Airports IATA codes

[airazurxtror]

Although nearly everybody knows the meaning of the main airports (LHR, NYC, AMS, ROM, BRU, MAD, ...) there are a lot of airports whose code is not clear to all.
For example, a few Luchtzakers intend to go to exotic destinations next year, congratulations to them - but it's sometimes hard to understand at once where they go on the map !
I suggest that the unusual destinations be given in full, with the three-letter code given as a bonus.

[Treeper]

you can always search 'em up via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... TA_code:_A
it seems they are nearly all there

edit: I've read your message a little wrongly. obviously it's about others not being specific enough. my mistake.

[cathay belgium]

Haha airazur..,

Guess you meant NYC=JFK-EWR and ROM=FCO
NYC-BER-ROM-.. all airports..

But indeed each year I learn a few more here.. Indian,and so on... but the other coding that's a real mess for me also like the EBKH ( Keiheuvel ? ) and these stuff..

Which are the most used BTW and why the difference between them, the IATA are quite obvious most of the time, ..

BTW : My first flight to BHX (Birmingham-UK) was almost booked as BHM ( Birmingham-USA ), I only noticed it by the flighttime... was already warned by a plane changed in LHR, but funny was the priced wasn't that much different...

CX-B

[cnc]

I suggest that the unusual destinations be given in full, with the three-letter code given as a bonus.

everybody is free to do what they want. this is an aviation forum so if you don't know the codes look it up?

[jan_olieslagers]

Which are the most used BTW and why the difference between them, the IATA are quite obvious most of the time

That is a matter of opinion, and, more importantly, what one is used to.

To me, IATA codes are a mess: there are not guaranteed to be unique, may shift from one aerodrome to another, and do not give out any kind of geographical information. To further confuse simple people like myself, they sometimes indicate other things than airports; HST stations for one example. Moreover, IATA-codes are not aviation codes, because IATA is not an aviation organisation: IATA is an AIR TRAVEL organisation. The first use of IATA codes is on tickets and luggage labels, and perhaps in air cargo, too. Pilots never use IATA codes professionally.

ICAO codes like EBKH have some advantages: they are guaranteed to be unique, i.e. one code will always correspond to one and the same airport. Only in the rarest of cases is an ICAO code recovered, because the corresponding aerodrome closed, and - after due time - reassigned elsewhere. LFSL is one example, but is really exceptional. Also there is some geographical information in them: EBxx is certainly in Belgium, and Kzzz is in the continental USA. Flight plans and other flight-related documents refer to aerodromes by ICAO code.

One more reason I prefer ICAO codes is that there are far more of them than IATA codes. Which was of course only to be expected, because most airfields are not air travel destinations. Belgium, for example, has only five commonly used IATA codes - though a good many that nobody ever uses, or remembers - but there must be over 50 ICAO codes, perhaps close on a hundred.

I suggested the use of ICAO codes on this forum long ago, only to get the answer that IATA codes are better known to most participants. Which only made it clearer than ever to me that, contrary to its banner, this forum is not about aviation, or not about all of aviation at least - it is an air transport forum really. Oh well.

[jan_olieslagers]

PS I certainly support the original suggestion to refer to aerodromes with their full name, except if their codes - be it EBBR or BRU - are really self-evident to the vast majority of participants. Talking only in codes and abbreviations has always and everywhere brought a suspicion of pedantry to me.

[cnc]

The first use of IATA codes is on tickets and luggage labels, and perhaps in air cargo, too. Pilots never use IATA codes professionally.

Flight plans and other flight-related documents refer to aerodromes by ICAO code.

our flightplans use both and every communication towards pilots with refference to airports like in case of diversion is adressed with the IATA code.
all handling companies use IATA codes aswell.
IATA codes are far more used by aviation employees all over the world. unless you think the only people in aviation are pilots and atco's.
btw are loadsheets, notocs, paxlists etc no flight-related docs? they refer to the IATA code

[Homo Aeroportus]

Reminds me of that Spanair flight some 4-5 years ago that was supposed to be BCN-SCQ (Santiago de Compostela, LEST).
The flight was operated as an ACMI by some Swedish crew and somebody somewhere goofed as the flight plan was set up as BCN-SVQ (Sevilla, LEZL).

Well, they landed at Sevilla.

Probably the same mistake could have been made using the ICAO locator.
Or then the "alternate" might have been say LERT, Cadiz-Rota, not any closer to the intended destination.

H.A.

[jan_olieslagers]

are loadsheets, notocs, paxlists etc no flight-related docs? they refer to the IATA code

Of course they do. They are first of all about carriage, about transportation. Which is basically intended to be by air. But if the flight is cancelled, pax and pallets can be carried BRU-AMS by other means than aircraft, and that does happen, time and again. EBBR-EHAM can never be done by truck or train or coach, though, only flying.

[airtrainer]

That is a matter of opinion, and, more importantly, what one is used to.

(...)

I suggested the use of ICAO codes on this forum long ago, only to get the answer that IATA codes are better known to most participants. Which only made it clearer than ever to me that, contrary to its banner, this forum is not about aviation, or not about all of aviation at least - it is an air transport forum really. Oh well.

Well you said it yourself, this is a matter of opinion. In this case, YOUR opinion...

[azingrew]

I would find very strange to use ICAO codes instead of IATA's. Whenever an airport code is mentioned here, it is usually in the frame of a discussions about travel. ie. " where will you fly..." etc.. As "Airazurxtror " rightly said, not everybody is familiar with IATA codes, but practically nobody is familiar with the ICAO's.

Bangkok - Shanghai ( BKK-PVG) would become VTBS- ZSPD ! Come on !

By the way, there is a site ( not updated since 2008 unfortunetelly) which gives you all codes ( IATA and ICAO) or the city, just enter whatever you have..

http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk

[Squelsh]

I suggest that the unusual destinations be given in full, with the three-letter code given as a bonus.

.
Always handy and thoughtful/considerate of the poster.

[airtrainer]

By the way, there is a site ( not updated since 2008 unfortunetelly) which gives you all codes ( IATA and ICAO) or the city, just enter whatever you have..

http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk

There's also this one... http://www.world-airport-codes.com/