Jump to content

Talk:Air Canada/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

1. ^ "Aircraft General Terms Agreement between The Boeing Company and Air Canada", SEDAR (Note: 18MB PDF document)

Remove it?

DSatYVR 02:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed thanks

DSatYVR 17:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vince Carter

Shall we mention the fact that "Air Canada" is one of Vince Carter's common nicknames? --TML1988 19:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No. PrinceAndrew 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol --Adam Wang 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Date ambiguity

On most Air Canada jets, there is a main screen (with overhead TVs on top of every few seats) which broadcasts recorded CBC news and other Hollywood movies. On the A340-500, every passenger has a TV, which is powered by a custom design Linux variant, and their enRoute program. Passengers can learn facts and figures of cities, and where they are using the GPS system installed on the plane. Beginning on January 23 ????????, Air Canada begin launching the new state-of-the-art Thales i4500 in-flight entertainment system on their fleet of Embraer 175 and 190 aircraft.

  • I wish there was an year after January 23. This statement wouldn't make sense in a couple of years and I am lazy today to dig out that year through google

Insider transactions

I would like to post the 'insider' stock transactions for Air Canada from this site: http://acpilot.blogspot.com/2005/12/ace-insider-holdings-and-transactions.html . How do I do this without being accused of posting spam. I can assure you the information is accurate and up to date. I can a) post a link to the site or b) Put the image and text on a 'Insider' header. What is the preferred method? DSatYVR 5:50,15 March 2006 (UTC)

Modernization

I added the heading "Modernization" to the bottom third of the history section, because it was getting too long. It should better reflect Air Canada today.

"Worst air disaster in Canadian history" (minor edit)

I've changed this to "one of the worst air disasters..".

The Air India bombing in 1985, the Arrow Air crash in Gander in 1983, and the Swissair tragedy off Nova Scotia in 1998 all had death tolls that exceeded the 1983 Air Canada accident.

Official Languages Act

This section of "Other fact of interest" has been removed from the article. I read through the act and found no references to Air Canada or air carrier language requirements (though, that isn't to say that it wasn't once a requirement). I suggest that if this is restored to the article that a source be posted.

  • Air Canada is the only airline in Canada regulated by the Official Languages Act. In-flight services must be provided in both official languages on any route that:

On other routes, services must be provided in both official languages when the demand for service in the minority official language is equal to at least 5% of the total demand. Air Canada was recently ordered by the Federal Court of Canada to apologize to a passenger who had complained about the absence of service in French on a flight to Ottawa.

I too have been unable to find it in the Official Languages Act, however, the Air Canada Public Participation Act clearly refers to the fact that the O.L.Act states that service must be provided in both languages. Recent statements from AC executives have also discussed the requirements under the O.L.Act for bilingual service. Therefore, we must be blind and it must be in there somewhere. So, this section on Official Languages should be restored. PrinceAndrew 18:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying to find more sources about proposed BWIA, LIAT, AIR Jamaica buyout.

I have one source- that speaks about the past 1960's proposal for the Government of Canada (through Air Canada) to buy majority control of 1) British West Indian Airways (BWIA), 2) Leeward Islands Air Transport (LIAT), and 3) Air Jamaica, from the governments of the time in the British West Indies. In exchange, they would have to use Air Canada as their national airline with the 3 subsidaries remaining and the Commonwealth-Caribbean governments would then all pooling their equity into Air Canada instead. Has anyone come across any further details about these talks that supposedly broke down when Air Jamaica refused any outright buy-out by Air Canada?

It's covered in the book:

  • Carmichael, Dr. Trevor A. 2001. Passport to the Heart: Reflections on Canada Caribbean Relations. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston 6, Jamaica. ISBN 976-637-028-1 The book's Forward passage, synopsis

Chapter 2, Pgs. 35-54. CaribDigita 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada A321 Orders

Air Canada has 12 Airbus A321 on order, and 10 of them are delievered. 2 Airplanes are still not delievered and in this article it says there are no orders for A321. More detail can be found on List of A321 Orders article. Any suggentions?


The Airbus website shows no more orders for A321s - see: Airbus - the orders don't exist. This entry should be removed.


There are two aircrafts (both A321s) to be delivered to Air Canada. Check this article, List of Airbus A320 orders Dk16 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand they cancelled the order in Bankruptcy Protection.--74.104.48.172 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 777F Orders

The list of fleet for Air Canada doesn't show that there are 2 B777F on order... I added it in the list but someone keeps on removing it! Please leave it there because AC has ordered 2 777F and is the launch customer for that model, along with Air France-KLM. Thank You. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dk16 (talk • contribs).

