Search this site:


June 4, 2007 12:03 AM

Broken: Airline magazine Route 66 article image

LainakAlex Tyler points out:

I was on an international flight from China to San Francisco last May and was flipping through the airline's in-flight magazine.

The magazine contained a little article on Route 66 and I couldn't help laughing when I saw that they had placed Los Angeles in Alaska on the map instead of in California!

The magazine editors clearly need a geography lesson.

Comments: that means that we can't trust US Airways with their navigation system?

Posted by: krizpiyo at June 4, 2007 12:24 AM

Well, with the San Andreas Fault, that's where LA is headed. I guess they are thinking ahead—only a few million years ahead.

Posted by: John Russell at June 4, 2007 01:24 AM

It's hard to tell, but it looks like they put Chicago somewhere in Manitoba as well.

Posted by: codeman38 at June 4, 2007 11:30 AM

Yeah, um, Chicago is next to Lake Michigan actually.

I think they drew the whole thing with their eyes closed.

Posted by: Kim D at June 4, 2007 12:18 PM

What happened to the Great Lakes??

Posted by: John at June 4, 2007 05:50 PM

Someone can't color inside the lines either.

Posted by: klew at June 4, 2007 06:14 PM

The Great Lakes are being hidden under their overly-confident Chicago sign. I wonder if Alex actually made it to San Francisco, or if they just dropped him off in Mexico and called it close enough?!

Posted by: ambrocked at June 4, 2007 08:12 PM

OMG, that's a HUGE mistake.


Posted by: Maxaxle at June 4, 2007 09:56 PM

DISCLAIMER: The map presented is an artistic interpretation of a real map. Due to stylistic preferences and/or ignorance of the artist, cities and other landmarks may not necessarily be depicted where they are actually located. This map is not to be used for actual navigational purposes.

Posted by: KarmaBaby at June 4, 2007 10:38 PM

and on top of all that it looks like a drawing instead of a real map so its probably out of whack anyway

Posted by: PC_nut at June 5, 2007 01:08 AM


I think most people know that the map is a drawing and that it is not meant to be used as an acutally navagational tool.

What's broken is that the artist placed Las Angeles nearly 3000 miles away from where it actually is.

That's practically the equivalent of placing the little LA flag in NY and drawing a line to Chicago from there as if that was representing route 66 and the article.

Posted by: Holly at June 5, 2007 03:11 PM

They have also negelected to draw in Vancouver Island!!! I know it's sinking(slowly) but I didn't think it had gone that far down!! LOL.

Posted by: lefty-chef at June 5, 2007 09:07 PM

Besides the fact that Alaska looks a lot different then california.. Hmm maybe I should take that to the travel agent and say Hey, I want to travel to LA Just for the Halibut and everything else that is in Alaska compared to LA...seems I can fly to LA for about half the price of flying to Alaska.

Posted by: Infinity306 at June 8, 2007 05:48 PM

They did put Chicago in Manitoba (or at least on the Ontario/Manitoba border). That large inlet is Hudson Bay, and Chicago is well south of there. So are the Great Lakes - btw - they aren't hiding under the Chicago sign. Mind you, given the location of Los Angeles it could equally be the Florida everglades under there.

As a cartographer I know I'm biased, but this is the most broken thing I've seen on this site! Fantastic stuff.

Posted by: fmgazette at June 19, 2007 11:00 PM

Uhh...Where is the Canadian side of the great lakes? And How stupid do you have to be to think a hot desert city is in a barren, cold, mountain?

Posted by: hvfox at June 25, 2007 10:59 PM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: