On 06/04/2012 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:39:17 on Fri, 6 Apr
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

a lot of people used their phones while we were taxiing.

Quite a few airlines now allow use of mobile phones when you are taxiing
*in*. And if you are flying Business Class they aren't quite as shouty
about you turning them off immediately the plane pushes back, on the way
out.

This was about 12 years ago.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

In message , at 10:20:17 on Fri, 6 Apr
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
a lot of people used their phones while we were taxiing.

Quite a few airlines now allow use of mobile phones when you are taxiing
*in*. And if you are flying Business Class they aren't quite as shouty
about you turning them off immediately the plane pushes back, on the way
out.

This was about 12 years ago.

Before the fallout from Crossair Flight 498, then.
--
Roland Perry

On 06/04/2012 05:49, spsffan wrote:
On 4/5/2012 2:41 PM, Peter Masson wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote

Just before nationalisation, the GWR had a plan for an Automat fitted
buffet car. I've only seen artists impressions so I assume it never
went ahead.

In the early 1960s an SK had a compartment stripped and fitted with some
vending machines, billed as an 'Automatic Buffet Car'. For a time it was
rostered on the Cambrian Coast Express between Aberystwyth and
Shrewsbury (where it was detached from the up and attached to the down
train). I don't think it had much success, and it certainly didn't last.

Peter

In the USA, Southern Pacific had Automat cars on some trains in the
1960s. Advertized as a "feature" they were a replacement for a real
diner or cafe car, as SP was trying to get out of the passenger business
by degrading the trains to the extent that nobody wanted to ride.

Note that in the decades before this abomination, SP was famous for its
cuisine, and published cookbooks with its celebrated recipes.

Pity.

Regards,

DAve

I have seen vending machines selling snacks on board SNCF trains, I saw
a children's playground on an SJ train in Sweden, and I have heard that
McDonald's even had a concession on some SBB trains.

On 06/04/2012 08:37, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/04/2012 22:25, wrote:
On 05/04/2012 09:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 01:35:19 on Thu, 5 Apr
2012, " remarked:
Does the UK have fast food chains similar (or the same) as the US'
McDonald's, Burger King, etc.?

McDonald's? What's that?

An entry in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's

Wooow, that's something. We're looking forward to the day we get
television here in Britain.

Yoy don't want it, I've seen it and it's crap!


Yeah, but the Americans are so advanced.

On 06/04/2012 08:39, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/04/2012 22:31, wrote:
On 05/04/2012 10:20, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 05/04/2012 10:04, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:51:38 on Thu, 5 Apr
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:
Emirates aeroplanes are now equipped on certain routes with
equipment
that allows in-flight mobile phone service.

BA have had built in mobile phones on some routes for several years
now.

There's a possibility for confusion between planes with seat-back (or
other) "built-in" phones which you can use, and being able to operate
your own mobile phone from within the plane.

Being pedantic they are both mobile phone services.

That's why I wanted to clarify the difference between the two cases, to
avoid confusion.

One is a phone service that's mobile because planes move around,

AIUI it uses mobile phone technology where available, I assume it uses
sat-phone technology when out over the Atlantic.

the
other allows use of a subscriber's regular GSM (mobile) phone.

Which uses exactly the same technology as the built-in phones. The
difference being that the planes' on-board systems (non-phone) have been
proved to be immune from interference by random models of domestic
mobile phones.

As an aside Varig allowed mobile phone use except during take off and
landing some years ago.


Yeah, but you can't really get a signal at such attitude, from what I
have seen.

I didn't actually try, though a lot of people used their phones while we
were taxiing.

It's one thing to be on the ground. But 11,000 metres? That's something
quite different, methinks.

On 06/04/2012 09:28, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:39:17 on Fri, 6 Apr
2012, Graeme Wall remarked:

a lot of people used their phones while we were taxiing.

Quite a few airlines now allow use of mobile phones when you are taxiing
*in*. And if you are flying Business Class they aren't quite as shouty
about you turning them off immediately the plane pushes back, on the way
out.

Because business class is where an airline gets most of its revenue
from. Get shorty with a businessman and he tells his travel department
that they were not nice, which could translate into less revenue for the
airline.

On 06/04/2012 02:14, John Levine wrote:
It is an Overseas Territory, IIRC. I anachronistically used the term
colony in my previous post.

