Talk:List of airlines by foundation date

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airline project.

cut off year

The choice of 1940 fits well with the escalation of the war in Europe. Airlines are co-opted into military or essential duties only and civil flights all but disappear. Flights across or into affected nations are risky at best.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If one's intention is to list all airlines founded before 1940, we're gonna have a heck of a long list. [1] I think we should try and list all the airlines established prior to a particular year, rather than a spotty list till 1940. 1930 might not even be a reasonable, 1925 might suffice. Mvjs (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often lists are long; try List of Air Ministry Specifications which offers a list with added content, or List of Royal Navy ship names which was so big that it had to be split into sections to be manageable. The list is spotty because my additions are coming as I locate them hence not bothering with "rank". I would still defend the Seocnd World War as a suitable marker for an initial break because of its effect on airlines. Post war is the start up of flying for the masses based upon ex war stock. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with having 1940 as the cut off. It's just that as it stands the list is sorely incomplete, and unless someone is intending on completing the list till 1940, I think it is misleading saying "here's a list of airlines that are founded before 1940" when its an incomplete list. Mvjs (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed all airlines founded before 1927. 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930 were very big in aviation and resulted in the establishment of dozens of airlines. I don't think it's practical to list them all. Mvjs (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think of this as your task, this is Wikipedia, a collaborative task, and everybody should chip in to compile a complete and thorough list.--190.160.179.66 (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the cut off year of this page from 1929 to 1935, but added only one airline, which was established in 1935. If you want to make this list longer, that's fine. But don't add just one airline. Add all airlines established between Dec. 31 1929 and whatever date you want to extend this list to. You can find these at Category: Airlines by year of establishment .Tdaddato (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KLM

This is disputable if they are actually in business or if its parent company is in business. KLM is for all practical purposes DEAD as is Air France.

HOWever, "KLM - Air France" as an entity remains. The Parent company could actually rename KLM AIR FRANCE to AIR TRANS EUROPE and thus Both KLM and AIR France would cease to exist.

Why are people in such denial. Airlines themselves are meaningless when they are not business entities to their own —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.219.68 (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KLM and Air France are still legal airlines, KLM/AIR FRANCE is really just a holding company. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it still flies under the same banners, and is still an independent company. I'm removing the debate thing. --DDdW (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas

Qantas are still very much in operation, they are merely using a lockout as an industrial tactic against the unions representing their pilots, engineers and baggage handlers. All other Qantas staff are required to report for duty, and Qantas subsidiaries Eastern, SunState and Jetconnect who all fly with Qantas flight numbers, and in the case of Jetconnect in full Qantas livery, are all operating. They are most definitely still in operation. Jaxsonjo (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Qantas is the 3rd depends on whether or not Avianca is the 2nd. Claims regarding Avianca being the second have been removed citing dubiousness, which has then the unfortunate consequence of rendering Qantas and every other airline after it within one rank of error. Should the claim for Qantas remain as the third? Doesn't that de-facto acknowledge Avianca as the second? Either it should be The second oldest. The third oldest, with the second oldest claim being reinstated back to SCADTA, or none, and claimed as disputed for both (most accurate).

I don't see how the claim for 2nd can be removed but then 'verified' to be 'true' only a couple of lines below. 76.68.233.129 (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KLM has been in continues operation, so also during WWII

https://blog.klm.com/from-snipe-to-alm-the-history-of-klms-west-indian-operation/ That should be the end of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.175.65 (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avianca

