the ICAO code is A35K [Edit: Corrected! Thanks, 9V-SML!]

What about the 787-10?
This is quite new and I am not sure...I have seen 78J and 78X. Anyone know?

SIA stands for Singapore International Airlines, and our airport is Changi International Airport
What? Where? No such airline, and no such airport...it is Singapore Airlines, and Singapore Changi Airport....Not those other fictional airlines and destinations...

And the most egregious of all: Quantas!
There is a special place in hell for folks who put a U in Qantas...

[SQ865]

Adding on, the Singapore Airlines website's booking page for SQ215/216 states the aircraft type as just "787". I was pretty surprised to see that, considering all the attention surrounding SIA on being the first to fly the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner (being extra careful after reading the post above )

Surely it's not that difficult to state the aircraft type and variant in full. Unless they are preparing to substitute the Boeing 787-10 with a Scoot B787-8 or B787-9 in case of any technical problems with the new aircraft

[9V-JKL]

What about the 787-10?
This is quite new and I am not sure...I have seen 78J and 78X. Anyone know?

IATA = 78J
ICAO = 78X

[SQ228]

And the most egregious of all: Quantas!
There is a special place in hell for folks who put a U in Qantas...

I must admit it's been a very long time since I've found an example of that error but probably because most Australians can spell our national flag carrier.

For those wondering why it has such a strange name, it originally began as a regional airline serving outback tropical Australia: Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services and is 98 years old. Many older Australians still spell it QANTAS, but this is becoming rare. It's pronounced "Quantas" because it's the only sound that Australians back then thought a Q could make.

Another fun fact: I've actually met somebody named Qantas. Her parents migrated to Australia from the Philippines on a Qantas plane and thought it made a wonderful name for their daughter.

My pet peeves would be more jargon related. Words for aircraft that irritate me immensely: bird, frame, metal. It's called a plane.

[yflyer]

IATA = 78J
ICAO = 78X

Thanks! J is the 10th letter of the alphabet, and X is the Roman Numeral for 10? One could at least wish for these two organisations to contact each other and agree on one or the other?

Surely it's not that difficult to state the aircraft type and variant in full.

Be thankful the website works!

I must admit it's been a very long time since I've found an example of that error but probably because most Australians can spell our national flag carrier.

I think it's the non-Australians who tend to make this mistake. That said, I agree that it does seem quite rare to come across this misspelling these days, at least not online. On TOF, the last occurrence of this appears to have been from 1 Sep 2015, and the OP got lectured on the correct spelling within 2 hours, and for the next 18 days...

[SQavgeek]

Was going to post this in another thread, but rather than sidetrack a legit discussion, thought I would start a new thread just for this...

There are some errors commonly made that are quite trivial, but somehow get under one's skin when repeated over and over...here are some examples, starting with the minor ones, before the #1 most egregious (In my view). Any others?

All this came to mind because I browsed the SQ seat maps and saw this:

https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/p...s-LongHaul.pdf

SQ calls this plane the Airbus 350-900...
Nope! The IATA code may be 359 without the A, but the plane is an Airbus A350-900, with the A!

Some folks refer to the 787-800 or 787-900...
Nope! It's 787-8 or 787-9....No Double-0 Licence to Kill...

More recently with the A350-1000, I have seen references to the A351...this doesn't look right, and it isn't!
Nope! No such thing as an A351...While the IATA code for the A350-1000 is 351, the ICAO code is A35X

What about the 787-10?
This is quite new and I am not sure...I have seen 78J and 78X. Anyone know?

SIA stands for Singapore International Airlines, and our airport is Changi International Airport
What? Where? No such airline, and no such airport...it is Singapore Airlines, and Singapore Changi Airport....Not those other fictional airlines and destinations...

And the most egregious of all: Quantas!
There is a special place in hell for folks who put a U in Qantas...

The A350 one must be one of the worst haha.

I live in Sweden and here many people make the (big ) mistake and write "Quantas". Lol.

[icn.sg]

What about people who cannot differentiate Immigration from Customs - in the Changi Airport Context?

