Jump to content

Talk:MAXjet Airways

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

NPOV dispute

[edit]

Someone reported that this looks like an ad. I tend to agree with them. Alphax τεχ 14:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it, I hope you don't think that is sounds as much of an advertisementAceofdogs 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete the NPOV sipute tag, because I overhauled the entire thing, and tried to make it sound less like an ad. If you still think it sounds like an ad, just put the npov tag back. Aceofdogs 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25th March Comment

[edit]

I'm of the opinion that the pragraph "MAXjet offers Business Class airport and on-board amenities including airport lounge access, premium complimentary meals and on-demand in-flight entertainment.", or one like it, warrants a mention in the introduction, as not all airlines have on-demand entertainment, premium meals, or indeed many of the features that this airline has. Also, I'd like to request that User:64.12.116.5 gives a reason for his edits, I'm wary of his blockings and vandalism reports to the IP address - have you considered making an account, so that you're not being blackmarked by the AOL stigma? (The above comment was added by HawkerTyphoon 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I second the comment above. 64.12.116.5, please stop cutting out relevant and important facts, and stop copying word for word of the MAXjet website. Aceofdogs 19:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised and edited entries

[edit]

Encyclopaedic, not promotional, per WIKI-rules... Shouldn't read like a stockholder report, or paid ad. (Who's posting ad-like news releases?)

  • No one needs tree'd items for merely 3 destinations.

Also: stop copying word for word of[sic] the MAXjet website

--This was part of the original entry before editing; check the logs.

    • made huge photos a more manageable size
      • added fleet age and fleet detail links

"(shared, non-proprietary)" - error in description

[edit]

The lounge at London Stansted IS exclusive to MAXjet and is staffed and operated by MAXjet - it does not share the lounge with any other airline nor does it permit access to the public for payment of a fee. The description has been changed to properly reflect the sutuation.

other bloggers would disagree -- SAS is a publically accessible FOR A FEE lounge
CHECK IT OUT -- http://www.maxjet.com/max_arrival_facilities.php (a la carte = $$$, not free)
those are at the hotel - not at the airport... HawkerTyphoon 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAS no longer serves London Stansted - their departure lounge (near gate 16) was acquired by MAXjet which was subsequently completely refurbished and re-equipped. It is there for the exclusive use of MAXjet passengers. The "arrival facilities" referred to above are to be found at the Radisson SAS Hotel which is located at (and linked by an indoor walkway to) the airport and available to all - for a fee.


Cleanup tag

[edit]

I've cleaned up the article, toned down some of the ad-speak, and added some additional information from a recent press article. I hope this still captures the important differentiators of the airline without sounding like a press release.

I've therefore removed the cleanup tag. Feel free to replace if you think it still needs significant cleanup. Ecozeppelin 16:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More cleanup needed -- Are we allowed to put so many forward-thinking statements in an encyclopaedia? It's not supposed to read like a press release. It's supposed to inform about the present.
Also, redundancy of some items -- decide which category they should be under.
Done.
I thought Ecozeppelin had done an excellent job on this item - only for it to be vandalised. Can the Ecozeppelin's re-workings be put back?

Safety Record

[edit]

I don't understand why the fact that an aircraft once circled for two hours because of fog is significant in an encyclopedia article, and I had deleted this. Someone anonymous at 64.12.xxx.xxx does, as they reinstated it. But this seems inconsistent to me. For example, here's the list of incidents and accidents in British Airways' Wikipedia entry: [1] . Note that only the serious ones are shown (which I believe is correct). If we apply the Maxjet standard to British Airways, the BA list will be twenty times as long with trivial entries like: "plane diverted to Birmingham because there was fog at Heathrow". "Passengers had to get off one plane at the gate because of a technical problem, and get on another plane." If there was some exacerbating factor about the Maxjet plane circling which makes it a major safety incident, please provide a reference. Otherwise I think it should be deleted. Ecozeppelin 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was in the original article because it occured so soon after its debut.
  • My opinion is that it shouldn't be in at all. There's bound to be information smewhere as to any decent accidents. Putting trivial things like this in is just odd - and I don't trust unregistered users anyway :P HawkerTyphoon 15:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur Tobias-UK

Do we need the sub-para Safety Record at all - it does not say anything. There is a lot of thing the airline has not done that we could add !! MilborneOne 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations

[edit]

The destinations section describes everything as being served from Stansted. It is an american airline so should this be written from a US view. Any comments from watchers MilborneOne 16:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The airline is evaluating future services linking London Stansted to Chicago, Orlando, Las Vegas, San Jose, San Francisco and Dallas, with further expansion into Continental Europe." - That sounds to me like putting it any other way ould be long-winded. They might be based in Dulles, but it looks like Stanstead is rapidly becoming a hub HawkerTyphoon 19:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

This previously read:

However, Maxjet's target market is premium economy passengers, unlike Eos Airlines, a carrier known as "economy first class", which aims to compete with the major transatlantic carriers' full-fare business class.

A few edits ago, Tobias changed this to:

However, Maxjet's target market is premium economy and business class passengers and aims to compete with the major transatlantic carriers' full-fare business class.

Now leaving aside the dodgy grammar, this is plain wrong. Maxjet is not aiming to compete with full-fare business class. Further, why cut out the reference to EOS, since the two carriers are getting lumped together in every second press article? Seems to me that explaining the difference between them is valid.

Thus I've changed this to:

However, Maxjet's target market is premium economy and price-sensitive business class passengers, unlike the other Stansted-New York premium-class startup carrier Eos Airlines which aims to compete with the major transatlantic carriers' full-fare business class.

Feel free to refine tone, factual errors, etc, but if someone wants to take information *out*, could they perhaps give a reason first? Please? Ecozeppelin 10:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet

[edit]

I have removed the details concerning the previous operators of the maxjet aircraft - not very encyclopedic, if we do it here are we then going to do it for every airline/aircraft!!. They are specialist websites with this sort of information MilborneOne 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EOS?

[edit]

Is there any need to continue with the references to EOS? If you are going to show the differences between the services offered by alternative carriers on the same route, then surely it must be done with all the other airlines? 30 Aug 2006

  • In the absence of any objections, I've removed the references to EOS. 31 Oct 2006
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MAXjet 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MAXjet 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. eviolite (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC) eviolite (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MAXjet_Airways&oldid=1204746643"