Is there any support for the suggestion that these publications be offered in an alternative (printed) form so that they lie flat, making it much easier to annotate them or underline entries etc.Other publishers have managed to do this with either a simple hole punch format or with a curly ring all down the spine - apologies for not knowing the correct term. It is extremely irritating that these books do not lie flat when one is trying to work on them. What does the book publishing committee think?
Thanks for this post. It is something that the Books Publishing Committee (BPC) has discussed in the past. However, the advice that we've received from Dennis Clement (who chairs the Membership Services Committee) is that the feedback that has been received from members has been in favour of the current format. However, we will discuss this again before we publish next year's QRs. Nigel Dingley Chair of BPC.
There are pros and cons of producing such books in traditional binding or alternative comb or spiral bound or indeed having them loose-leaf in ring binders. The costs of producing alternatives (and second-guessing sales per type) inevitably mitigate against doing more than one version. While there is a tradition (and desire) amongst many for underlining aircraft seen (or photographed) we considered some years back that by providing a small tick-box which could be easily and neatly used would meet most users' needs. While we have these on all the QRs, space considerations have (thus far) stopped us incorporating this facility into the non-QRs. But we are always open to listening to anyone's thoughts and in particular we try to get the printers to provide a binding and glue which enables books to be opened flat as far as possible but by keeping the QRs to pocket-size, we (like any other publisher) are limited to how far we can go without the book falling to pieces. Malcolm Fillmore
Whilst we are discussing formats of the annual publications, I would like to know what members thing about the continued use of the ICAO 3-letter airport codes in Airline Fleets whereas other A-B publications have moved to the more modern 4-letter codes. My interest in changing is that a vast amount of smaller airfields or strips now have official 4-letter ICAO codes.
To include a cross reference list between the 4-letter and 3-letter codes is a possibility, however in Airline fleets we are reaching the limits of what can be published in the A5 format.
Post by russellcarter on Apr 23, 2018 12:15:10 GMT
Things do get a little confusing because both operator and location 3-letter codes can appear in the end column (albeit that the locations are contained within brackets). In addition ICAO 4-letter codes offer the advantage of containing geographical information within the first two letters whereas the IATA 3-letter codes are globally random.
I find the lists in the back of Airline Fleets useful and would be happy to see it published in a larger format if necessary in order to keep them in.