Mais non, it is a collectivité d'outre-mer, which seems to translate
as Territorial Collectivity, like St Barts and French Polynesia. It's
self-governing and sends members to the Senate and Assembly, but isn't
big enough to be a Region or Department like Martinique.

The only remaining territories are the islands in the southern ocean
with no permanent population.

R's,
John



SPM was an overseas department up until the 1970s, IIRC. I wonder if
collectivité d'outre-mer translates into less tax liabilities and more
subsidies from Paris.

In message , at 13:38:02 on Fri, 6 Apr
2012, " remarked:
a lot of people used their phones while we were taxiing.

Quite a few airlines now allow use of mobile phones when you are taxiing
*in*. And if you are flying Business Class they aren't quite as shouty
about you turning them off immediately the plane pushes back, on the way
out.

Because business class is where an airline gets most of its revenue
from. Get shorty with a businessman and he tells his travel department
that they were not nice, which could translate into less revenue for
the airline.

But if sayyyyfteeee is their prime concern, then a ban would apply
equally to all passengers.
--
Roland Perry

On 04-Apr-12 18:27, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 04-Apr-12 13:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 31-Mar-12 13:10, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 31-Mar-12 10:48, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
+ is the international instruction to dial the routing digits to make
an international call. I believe we all recognize it.

You'd be surprised. Many Americans probably don't know what our int'l
dialing prefix is since they've never used it--and it's not necessary
for int'l calls to other countries in the NANP.

I have a GSM handset.

So your dialing isn't broken by design, as it is with CDMA and iDEN
handsets (and, formerly, AMPS and TDMA).

You and your over-the-top opinions.

GSM dials calls in international format for the simple reason that it was
designed initially for European use, where there are 30 country codes.
How many country codes are there in the NANP, Steven?

GSM doesn't "dial calls" in any particular format, Abam.

Wrong again, Stephen.

No, I'm not.

Users dial calls, and the number is interpreted by the switch.

It's a cell phone. "Switch" is not a concept that applies.

_All_ phones are connected to a switch.

All GSM switches will accept calls in E.164 format (i.e. including the +)
_as well as_ one or more local dialing formats.

Must you be deliberately obtuse? No matter what diailng sequence the
phone accepts from me, the number is sent in international format.

Wrong, Adam. A GSM phone passes the number dialed to the switch without
modifying it in any way.

Some numbers (eg. 911) don't _have_ an E.164 equivalent.

This isn't a matter of controversy, so just drop this bull****.

It will remain a matter of "controversy" as long as you keep insisting
that your misperceptions are reality.

If you dial "1" rather than "+1" for NANP calls, you are _not_ dialing
with a country code but rather with the long distance access code, which
AFAIK is optional on all NA mobile operators.

For the 27th time, Steven: GSM doesn't have a concept of trunk codes,
only international dialing format.

Wrong. See above.

You don't know what the **** you are talking about. You're now beyond
tiresome, so the rest is snipped.

Obviously, I do know what I'm talking about, as demonstrated by the text
that you snipped. I suspect the _real_ reason you did so is that you
know you're beaten and refuse to admit it.

It's okay to be wrong, Adam. What's not okay is refusing to acknowledge
it and learn from it.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 05-Apr-12 18:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 01-Apr-12 12:19, wrote:
Originally Mexico was to have an area code, but that was changed to a
separate country code.

Two area codes: 905 for Mexico City and 706 for northwest Mexico.

That ended in 1991.

They were reserved area code-like dialing patterns within the NANP to
reach parts of Mexico; outside the NANP, the country code 52 had to be
used. Prior to international direct distance dialing, it meant that the
caller could dial the number himself without an intercept operator. After
IDDD, the country code or area code was permissive.

Ah, so they weren't really area codes per se. Mexico never intended to
be part of the NANP; we just had dialing shortcuts for commonly-called
areas within Mexico.

Did using those shortcuts result in lower rates since an operator wasn't
needed? Or was it just a matter of convenience/speed?

You may recall that until 1980, northwest Mexico was dialed with 903.
Mexico changed its numbering pattern. That part of Mexico got a "city code"
of 6, so the NANP area code was changed to 706.

I wouldn't recall that since I was only two or three at the time and
probably didn't even know Mexico _existed_, much less how to call it.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking