Talk:Nashville International Airport/Archive 1

Edit warring

Can we tone down the edit warring going on here (Sox23 and 68.52.36.127)? Whoever is posting from: 68.52.36.127..."I live here" doesn't count as a legit source, as that's considered original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research for more information. I don't mean to sound like an admin, but the two of you continually reverting each other's edits is getting annoying. Talk the dispute out here instead of just going back and forth with edits.nf utvol (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misdirected article!

I clicked on a Wikipedia link for KBNA FM, and it too me here! I think someone needs to fix this!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.238.197.115 (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Road name change

Changed Donelson Road to Pike. It is Donelson Pike not Road.

Ontario (CA)

There are other cities listed along with there state to avoid confusion. WHat's wrong with it in this case? I see no reason to delete the state here, especially as Sox23 has confirmed it's the correct airport. - BillCJ 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other commercially-served airports called "Ontario" and thus disambiguation is, IMO, unnecessary. Furthermore, as "CA" could mean either Canada or California, it's entirely useless as a term to disambiguate Ontario, California the city and Ontario, Canada the province. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports for discussion. FCYTravis 06:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada

I've stood in the airport and looked at the AC gate in Concourse A. The page for the airline on the airport website also still has it in Concourse A. The customs facility and Star Alliance partner UA is also in A. Every int'l flight EVER from BNA has left from A...American to LGW and Toronto, F9 to Cancun, Carribean Charters, and AC to Toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.36.127 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ticketing/concourse section of Nashville International Airport's website lists Air Canada in Concourse C: [1], but as you said, the Air Canada section lists the airline in Concourse A. Since Concourse A is the int'l terminal, let's list it there. Sox 23 01:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DL

See...adding a reference and not going ballistic isn't so hard is it?? 45Factoid44 (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the reference that the flight indeed begins on December 27th and not on the 20th. Cashier freak (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA ORD mainline service

Please do some research before restoring ORD to AA mainline. AA's schedules found no BNA-ORD mainline flights on their website (the flighte actually ended on November 2). Currently, all BNA-ORD flights are now operated by its regional affliate, American Eagle. Unless if anyone can find a AA mainline flight number then it shall remain removed from this page. Cashier freak (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add PDF Timetable as source if this is so..it should have it... 45Factoid44 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked through AA.com and found no mainline flights between BNA and ORD...Spikydan1 (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DL BNA-SLC

Why is it showing that the Nashville-Salt Lake City flight will use MD-90 aircraft but when I went and look up flights on Delta.com for June 5, it only shows flights operated by SkyWest. Did Delta made a typo to the aircraft when they on their press release? Cashier freak (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they made a typo....BUT....the same discrepancy shows up at least one other time and when Nashville-SLC existed before with Delta there was a VERY brief time of maybe a few weeks where it switched from a CRJ9 to an MD90 so it's hard to be sure. Right now though my two cents would be that the actual schedule data is probably the best way to go in terms of how we list it on here. It is confusing. Qzd800 (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are the flights definitely going to be operated by SkyWest? If not, we can wait and see if Dl has made any changes to the route. Cashier freak (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BNA Map

So apparently the image BNA.png is cross-listed on Wikipedia as a chemical formula. I uploaded a map of the destinations entitled "BNA.png" on Commons, and it won't override the image on Wikipedia. Now, when I try to upload the same image as a different file name, it detects that the image has already been uploaded and won't let me go through with it. Anyone else had any luck with this? You can find the file here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BNA.png nf utvol (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved both the local file and Commons files to more descriptive filenames. The BNA airport file is now at File:Airports with non-stop service from Nashville KBNA.png. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current map doesn't show Pacific Wings commuter service or upcoming Southwest service to South Carolina. Otherwise looks great, though. Nice addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.42.38 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone update the map to reflect current destinations? It's missing several. 12.164.59.154 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updating!!!98.193.189.81 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Done. In the future, feel free to create and upload a destination map! nf utvol (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nashville International Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pzoxicuvybtnrm (talk · contribs) 06:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below for comments.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See below for comments.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Some information about the airport is missing; see below for comments.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
For now, I am going to fail this article. It can be renominated at a later time when the issues are fixed.

Lead

Sections of the first paragraph are choppy.
Portions of the lead should be described in the body and summarized in the lead, not described in the lead.
More information about the history of the airport needs to be added to the lead.
References should be included in the body on specific facts, not in the lead.

History

~~Entire areas such as the first paragraph of the Jet Service section, the lead part of the Continued expansion and modernization section, and the Airline lounges section are all unsourced.~~
~~Works Progress Administration should not be linked twice.~~
~~Things should be bolded in the lead, as they are, not here.~~
~~The history of Concourse D should probably be described here.~~

Concourses, airlines, and destinations

~~The other concourses need to be described.~~
~~Are there multiple terminals? If so, describe so. The section describing the Atlantic Aviation Terminal needs to explain what it is.~~

Statistics

Text and other explanation about statistics, i.e. traffic, should probably be included.