Your changes were reverted because you supersized the images and made other less-than-desirable changes. I should have left this change alone. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Update needed on Delhi route

On Air Canada's website, I noticed that there's no longer a direct flight between Toronto and Delhi, a route now achieved via Zurich. Wikipedia needs to research and provide an update on this matter. -Amit

Air Canada and the A380

Only Montréal airport is going to accomadate the A380, I'm not so sure about Toronto Pearson. Is there also a source that can indicate this? To me it just doesn't make any sense!

3 major Canadian airports are ready to handle the Airbus A380 including Montreal International, Toronto Pearson, and Vancouver International. Check out this link. http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=2169&comm=0

Ok that's a little better, another thing I forgot to mention was that just because those airports will eventually get the A380s in the future, it doesn't mean that Air Canada will add those to its fleet.

Don't expect Air Canada to ever add the A380 to their fleet. Canada just doesn't have the market for such large capacity. Air Canada is more interested in smaller aircraft with greater flight frequency. Sure there may be a couple routes that could use the A380, but that's all, and so that wouldn't justify the overall cost. PrinceAndrew 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Darren Locke

There have been a recent series of poorly formatted and grammatically lacking edits by Darren Locke, MBA. In addition, some of these edits mention that editor by name. I hereby suggest that this is inappropriate on several levels. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - it's quite inappropriate. The section on fuel burn reduction is far too detailed for this general page, and should probably be reduced to just a single sentence mentioning the weight reduction initiative (and NOT mentioning Mr. Locke!). Do others agree? WillNL 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I added some extra details/corrections and deleted some personal references, however these two low-cost fuel-burn reduction innovations were both created by me, and then implemented quickly by AC. I added the level of detail on the fuel-burn reduction innovations beyond what existed previously because as any airline or aviation industry manager, employee, or executive will tell you the soaring cost of aviation fuel is the greatest concern in our industry today, and it is certainly having the greatest effect. For the first time that I know of in this business, airlines now have a real means of flexible response, I thought this content would be extremely valuable in particular to Wikipedia's airline and aviation industry readers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 23:48:55 July 18, 2006 (UTC).

The content may be valuable, but I believe it would be more appropriate in an industry journal, or at least on a separate Wikipedia page. As I said above, it is far too detailed for a general article about Air Canada. In the context of this article, which overviews the entirety of Air Canada's history and operations, this relatively minor attempt to reduce fuel burn warrants only a small paragraph at most. As it stands, it's over twice as long as the entire "History" section -- this is incredibly disproportionate! As well, it contains a biography of you, a discussion of Cathay Pacific's operations, and an essay on the benefits of incentives deterring checked baggage, all of which are inappropriate for this article. For these reasons, I'm going to edit this section. --WillNL 10:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on your consensus of two, versus all the positive feedback I've received for this contribution from airline industry managers, executives, and employees, I've restored this "valuable" (your words) content for the interest and benefit of Wikipedia users and particularly those people employed in an industry that is struggling to survive in an era of record high fuel prices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 13:42:16 July 19, 2006 (UTC).

Darren,
  1. First of all, please sign your messages in the future by way of using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your statements. You will find instructions regarding this at the bottom of your edit screen.
  2. Secondly, many of your edits do not fit in with the style of an encyclopedia and it needs to be pared back. If you would cooperate with the process rather than trying to circumvent it, you would find that things would go much more easily. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 13:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Darren,
Wikipedia is not a repository for every piece of valuable information that exists. It is an encyclopedia. If every event in Air Canada's history were treated with as much detail as you have included in your contribution, the result would not be an encyclopedia article -- it would be a book. --WillNL 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said you are a consensus of two with changing and shifting criticisms versus all of the positive feedback I've received on this contribution from Canadian citizens and Air Canada employees and managers in particular who are proud to see the nation's flag carrier leading the way in airline management & operations innovation in the global airline industry's most pressing area of concern - fuel-burn.
Wikipedia is fundamentally a "free" encyclopedia by the way, I have every much as right to contribute as you do by adding a "valuable" (Will's words) new section to the Air Canada entry for the benefit of Wikipedia readers and especially those working in the airline and aviation industries highlighting what Air Canada has achieved here. Unlike Joseph however, I restrict my contributions to Wikipedia to my area of specific expertise, as opposed to commenting across hundreds of different subject areas and at times insulting other contributors. Joseph's record in this regard is unfortunate, and it speaks for itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 15:09:30 July 19, 2006 (UTC).
I don't question the value of your work; rather, I take issue with your attempt to publish it in this Wikipedia article. This is not the appropriate venue for a detailed discussion of your findings. I urge you to reconsider your reversion of my edits -- your section on "Fuel Burn Reduction Innovations" desperately needs to be shortened, and I believe that my edits maintained all the information that was relevant and appropriate to this article. --WillNL 15:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Locke:
  1. You are not privy to knowing what my area(s) of expertise are. I'm also not really sure you're familiar with my record. I also do not see what the fact that I edit across many different areas has to do with this issue.
  2. This is not a matter for consensus in this specific area, but one of conforming to widely-held (within Wikipedia) standards. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, or more specifically, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought before you proceed any further. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My previous comments stand and as I've said before when I weigh your changing and shifting critiques of the new section I contributed on Air Canada innovations in fuel-burn reduction versus the enormous and steadily growing volume of positive feedback I've received for highlighting Air Canada's global leadership role in quickly adopting and implementing these innovations, your comments don't have merit. Wikipedia is intended to be important and relevant to it's readers, a valuable and useful information source. I certainly think that highlighting the brilliant job the great men and women at Air Canada have done in turning just two of my airline management & operations innovations into reality is worth a few paragraphs. This information is of immense value to airline industry employees, managers, and executives worldwide, because rapidly escalating prices for Jet A-1 and AVGAS 100 LL impact us all.