The claim that Avianca started in 1919 is inconsistent with the way other airlines are treated on this page. For example, British Airways isn't even listed on the page. Avianca bases the claim to 1919 on a predecessor company that doesn't have the same name. It's just marketing spiel. By the same token British Airways should also be listed as having been started in 1919 (via Daimler). Either Avianca should not be on this page (the entry should be replaced by SCADTA), or British Airways' marketing spiel should similarly be represented here with a start year of 1919. I'm going with the former approach, feel free to change to the latter. --49.255.185.235 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is inconsistent. Despite the company’s efforts to re-write their own history, and the frequent changes to this page, SCADTA was not re-named Avianca, or re-branded; it was merged (albeit forcibly) with another company to form Avianca in 1940. As previously stated, this is hardly any different from the merger of the four companies that formed Air France in 1931, or the mergers that formed Sabena, or SAS, or even (eventually) British Airways. The logic of this page dictates we should list SCADTA as the entity formed in 1919, as we have with the others; it is enough to note the company claims SCADTAs history as its own. The edit on 10 March 2020 the above comment relates to was reverted on 15 May 2020 with the edit summary "clarified name issue" (NB: it didn’t!) seemingly without reference to this discussion; I have replaced SCADTA as the entity formed in 1919, with that being the more consistent, as well as the more accurate, statement. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The SCADTA entry also addresses another persistent issue, whether the company is still in operation or not. Avianca may or may not be, despite bankruptcy and (it would seem) a merge with several other companies, but SCADTA as a separate entity ceased operations in 1940, which the column entry, and the notes, make clear. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: The SCADTA/Avianca entry has also previously claimed the company as "the oldest operating airline in the Americas", and "the second-oldest operating airline in the world". To clarify, the first claim is incorrect, and the second entirely original. The claim to being the oldest in the Americas (actually, "in the Western Hemisphere") was supported by this ,from 1998, but was inaccurate even then; In 1998 Chalk's, which started operations in 1917, pre-dated SCADTA by over two years. The second claim is unsupported, and seems to derive from this list, which (as pointed out above) is inconsistent on the matter. If Avianca can be dated to December 1919, then at least four other major carriers precede it. So I have kicked that claim into touch as well. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is superfluous, contradictory anyway (see entry LATAM Airlines founded in 1929, a bit strange right? or Air Serbia?) A bit of dedication and research shows that SCADTA is incorporated (p.9, constitución) in Barranquilla to this days and is directly connected to Avianca, as this company is still based there today and operating continuously for over 100 years.[2][3] With best wishes EBAQ (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly analogous to the various predecessor airlines of BA - we don't treat AT&T as operating just because BA claims its heritage. The airline as a separate going concern disappeared in 1940 by way of merger into another entity. Stop whipping this dead horse.--49.255.252.131 (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air France/KLM is included, so is LATAM (emphasis on LATAM, similar merger). There is a case to be made for differences between a single merger and little practical change vs. multiple mergers and handoffs in the case of BA. Google searching for the airline's name and in lists of oldest airlines in general returns Avianca as #2 99.9% of the time, even in the Wikipedia knowledge graph indent. This is de-facto makes it common knowledge the same way "third world" nowadays means development instead of political alignment. The wiki (disamb) page for that did not even include the original meaning until recently. Changing this page alone risks confusion by contradiction since as previously stated, generally all other sites including Wikipedia note it as #2. Good luck changing the Wiki and then all third party pages.

This is where consideration of all options takes place. We are not beating a dead horse. There is no point arguing that Avianca is undisputed #2, there are holes and inconsistencies such as the Chalk's issue, which is why the most relevant information is included, leading to a compromise in the form of the disputed nature of the claim - highlighted in yellow -, a note on foundation date v.s. start of operations, and the title given to Qantas as well, for operations, and since it is de jure #2. If the page were purely on 'operations', the title goes undisputed to Qantas, yet it is not; you are welcome to make a page for List of airlines by start of operations.

P.S. Aeroflot is here. How come? And even more hilariously, Qantas had their own merger with Australian Airlines in 1992, go figure. The only one truly deserving of the title undisputedly seems to be KLM.

Maj Swag (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avianca is the second oldest operating airline in the world. This is a fact. 186.98.252.138 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're a corporate lawyer and have something empirical to add to the discussion (in which case by all means, take it away), I'm afraid this will remain as contentious, though the wording on the site has strayed from that, I'll work on it.

ADDENDUM: Changes made to position Avianca as the de facto #2, since (as mentioned ad nauseum) looking up any airline list ever returns such - a perfect example of de facto, while the titles for Qantas have been specified in this list and the title "oldest in English world" has been added to the Qantas page itself as a sort of compensation. This is all still deferred to the expertise of a corporate lawyer should one materialise. In the current absence though, this should do well. Maj Swag (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Page name should be retitled as 'List of airlines by foundation date before 1930'