There have been occasions when I needed to pick someone up from the arrival pick up point; and as you are aware, Changi Airport does not allow cars to wait at the kerbside for passengers, only the other way round.

The typical text exchange goes like this...

Me: Where are you?
XX: Just cleared Customs
Me: Ok, See you at Pick Up Point Door 2 in 10 min.

(10 min later)

Me: Where are you?
XX: Waiting for bags
Me: Huh? Didn't you say you have cleared customs?
XX: Ya lah...after customs must collect bags mah!
Me: That's Immigration NOT Customs!

And that's when I get chased away by security and have to drive a big loop back to the pick up point...

[SQfanatic]

Was going to post this in another thread, but rather than sidetrack a legit discussion, thought I would start a new thread just for this...

There are some errors commonly made that are quite trivial, but somehow get under one's skin when repeated over and over...here are some examples, starting with the minor ones, before the #1 most egregious (In my view). Any others?

All this came to mind because I browsed the SQ seat maps and saw this:

https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/p...s-LongHaul.pdf

SQ calls this plane the Airbus 350-900...
Nope! The IATA code may be 359 without the A, but the plane is an Airbus A350-900, with the A!

Some folks refer to the 787-800 or 787-900...
Nope! It's 787-8 or 787-9....No Double-0 Licence to Kill...

More recently with the A350-1000, I have seen references to the A351...this doesn't look right, and it isn't!
Nope! No such thing as an A351...While the IATA code for the A350-1000 is 351, the ICAO code is A35X

What about the 787-10?
This is quite new and I am not sure...I have seen 78J and 78X. Anyone know?

SIA stands for Singapore International Airlines, and our airport is Changi International Airport
What? Where? No such airline, and no such airport...it is Singapore Airlines, and Singapore Changi Airport....Not those other fictional airlines and destinations...

And the most egregious of all: Quantas!
There is a special place in hell for folks who put a U in Qantas...

I share quite a few of these pet peeves with you, too. On routesonline a few months ago, when I first heard of one of CX's first A350-1000 and they referred it to as the 351, it did bother me a bit (I might have used that code a few times in the forum, but in reality, it is a pet peeve as much as it is for you or anybody else).

Back on topic, regarding the 787-10, for example, iCargo and FR24 list it as the B78X. However, I think it's usually best to refer to it as the 78J or 78X.

[FN-GM]

When people add an N to Malaysia Airlines and call it Malaysian Airlines.

People who don't know the difference between customs, quarantine and immigration also gets annoys me a little.

[SQuelch]

I'd argue that some of the wrath should be given to Boeing and Airbus for numbering their aircraft 8, 9 and 10, instead of 1, 2 and 3

[flyguy]

believed Boeing have numbered their planes 1,2,3 like for their Boeing 747-100, 300, and then the 747-400, and similiarly for their 737 too.

[SQGamespeed]

believed Boeing have numbered their planes 1,2,3 like for their Boeing 747-100, 300, and then the 747-400, and similiarly for their 737 too.

After the 747-400, the next one was 747-8.

[loldude333]

For the 787 series, they initially planned to launch 787-3, -8 and -9 (yes, the '-' is said out as well, apparently: 'dash 8' or 'dash 9'). The -3 was intended to be a regional version of the -8, but reception was lukewarm and tests didn't show much difference in fuel economy compared to the -8 on similar routes (IIRC) so they shelved it. The -10 made a lot more sense as a regional airliner given its higher capacity.

[9V-SML]

More recently with the A350-1000, I have seen references to the A351...this doesn't look right, and it isn't!
Nope! No such thing as an A351...While the IATA code for the A350-1000 is 351, the ICAO code is A35X

The ICAO code is actually A35K.

[boing]

I'd argue that some of the wrath should be given to Boeing and Airbus for numbering their aircraft 8, 9 and 10, instead of 1, 2 and 3

I believe Airbus started the ball rolling with the A380-800. Remember reading somewhere that it was to attract the Chinese market with their fondness with the number 8. It continued with the A350 and B787.