You obviously did not understand my point Joseph, and as for your second comment above, before concerning yourself with my adherence to Wikipedia standards you should concern yourself with your own. The comment sent to you from Decimal10 which can be viewed by clicking "Talk" after your name and scrolling down to response 110 certainly says it all about your adherence to Wikipedia standards and your respect for other contributors to this information medium. But in case you've forgotten Decimal10's response to your erudite remark, I'll repeat it here for the benefit of not only Wikipedia readers at Air Canada and in Canada's airline and aviation industry, many of whom know me personally by the way, but for Wikipedia readers in general:

"Your wet dream ... comment was not appropriate in the history section for Air Canada. Learn to respect other people's edits even if they are wrong. If the information is incorrect then you can edit it without nasty/rude comments. Thanks. Decimal10 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You have not responded to any of my concerns. I still feel that your "Fuel Burn Reduction" section is far too long and full of blatant self-promotion. I am considering re-reverting the article to the trimmed-down version I created earlier today (19 July, see page history). However, I don't want to get involved in an edit war. Can some other Wikipedians please comment on this issue?
Also: please do not make irrelevant ad hominem attacks, as you did in the comment above. --WillNL 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If you refer back to my initial reply to your "concerns," you will note that I did indeed respond to them, eliminating a number of personal references and also making some extra additions/corrections. Your "concerns" however have since changed and shifted, rather like the wind.
With regards to your feeling that the contribution on fuel-burn reduction at AC is too long and full of "blatant self-promotion," as my contribution clearly points out these were two all-new innovations implemented for the first-time ever across the entire global airline industry by Air Canada. Air Canada has now clearly established itself as the innovator in this industry, in other areas too of course such as the company's overall "multi-brand" business strategy, but especially in the area of low-cost fuel-burn reduction. It's important to understand just how vital Air Canada's leadership in implementing low-cost fuel-burn reduction innovations truly is, considering that the escalating cost of fuel is the number one concern facing our industry. I certainly think this merits more than the one or two sentences you seem to favor, and based on the extensive volume of feedback I've received, so does everyone else.
As for "blatant self-promotion," I completely disagree, a couple of sentences explaining who I am and what I do as the person who created these two fuel-burn reduction innovations is pretty modest in my opinion, especially given the scale of what's been achieved here for the benefit of an entire industry. The focus in the contribution is on the innovations themselves, not on me, and I think this is certainly evident.
Finally, as to your final note, I made the point to Joseph that it is inappropriate to harangue other Wilkpedia contributors over supposedly not adhering to this medium's standards when you blatantly cannot adhere to them yourself. The words I used were not my words - they were his. You are therefore incorrect, the point I made was very relevant and, I trust, understood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My concerns have remained the same and I have stated them clearly. Adding a biography of yourself to the Air Canada article is shockingly inappropriate -- the only other people mentioned by name in the article are Jean Chretien, Montie Brewer, and Celine Dion, and even these people don't get biographies. Do you really think you're more important than them? As well, regardless of your own opinion of Joseph, he was correct in stating that your contribution severely violated the policy against original research. I have removed the section you added, replacing it with a brief summary in the "Modernization" section. Please do not revert this edit until other Wikipedia users have added their comments here, so that we can see what the consensus opinion is. --WillNL 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The following text was added to the Air Canada article by "Darren Locke MBA", under the heading "Fuel-Burn Reduction Innovations - Achieving New Aircraft Weight & Cost-Savings." I have removed it (leaving a brief summary under the "Modernization" section) for the following reasons: (1) it is far too long and too detailed for a general article about Air Canada; (2) it contains original research by Mr. Locke; (3) it contains irrelevant and inappropriate information, such as a biography of Mr. Locke. Since Mr. Locke has already reverted the article twice, restoring his original contribution, I would like to know where other Wikipedia users stand on this issue.

