Friday, May 31, 2013

Shot of the day: How 'bout them Sox?

I've only seen this airplane once, and it was at night. But one of my cohorts caught it here in broad daylight for you. This particular aircraft used to be named "Blue Yorker" * but now, where the name once was, there's a ribbon commemorating the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park. For those of you who visit from outside the states, the Boston Red Sox is a major league baseball team; JetBlue recently bought the naming rights for their spring training facility in Fort Meyers, Florida.

* It's slightly ironic that the plane wearing the Sox livery used to be named "Blue Yorker". The Sox and the New York Yankees have been American League rivals for decades, dating back to when Boston sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees in 1919. I have a family legend that touches on this: My mother, who grew up in Boston, has told the tale of her parents betting on the outcome of the Yankees - Red Sox pennant series. The loser had to paint their bedroom. I don't remember now who was betting on Boston, but the story goes that from then on their bedroom had "Damn Yankees" on the ceiling.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Dreamliners are back!

Yesterday, I saw my first Boeing B787 Dreamliner revenue flight at LAX since the grounding order was lifted a couple of weeks ago. Somebody told me that they saw it arrive the night before, so this probably wasn't the very first revenue flight at LAX since the B787s were allowed to return to service - but it was the first one I've seen. For the duration of the grounding, United had a Dreamliner on the ground at LAX; it was ferried out shortly after the announcement that aircraft could be returned to service once they've been modified. No word yet on when LAN, the only other carrier to bring Dreamliners into LAX so far, will be back with theirs. 

Saturday, May 25, 2013

No teaser: What's wrong with this picture, revealed

So finally, over a month after the original post, I'll wrap this one up. A couple of you guys got it after the hint in the teaser post; nice job! Above is the comparison shot I gave you; and here is the original W3TP shot:

The thing I noticed, beyond it being a relatively-rare pair of Volaris A320s, was that neither of the aircraft has a name on the nose. Most of the Volaris Airbuses that we see at LAX are festooned with a person's name on the forward fuselage. Each of these people is a winner in Volaris' "Place your name on an airplane" contest, which has been run for several years now. Here are some more examples; if you look closely, you'll see a couple with names that have changed:



Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Revealed: What's wrong with this picture (teaser)

This one is from last month; various distractions and obligations have kept me from having the opportunity to finish what I started here. There are a number of little oddities about this photo; I noticed one that was the impetus for the original post, but then you guys pointed out several more. Among them: The U.S. aircraft registrations, the web addresses are different, and there are different types of tugs. There was some discussion in the comments about winglets; here's the same shot, considerably brightened, in which it can be seen that both of these A320s do, in fact, have winglets:

Another oddity that nobody commented on was the fact that both of these are A320s; most of Volaris' flights into LAX are in A319s like this one:

And now for the teaser part: Given the A319 photo, what's wrong with the A320s in the original shot? I promise it won't be another month for the answer; it's already written and scheduled to post 72 hours after this goes up, so think fast!

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Shot of the day: Visiting dignitary

The United States is not the only nation to have an Air Force One. Korean Air Force One passed through LAX last week. Thanks again to CG, who took these shots in my absence.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

What's wrong with this picture: Revealed

A bunch of sharp eyes out there - a number of you wrote in on this one!  This Singapore A380 has, as many of you noted, taxied beyond the entry point for runway 24 Right. The taxiway beyond that point is not rated for an A380, and so the only available course of action is for a tug to come out and push the aircraft back sufficiently for it to be able to negotiate the turn onto the runway.

This is not the first time that this has happened; I personally witnessed a very similar thing happen with another carrier earlier this year. Then, as in this case, the A380 pilots had to shut down their engines before the ground crew would approach and hook up the tug. Meanwhile, other aircraft on the taxiway behind have to depart from the intersection. If an intersection departure is not an option for them, then they have to wait for the tug to reposition the A380 so that it can then take the runway and depart. As you might imagine, this takes a little while to accomplish.

Thanks again to CG for catching this last week!

Saturday, May 4, 2013

What's wrong with this picture?

It's time for everyone's favorite type of post, wherein I show you a photo with something odd taking place.  Today's edition is thanks to eagle-eyed CG, who caught this a few days ago on my day off.
So, What's wrong with this picture?

P.S.  -  The answers to the as-yet unanswered W3TP posts are still coming, but some of the guesses you guys are sending in are better than the actual thing!