Talk:Jetstar/Archive 2

Relevance - Mesha Sendyk "controversy"

I believe the paragraph below detailing an alleged "controversy" is inappropriate and does not deserve to be carried by Wikipedia. May I suggest an admin consider removing the following paragraph:

On 15 December 2009, Jetstar passenger Mesha Sendyk was denied boarding for requesting a gate attendant not to be rude, after he challenged her over the size of her carry-on bag (which after checking meet the airline's specifications). She eventually flew on another airline at her own additional cost. After she wrote a letter of complaint, Jetstar's customer care manager Michael Mirabito threatened her with a total ban from the airline's services.[11][12]

Rgds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneworld83 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Jetstar Airways to Jetstar

Shouldn't Jetstar Airways be moved to Jetstar? People widely refer to the airline as Jetstar, not Jetstar Airways Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)} 08:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People also widely refer to Eastern Australia Airlines as "Eastern", Sunstate Airlines as "Sunstate", Skippers Aviation as "Skippers", the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia as "the Flying Doctor" and Regional Express Airlines as "Regional Express" or "Rex"; and referred to Jetstar's predecessor Impulse Airlines as "Impulse". To cut a long story short: no. YSSYguy (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come the article Qantas has been moved from Qantas Airways? People refer Qantas without the Airways name. Similarly, this applies to Jetstar. Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)} 00:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jetstar is just a marketing name though Qantas is known as and marketed as Qantas (Airways seem to have been dropped in time even though it maybe registered as Qantas Airways). In the early days of REX it was marketed as Regional Express Airlines (in radio and print form) but now it is marketed as Regional Express or REX. Keep Jetstar (Airways) as it is and Qantas if fine as it is. Bidgee (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the Jetstar brands may be 'marketed' as one, they are still operating as separate identities due to ownership structure and different histories. 3K is 51% owned by a Singapore investor, and 49% owned by Newstar. JQ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas, as another example. So in other words, oppose. Sb617 (Talk) 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Uploaded a photo of a Jetstar A320 because of the lack of this picture.themit 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) I have uploaded a photo of a JetStar A320 I took at Hamilton Island on 2005-05-08 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JetStar_A320_HamiltonIsland.jpg[reply]

I would be very surprised if Jetstar is using Avalon to capacity - at most they have about a dozen departures a day. No-one else uses Avalon because they have no interest in doing so. Andypasto 02:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 'utilise' would be a better word to use than 'consume' in that case. I don't think it's so much a matter of others (notably Virgin Blue) not being interested in using the airport, but rather a case of not being able to negotiate access. I think that is what the article is trying to say, but I'm not sure, so I'm reluctant to change it. I assume that there is no requirement that the airport be opened up to competition because there are other airports in Melbourne where airlines can compete. ... somebody else may be able to clarify. Adz 06:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When JetStar launched, there was a virtual airline in the States called "JetStar International Airlines". They had registered JetStar with the US trademark office, and so they took Qantas to court for trademark infringement. Eg, see here: http://flyawaysimulation.com/article851.html or here: http://www.bandt.com.au/news/e3/0c0201e3.asp Today, though, JIA seems to be defunct, and their website, http://www.jetstarairlines.com/, just goes to the Qantas JetStar. JIA has reincarnated as Trans International Airlines: http://www.transinternationalairlines.com/. But I don't know what came of the court case — whether they lost, and lost their domain, or whether they won (or Qantas settled) but decided to change their name anyway because it was too much hassle. - John Fouhy, 00:43, 9 January 2005 (UTC)

Why is this section even here? The incident isn't noteworhy and the section should be deleted. 192.148.117.79 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is pretty premature - it claims 'destinations served' when all that has occurred on the international front is an announcement by Qantas of the planned international routes that it will seek landing rights on.

Paragraphs under the heading of 'Controversies'

Content under the heading of Controversies. The first two paragraphs should be removed as I believe these reflect decisions made by individual Jetstar employees and I believe is not official Jetstar policy. The third paragraph is or was Jetstar policy and should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.18.10 (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, get rid of the whole section. —Comp dude¹²³ 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Compdude, even the last paragraph probably doesn't have encyclopaedic notability. Even if it does, it is not written from a balanced viewpoint. As a minimum it would have to state the position / opinion of Jetstar from a reliable source, not just the union's side. I support removal of the controversies section in its entirety. SempreVolando (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian ABC current affairs program, "Lateline", broadcast July 2011 backs up Union claims of staff exploitation. However, in the same broadcast, Jetstar was given an opportunity to reply to this criticism, which it did. Because the issue of fair work practices has been raised publicly, I think it is a notable and important aspect of Jetstar Airways which a reader of this article should be acquainted with. The third paragraph could be re-written to say that while there is criticism of its work practices, the company has responded denying any malpractices and explaining apparent inconsistencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.27.44 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that's a reliable source. BTW please sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~~~~) so that we know who said what. SineBot will usually take care of it for you but it's best to always sign your posts. Thanks, Comp dude¹²³ 17:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Should the article be renamed to "Jetstar" as the common name? WP:COMMONNAME has more details to support my motion. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the page move should be reversed due to the fact that several airlines have "Jetstar" as part of their name. To accommodate this, "Jetstar" should be a redirect to Jet Star (disambiguation) instead of 'Jetstar Airways". YSSYguy (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK understood I have reverted the move made in good faith so it can be discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view from July 2010 hasn't changed at this stage. However, I do concur with YSSYguy in regards to redirecting it to a disambiguation page as an alternative. Sb617 (Talk) 10:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buy on board menus and languages

For the longhaul A330/787 flights http://www.jetstar.com/jp/en/what-we-offer/in-flight/~/_media/A6DE10A672EA40E2BEB5FE040622C5C9.ashx - http://www.webcitation.org/6O5k3crgd the BOB menu is in English and Japanese. I guess for longhaul services Japanese is the most important second language WhisperToMe (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. — Music1201 ^talk 06:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jetstar Airways → Jetstar – I am pretty sure "Jetstar" is the WP:COMMONNAME here, similar to how JetBlue is the common name for "JetBlue Airways". Looking at the disambiguation page, the airline is also the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Jetstar". sst✈ 10:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC) relisting –SST flyer 08:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose multiple JetStar, Jetstar should also redirect to Jetstar (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Jetstar" should redirect to the disambiguation page. The Jetstar group is not the same as Jetstar Australia. The local Jetstar would not mean Australia when referring to the local Jetstar. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I did not make it clear, I am arguing that Jetstar (the Australian airline) is the primary topic for "Jetstar". sst✈ 05:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still oppose - a quick search in GBooks shows it is not - no need to relist this when it has garnered no support. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jetstar Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003014516/http://www.jetstar.com/au/en/contact-us/corporate-addresses.aspx to http://www.jetstar.com/au/en/contact-us/corporate-addresses.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]