Mr. Locke's contribution, which I have removed from the main article, follows: (WillNL 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

Also in November 2005 Air Canada removed the paint and primer from C-GDSP (A Boeing 767-233ER, Tailfin No: 613), leaving a bare metal fuselage that would thereafter be maintained via aircraft metal polishing, in the same manner as Air Force aircraft in particular have used for decades, including the RCAF. The idea of operating commercial aircraft in a bare metal finish was one of two new fuel-burn reduction innovations developed independent of Air Canada as a low-cost measure to assist Canada's commercial airline industry in an era of rapidly escalating aviation fuel prices by Darren Locke, MBA (St. Mary's University Sobey School of Business - Halifax, NS - 2001) a Canadian airline operations and management analyst and also the Senior Airline Analyst at WINGS, Canada's national aviation magazine. Mr. Locke is well-known in Canadian airline management and operations, especially in his role as the creator and producer of the ONE ON ONE airline management and operations series at WINGS (www.wingsmagazine.com). He has also been extensively engaged in developing new ideas and innovations to achieve airline fuel-burn reduction via changes to airline management & operations practices, as opposed to fuel-burn reduction achieved through major aircraft engineering modifications, which while effective are both very costly and time-consuming to achieve. With airline fuel costs currently escalating dramatically due to to rapid increases in the price of oil, the reduction of aircraft weights and hence fuel-burn has become an extremely urgent priority for major North American and global airlines.
The removal of fin number 613's paint and primer was done to reduce fuel-burn costs by reducing the weight of the plane, with over 300 pounds (136 kg) of paint and primer being removed. While a substantial weight-reduction was achieved, however, the result was not as colorful or as aesthetically pleasing as aircraft liveries have traditionally been. Also, due to the materials used in the construction of Airbus aircraft as used by Air Canada this innovation could not be extended to Airbus fleet types. The experiment was not subsequently repeated with other aircraft in the Air Canada fleet and fin number 613 was scheduled to be repainted to the normal Air Canada livery in March 2006 [5]. However, this fuel-burn reduction innovation is quickly gaining momentum in the larger international airline industry as prices for Jet A-1 escalate rapidly with the decision subsequently made after the Air Canada experiment by Cathay Pacific to similarly remove all paint and primer from it's B747F cargo fleet with the exception of tail colors and company and civil registration lettering, air cargo being an area of the airline industry where aesthetic considerations are of relatively lesser importance than in passenger operations. Similar to Air Canada, Cathay Pacific also operates it's fleet over extremely vast distances, and thus reducing fuel-burn in the current price environment is essential to preserving the airline's profitability.
Air Canada proceeded quickly however to full implementation with the second major fuel-burn reduction innovation, the concept of incentivizing passengers to forego their full checked baggage allowance (currently 100 lbs for Air Canada's Economy-Class passengers) in return for a reasonable discount on the price of their ticket, currently applicable (July 2006) to Tango tickets at $24 return and rolled out by Air Canada as the "GO Discount." Mr. Locke developed this initiative based on the observation that passenger checked baggage constitutes the largest optional weight item on commercial aircraft, while at the same time producing zero revenue in-and-of-itself. He determined that while some passengers (for example, those headed on permanent moves) need their full checked baggage weight allocation, there are many others traveling on short-stay trips (long-weekend excursions, for example, or short-stay business trips) who do not.
Based on the steady escalation in airline fuel prices up to October 2005, a trend that has since continued, Mr. Locke prepared an extensive numerical analysis to prove the concept that offering a modest incentive to passengers to forego their checked baggage allowance would actually produce much greater returns for the small amount of airline revenue sacrificed in terms of the net aircraft weight reduction achieved, and thus fuel-burn reduction as well. For example, just one Air Canada Economy Class passenger taking advantage of the passenger incentivization fuel-burn reduction ("GO Discount") option and receiving the $24 discount on their return ticket in return for foregoing their checked baggage allowance would mean a potential weight savings of up to 100 lbs. All it would take then is just one passenger to achieve a potential 100 lb aircraft weight reduction, but typically a number of passengers will take this option, short-stay passengers as well as discount seekers who will choose to seek the price discount offered in return for not taking checked baggage.
This airline management and operations innovation is of particular value to airline managers and executives across Canada and worldwide in that it gives them a flexible means beyond simple fuel surcharges and price increases of responding to extreme price escalations in aviation fuel as the world price of oil increases. As the cost for airline aviation fuel either increases or decreases with each increase/decrease in the price per barrel of oil, airline managers and executives can decide to either increase or decrease the amount of the incentive they are offering to their passengers to forego their normal checked baggage allowance as a condition of the type of fare they have purchased, thereby adjusting the average weight of their aircraft and hence fuel-burn. With oil prices having increased 4% alone in just the 5-day period between July 10th-14th, 2006, the value of this flexible response innovation in helping to respond to these oil price escalations and cut down on airline fuel-burn can be readily seen.
Mr. Locke further determined as well that not only does passenger incentivization to forego checked baggage allowances achieve very substantial weight savings to the tune of hundreds if not thousands of pounds, thus making a substantial reduction in fuel-burn without the very substantial expenses associated with achieving improvements from aerospace engineering, it costs almost zero to implement as it can be integrated into existing advertising, which Air Canada has done; it meets the interests of every single stakeholder - customers, employees, and management - and reduces fuel costs and overall airline expenditures in the largest expense category (fuel) besides airline salaries; it can be applied across all airline aircraft types on every single flight, every single day without change or modification - "one size fits all"; it helps to cut down on repetitive strain back injuries caused by lifting heavy checked bagagge, the number one cause of time-off-work injuries for Air Canada and many other airline employees; it improves productivity by giving employees on the ramp and at the check-in counter more time to concentrate on additional tasks besides processing items of checked baggage; it helps to reduce costs associated with claims for damaged and lost checked baggage, and the expenses required to repatriate these items to their owners in their homes, at hotels, etc across Canada and around the world; it cuts down on damage and theft of items in baggage; it assists in reducing the frequency of "bulk-outs", situations in which aircraft have reached their weight limits and airlines are then forced to either offload passengers and baggage or start offering vouchers & incentives; it improves aircraft security, as with fewer items of checked baggage to be processed CATSA (the Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority) and other airport security providers have a better opportunity to scrutinize and inspect those items that are being loaded; and it also helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by burning extra fuel to move extra aircraft weight, which is very important particularly during night flying, since night flying has a more significant impact on the earth's atmosphere than day flying.


