LOL..you bring up a unique situation. First we must think for a second...what airline is based at ATL...Delta Air Lines! The "Dixie" taxiway extends from the north-side runway complex to the south-side complex. They decided not to call any taxiway at ATL, (D) or "Delta" because of the confusion with it's home town airline. But it is also called "Dixie" because it connects "the north and south"...sorta like the division of the North and South during the Civil War; the Mason Dixon Line way back from history class. Walter DCA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Montano" <mmontano@direct.ca> To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 15:45 Subject: Re: United's flight number scheme (was Re: AC's 3xxx flight #s) > As an aside, I've noticed that the phonetic alphabet standard is not all > that standard. > > Atlanta ground control uses "Dixie", Chicago (and much of the rest of > the world) uses "Delta." > > Thanks, > > Matthew > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of W > Wilson > Sent: January 27, 2002 10:52 AM > To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > Subject: Re: United's flight number scheme (was Re: AC's 3xxx flight #s) > > > Not really an issue, because of the international phonetic alphabet. > The numbers could be read individually. The Aeronautical Information > Manual reference for ATC communications can be found at > http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0402.html. > Always a good read...LOL. > > Walter > DCA > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew Montano" <mmontano@direct.ca> > To: <AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU> > Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 13:23 > Subject: Re: United's flight number scheme (was Re: AC's 3xxx flight #s) > > > > Insightful. > > > > United's 7xxx are now Express flights. > > > > Another curious question, though I have no direct evidence of it > > myself. = Are there any flight numbers that due to linguistic reasons > > are not = used? For example manufacturers of products with serial > > numbers with = either use 1's or I's, but never both (same goes with > > O's and 0's.) > > > > Matthew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU] On Behalf Of > > > = Michael C. Berch > > Sent: January 25, 2002 12:31 PM > > To: AIRLINE@LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU > > Subject: United's flight number scheme (was Re: AC's 3xxx flight #s) > > > > > > As of a year or two ago, United's scheme was approximately this: > > > > UA1-UA2 Round-the-world flights (gone > = > > now?) > > UA3-UA799 General domestic and = > > Canada flights > > UA800-899 Pacific flights (incl. > = > > US continuation segments) > > UA900-999 Atlantic flights > (incl. = > > US continuation segments) > > UA1000-1999 General domestic and Canada = > > flights > > UA2000-2999 Shuttle by United (gone now) > > UA3000-3999 Code shares on other carriers > > UA4000-6999 United Express (operated by = > > contractors) > > UA7000-7999 Unused? Charters? Cargo? > > UA8000-8999 Reserved for ATC renumbering* > > UA9000-9999 Special flights - charters, = > > extra "passenger > > protection" sections, > > delivery and = > > > repositioning flights, etc. > > > > Normally even numbers are eastbound, odd are westbound. > > > > * When flights with a similar or the same number would overlap in an > > ATC = sector, one of the flights is renumbered, usually flight number > + > > 8000. For example, let's say UA921 operates LHR-ORD-LAX (with a > change > > of equipment in ORD). If the inbound from London is seriously > > delayed, = UA may dispatch the domestic continuation (most of whose > > pax have no = idea "their" flight is delayed inbound, since there's an > > > empty 767 = sitting there at the gate), and the inbound LHR-LAX pax > will be > > accommodated on other flights. The domestic leg will be redesignated > > UA8921 for ATC purposes so it does not get confused with the "real" = > > UA921 coming in from LHR. > > > > These schemes have been upset by the termination of Shuttle by United; > > > = it would be nice to know UA's current scheme, although I'm sure it > > is = somewhat similar. > > > > -- > > Michael C. Berch > > mcb@postmodern.com >