I have experienced the same think, Americans use King instead of Kilo and Queen instead of Quebec. Mark Matthew Montano wrote: > 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