I've restored the item on fuel burn innovations at Air Canada and I noted that another Wilkpedia user contributed an image of fin number 613 for everyone to view before you removed it once again arbitrarily. I think the fact that another contributor chose to add this fine image to what I contributed (great pic!!) is a solid indication that Wilkpedia users appreciate the additional info on these two excellent industry-leading Air Canada innovations and their implementation at Air Canada, and as I've noted before this certainly corresponds with all the extensive feedback that I've received from people who enjoy the additional information. That includes Wilkpedia users in general as well as those of us who are employed in the airline and aviation industries, especially at Air Canada and Canadian airlines as a whole.

As I said a couple of sentences, who I am and what I do, does not constitute a biography by any definition, and also I do not have any opinion of Joseph whatsoever. I simply noted that it is inappropriate to harangue other Wilkpedia contributors over supposedly not adhering to this medium's standards when you blatantly cannot adhere to them yourself, and the words I used were not my words - they were his. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

Two points. One: this is blatantly original research, is far too detailed for an encyclopedia article, and is otherwise inappropriate. Two: to claim that you yourself first came up with the idea of removing paint from a plane to save weight and therefore reduce fuel burn is utterly preposterous.--chris.lawson 04:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in the contribution with regards to paint and primer removal this idea was first applied to Air Force a/c, notably RCAF and USAF a/c. My idea was simply to implement this as a weight-saver on commercial a/c as opposed to military a/c, and to remove paint and primer that had already been applied.

This info on the history of these Air Canada initiatives is also applied research and no longer original research, and as is detailed in the contribution the application of both innovations is now a solid, verifiable matter of fact and well-proven. The whole focus of my contribution is on explaining the two concepts and then noting how the great men and women at Air Canada adapted and implemented them, further contributing to Air Canada's position as the airline industry's leading innovator.

I would also note the removal of the extra couple of sentences of info I added on the new Air Canada AC830/831 service between YYT-LHR, with additional details on the a/c type (319) Air Canada plans to use, as well as figures for the total number of scheduled flights AC operates each week from Newfoundland and Labrador and total destinations served. Again, I don't think this info was either "too long" or "original research" or "blatant self-promotion" or any of the other ill-founded reasons Will has provided to edit out this contribution.

Rather, I think that the additional editing out in its entirety of such a small piece of relevant, valuable, additional information underlines what's really behind all this - a simple desire to dominate this Wilkpedia entry to the exclusion of all other contributors, including the 613 photo contributor, and to deny other users interesting, relevant, and valuable information.

It's unfortunate, but not unusual, especially when it comes to innovation in Canada's aviation industry. There have always been a small number who resent and do their level best to erase the record of aviation industry innovation in this country, and the best example of that is the Diefenbaker government's decision made in 1959 to not only cancel the Avro Arrow, but to have the existing completed a/c cut up for scrap and to basically have all signs of this innovation erased.

There are plenty of other examples too of attacking and tearing down innovation in our industry, for example the orchestrated campaign to terminate the Canadair Challenger program just as it produced its first a/c for test flight purposes. The Trudeau government understood the potential however that this great civil a/c held, and stood by it, as did succeeding governments, with the result being what we see today - an incredible line of business and regional jets, successful and in widespread use around the globe.

Thanks again to all the people who have told me they greatly enjoy this contribution on Air Canada's industry-leading achievements in reducing fuel-burn, both from the general public and the airline and aviaition industries, and especially from Air Canada. And thank you as well to the contributor who added the image of 613, before Will removed it again, arbitrarily and without support. Your comments form the majority opinion by far, and not the ill-founded and incongruent comments of a couple of Wilkpedia users who unfortunately seek to deny everyone else valuable information. I will continue to re-post the item based on your feedback as time allows, and would certainly encourage additions to the contribution as per the image of 613.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC).

This has nothing to do with a grand conspiracy to smite the Canadian aviation industry and everything to do with your refusal to even consider Wikipedia standards. By the way, Darren, you have now violated the three-revert rule. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the only "majority opinion" around here is four people telling you to stop this nonsense, and one person (you) refusing against all reasonable requests to do so. If you insist on continuing this revert war, you will be reported to an administrator and you will find yourself banned from Wikipedia for 24 hours for your violation of the three-revert rule as explained above. Do I make myself clear?--chris.lawson 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I noted the other day Joseph, before haranging other contributors over supposedly not adhering to Wilkpedia standards you should concern yourself with them first.

I've discussed your interpretation of Wilkpedia standards in extensive detail refuting and correcting you on each and every point, most recently the difference between original research vs. applied research as well as your other contentions and will, as I noted, re-post. As I noted, and many others have noted to me, the move to edit out even a couple of lines of extra info on the new AC 830/831 service reflects the true nature of this debate, to establish an information monopoly. In my judgment the three-revert rule will not be applied in a situation where information is being completed edited out, including the efforts of other contributors besides ourselves to add to the info on fuel-burn reduction, based on bogus interpretations of the standards in place, with your confusion over what constitutes original research vs applied research being just the latest example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't refuted anything. You also misunderstand what is meant by "original research." Go read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Please stop trying to use this article as a personal advertisement. --WillNL 00:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again this is not original research, as I noted it is applied research, fully meeting the Wilkpedia definitions provided. There is a considerable difference, which you fail to understand, and your point(s) is/are therefore refuted. These innovations have now been proven and accepted in the industry, the evidence of which is fully noted in the contribution. I am entirely confident that the contribution meets/exceeds all Wilkpedia standards, and will re-post as per popular request.

Thank you again to all those who have expressed their appreciation for this info, including those working at Air Canada and in the airline and aviation industries, and again to other contributors who have been unfortunately denied the opportunity to add to this item. Your additional contributions on fuel-burn reduction innovations at Air Canada are most welcome.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Please explain what "popular request" on this page is giving you reason to continue violating the three-revert rule. It does not matter, within reason, what the other six billion humans on this planet think of your self-promotion and original research. If the Wikipedia community does not support its addition to this encyclopedia, that's the only thing that matters.
Obviously, facts are facts, and are not subject to community consensus. What you are adding to this article is not fact, but is blatantly self-promotional and meets at least three of the six criteria for original thought as outlined at WillNL's link, which you have very clearly not read yet. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a vehicle to promote your ideas and dubiously claimed innovations. You will stop using it as such, or you will find yourself banned from Wikipedia for increasingly long periods of time.--chris.lawson 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Three individuals who do not adhere to Wilkpedia standards and who have been advised as such by other contributors do not constitute a community, and presuming to speak for it simply manifests what the root of the debate is here - placing your self-serving monopolistic interests in shutting out all other contributors before the right of other contributors including myself to make a valuable and meaningful contribution welcomed by an extensive number of other users, particularly those working at Air Canada and in the airline and aviation industries, a number of whom have attempted to add to the contribution and who you have also edited out. Your efforts to establish an information monopoly via the AC entry and to browbeat other contributors into compliance with your flawed and self-serving subjective interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines are both unfortunate and egregious, and do a substantial disservice to the rest of the Wikipedia community.

I have been asked and encouraged by a considerable number of Wikipedia users (thanks!!) who enjoyed the extra info on these great new Air Canada innovations to report your repeated self-serving vandalization of other contributors work including my own to the AC entry to the Administrator, and will proceed to do so. Now that we've had this discussion at length, and the Administrator can review the debate in detail, I'm certain the Administrator will find it all very illuminating.

As others have pointed out quite correctly, you will be the ones finding yourselves banned for long periods of time, not me. You would do well by the way to study my detailed responses to your shifting, baseless arguments and subjective perspectives, instead of simply lashing out emotionally towards myself and other contributors and inventing new arguments as each of your self-serving and monopoly-protecting natterings is defeated and falls by the wayside. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Our arguments have remained the same and you have refuted none of them -- you have simply made irrelevant allegations and threats of increasing absurdity.
  2. On this talk page, no other users have voiced support for your lengthy "Fuel-Burn Reductions" essay. There is no evidence for the chorus of support you speak of. Rather, there is unanimous opposition.
  3. As to your conspiracy theory -- check the article history. There have been many contributions made to the article since this debate began, and those contributions remain. There is no attempted monopoly on information -- only an attempt to maintain Wikipedia standards.
  4. I would welcome an outside opinion. Please do contact administrator. --WillNL 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to seriously review the record on a fair and balanced and unemotional basis as to your arguments being refuted and your repeated vandalization of the work of myself and other contributors on fuel-burn reduction. Your arguments have been refuted in detail and at length, for example my explanation of what constitutes original research vs. applied research, and as I noted before have done a considerable disservice to your fellow Wilkpedia users and contributors, especially those working in the airline and aviation industries (thanks again for all your support!!).

In the mean time I have a suggestion now from an Air Canada pilot that if the info you keep vandalizing and denying to other users was placed on a new Wilkpedia page dedicated to innovations in airline fuel-burn reduction, with a link inserted in the existing info at the Air Canada entry which I have added to over the past few days so that users can easily access it, that this may encourage you to stop vandalizing the info and denying other Wilkpedia readers the right to enjoy reading it. I've had a number of WestJetters note to me as well that they would also like their airline's fuel-burn reduction measures noted, with winglets being a good example, and see the AC pilot's idea as a means of both myself and other contributors incorporating that info, not to mention measures and innovations at other Canadian airlines. I did not discuss fuel-burn reduction measures at WestJet by the way since my contribution was prepared to accompany the AC entry. No doubt as well you would have used this as a further excuse to vandalize the material.

Let me know if you will undertake to stop your vandalization were this solution to be implemented. It would certainly allow for a much greater range of material on this critically important topic from other contributors to be included well beyond my original contribution and therefore serve the many Wilkpedia users who've told me they have greatly enjoyed reading the new section on fuel-burn reduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate article titled, for example, "Efficiency of airline operations", would be the appropriate place for the detailed information about fuel-burn reduction you have been attempting to include here. I encourage you to create such an article. --WillNL 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a good suggestion from the Air Canada pilot, people who want to read up on the topic in-depth can just hit the link, at the same time we've got a brief summary in point form of the innovations to date. Also other contributors can add a wealth of info to this subject far beyond the info I provided, photos etc.

I get a ton of feedback every day from across Canada and around the world in my professional role as an airline management and operations analyst, ironically at the same time while you thought the contribution was too long other people told me it wasn't long enough and was too brief and "omitted" the fuel-burn reduction efforts at other Canadian airlines esp. WestJet, fleet a/c replacements to reduce fuel-burn at AC and other airlines, etc. Other people told me the couple of sentences saying who I am for people outside the airline industry in particular were inadequate, although I want the focus to be on the applied research itself and the innovations themselves. I had a guy from Air Transat note to me that books often feature a page-long author bio inside the cover, and thus my few lines were not enough, while another guy who knows me personally and my role in creating two of the innovations said I was being too modest.

I think though we'd better keep the title focused on fuel-burn reduction, that's my thought, efforts to achieve efficency in this industry have stretched across an incredible number of areas, such as the manner in which pax board for example(by seat and row number, front to back, back to front, boarding from front and back, random boarding, etc) to a/c servicing on the ramp, number of staff on board (some airlines have been trying to reduce the # of cabin crew needed), etc.

If you'd like to establish the page and link I'm fine with that, and then other contributors including myself can add in info, like I said it was an excellent suggestion from the Air Canada pilot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darren Locke, MBA (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, why don't you go ahead and establish the article, since you are the one with the specialized knowledge in this area. I think it's a good idea to make the article's scope as general as possible—an article about airline fuel-burn reduction in general is of interest to more people than one that focuses specifically on Air Canada (or airlines in Canada), and an article about airline efficiency is of even broader interest than that. But do whatever you think is best.
On the topic of personal credit, however, I would encourage you to be conservative. While books often do contain a page-long author bio, encyclopedia articles do not. It would probably be a good idea for you to look at other Wikipedia articles that discuss innovations in industry and see how much credit those articles give to the initiators of those innovations. --WillNL 23:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It will take a few days for sure as this is the mega-busy period in our industry, I've heard a lot of positive feedback now on the pilot's idea from Air Canada. I guess as far as any mention of me it will be just a couple of lines as before. The ongoing crisis in the Middle East and other factors are having a major impact on our aviation fuel prices, the chances of oil under $30 per barrel ever coming back look pretty slim.

Nice job noting AC's many innovations over the years, still working on the above. I've heard good feedback on this, well done.

too many pictures

Who added all of these pictures?!? There are so many, and in my opinion too many. There all on the right side and add large spaces from the sub heading and the details. I find it makes the page look messy, especially with all the photos on the right side. Im going to do a little editing ... just organizing this time but if Majority agrees I think some photos should be deleted??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Too many pictures... and if you scroll down to the historic fleet section its all messed up... maybe we should remove the Boeing 727 pic or DC-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk16 (talk • contribs)
I added a link to the CRJ 705 photo on the Air Canada Jazz page and a link to the Tango photo on the Tango page. So thouse two can probably also go. --M@sk 02:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think now the page looks good... no need to remove anymore pics according to me. If you still want to remove some pictures go ahead. But I think Air Canada Jazz pic should be left because thats the only pic of Air Canada Jazz in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk16 (talk • contribs)

Intro

The intro, sometime in the last couple weeks, has turned into a giant morass of disjointed facts and figures, most of which are entirely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article introduction. If no one else gets around to it in the next 24-48 hours, I'm going to take a crack at a serious rewrite of the intro.--chris.lawson 05:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No one changed the intro... When are you going to change it? Dk16 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgary: hub or focus city?

Is Calgary a hub or a focus city? In the infobox, it was listed as a focus city for quite a while. On July 28, someone moved it up to the "hub" row. On August 1, someone moved it back down to the "focus city" row. On August 9, someone moved it up to the "hub" row again. Rather than having a quiet edit war about it, it might be better to discuss the issue here and come to a consensus. --WillNL 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked their website and it says Calgary is a secondary hub for Air Canada. Dk16 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I just had a look, and here [1] it says that "Primary hubs are located in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary." Where was it that you read that Calgary is a secondary hub? It seems like AC must have contradictory info on their site. WillNL 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


--- Calgary is now a primary hub for Air Canada as of last July. This is evident in their in flight magazine, which displays Calgary as a hub city by the way of a maple leaf on their map. ~pennhead

Someone has changed Calgary from a hub to a focus city. Primary hubs are located in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary according to Air Canada. See here. I will attempt a revert.--Rosetown 18:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Montreal: Secondary hub?

Shouldn't Montreal be a secondary hub? I don't believe it has any "unique" destinations like Toronto or Vancouver. The majority of "spoke" traffic goes through Pearson, and many passengers need to fly from Montreal to Toronto in order to reach their final destination. I would classify it as a secondary hub at most. Jdkm 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not the one who decides if Montreal is a secondary or major hub.. Its the airline who decides that, and also I checked their website, it says Montreal is a major hub for Air Canada. Dk16 20:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well by that logic Calgary should be added the "primary hub" category per Air Canada's own website. see Corporate Profile section 70.48.70.252 02:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada A380 Orders

There has been an addition in the Air Canada orders' list. Someone added 4 orders for Airbus A380. There are no orders shown for Air Canada in Airbus A380 article. Can someone please confirm if they did ordered any Airbus A380s. Thanks. Dk16 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Airbus wedsite and there are no orders for A380s from Air Canada. --06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Re-organization

I re-organized and cleaned up the page. I have added headings in accordance with the 'Wikiproject: Airlines' program. I have left room for more info to be added. What do you think of the new layout??? (Greenboxed 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC))

I think it's great. Nice job! --WillNL 01:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

New Pics

I think we should update the pictures with new ones. We could remove the 767 photo at the top and replace it with a newer aircraft like Airbus A340-500, the largest jet in AC's fleet. In the In-Flight Entertainment section, there should be a picture showing the new PTVs in the Embraer fleet or A340-500. Any comments/suggestions? Dk16 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour in fleet tables

The header rows for each table in the Fleet section have been changing colour a lot lately -- from light green to pink to blush to silver to yellow to corn (!) to green. Right now the header for the Air Canada table is dark red, the header for the orders table is grey, and the header for the Jazz table is dark green. Is there any reason why each table should have a different colour header? I think's it's a little distracting, and I also think it's somewhat difficult to read black text on a dark-coloured background (as in the AC table). I think I'll change all three headers to the same colour, unless someone can enlighten me as to why they ought to be different. --WillNL 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think each table should have it's own colour, it diffarentiates each fleet and makes them seem like their own, which they are. If they are all under one colour, it groups them together (in my mind) and makes them seem like a whole. I prefer that they each had a different colour.Greenboxed 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed the GA noms due to lack of references. Tarret 18:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I think we should put more pictures into the article. --Adam Wang 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Twelfth largest airline

There is a claim that Air Canada became the 12th largest airline after its merger with Canadi<n. Firstly, is this by RSM, Revenue, Market Capitalization, ASM, etc? This needs a source and I cannot find it. UAAC 04:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) It is the 11th largest by number of aircrafts in fleet, and 19th largest by total number of passengers flown. Dk16 21:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Onboard

I have updated and re-written some aspects of the old 'Cabin Classes' and 'Services' sections and incorporated them into one new section - 'Onboard'. I feel that this makes the information clearer as to the differences between the aircraft in the Air Canada fleet. Genius12 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_Canada/Archive_1&oldid=786770599"