Cargo facilities

~~The entire section is unreferenced.~~

References

~~USDOT, MTAA and MNA probably need to be spelled out every time.~~
~~Organizations should be linked at the first instance of their mention in references.~~
~~More elaborate titles should be used to distinguish between the accident descriptions.~~

Thanks for the review, Pzoxicuvybtnrm. This is some good feedback. Anyone else...any help in fixing these will be greatly appreciated! nf utvol (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I just posted a message on the page of Bennettdevlin98 to advise against posting up un-sourced edits to the site adding pretty extreme destinations from BNA (like Paris, etc.). I advised them to come talk about these changes first, and if they're true, post up some sources. Doubt that will happen, as these are the same kind of edits (almost exactly) that were being made by an IP user not long ago. Probably the same person. nf utvol (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed he was at it again yesterday. Going to file for a block next time it happens.nf utvol (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and the vandalism continues. It looks like a cut, copy and paste from DFW's page. Could anyone who is familiar with BNA destinations clean up American Airline's destination section? In the meant time, I will clean up what I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakbok (talk • contribs) 19:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh sorry I thought YOU were the sockpuppet. My apologies nf utvol (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has struck again...adding CDG as a DL destination to start May 3, 2012 (as May laready have passed). Snoozlepet (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proper citations and styles

Just a reminder to new editors (and editors new to this page) to please keep the style uniform throughout, and follow the established citation templates when inserting citations for edits. A note saying that an edit is sourced from a vague 1939 map does not make it valid. Preferably you should be able to quickly and easily find the citation through a quick web search, perusal of a library, map collection, etc.. Many documents are not subject to copyright, and can be scanned (or photographed) and uploaded to WikiSource, which can then be linked as a web citation for easy access and verification. Unsourced or unverifiable edits can and will be challenged and, if not properly sourced, removed. A lot of people have worked really hard to try to get this page up and running and hopefully listed with Good Article or Featured Article status one day, and every unsourced or improperly sourced addition, or every addition that does not follow the style of the page, is one step backwards.

Thanks for the edits and help, and please continue contributing! nf utvol (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Preferably you should be able to quickly and easily find the citation through a quick web search, perusal of a library, map collection, etc."

That would be preferable, all right. You think nothing should appear in the article unless its source is on the web? You think it's "unverifiable" if you can't personally verify it?

My impression is that isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work-- paper sources are allowed, even if only one editor has them. If you know different, show where Wikipedia so defines "unverifiable".

The article has fewer errors than it had a couple weeks ago, and more info of course, all verifiable by paper sources. But probably the April 1957 OAG isn't going to be on the web anytime soon, and AA's 1986 timetables won't be either. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it had to be on the web, although that is preferable. Just that citations follow the rules for citations. And more info does not a better article make. Every bit of minutiae is not necessary nor even wanted in an article. I believe the consensus on Wikipedia is a better written, better sourced article over one that does not follow a standardized style. And it's not that you can't cite something that is mildly vague, but be prepared to provide additional sourcing if it's something that cannot be verified by other editors. Primary sources like timetables (and arguably the OAG) are fine, but items like maps that may be rare or exceedingly hard to find may not be accepted if you cannot provide a secondary source, scans, etc.

And by the way, I already posted a link to the verifiability guide. This has been expounded on ad infinitum. nf utvol (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"maps that may be rare or exceedingly hard to find may not be accepted if you cannot provide a secondary source, scans, etc."

"I never said that it had to be on the web..."

So the scan doesn't have to be on the web? Where does it have to be?

"be prepared to provide additional sourcing"

What additional sourcing would satisfy you? For the 1941 airport directory, for instance, and for the airport diagrams on the C&GS approach charts.

"Every bit of minutiae is not necessary nor even wanted..."

Everyone agrees some minutiae should be left out, and if that's our top priority the best plan is to dump the "History" section entirely. Any historical fact (what runways the airport had in 1941, for instance, or what scheduled flights it had in 1957, for comparison with other airports that year) will bore some editors. Too bad we can't poll readers to see what info they're after; barring that, I hope editors will compare this History section as it is now with what it was months ago, and decide how much of it is minutiae of interest to no one. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Just took another look at the article and saw what a stellar collection of useless minutiae the "Recent history" section is. Editors, when I said this article was better now than it once was, I didn't mean that section.) Tim Zukas (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I just noticed this after removing some stuff from the Recent History section... But look, instead of trying to do a point by point counterpoint, just read the article on Verifiability and Citations, and please follow it. I'm not trying to actively challenge what you're saying, I'm just trying to get you to properly cite along accepted guidelines so that next time this article goes up for any kind of class improvement, it doesn't get shot down for the relatively stupid reason of citations being formatted improperly (trust me...it happens, much to my chagrin). We're all just trying to improve the article!

I definitely like the inclusion of the additional runway information and whatnot, I think it is a good marker that tracks the expansion of the airport and the article benefits from it being there. As for citations on it, if you have the approach charts, it should be okay to upload them to WikiSource or the Commons since they're government publications anyway. Heck, for my own personal curiosity not relating to verifiability, I'd like to see them. nf utvol (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replying via the prompt at WT:Airports, I'm not actually sure about the details of what's going on. My comment would be first that the information being discussed meets Notability requirements, I think we all agree. Second that as long Tim Zukas' information is plausible and sourced in some way or another by a reliable source, it is a perfectly good addition to the article. If conflicting information exists, then it may be worth discussing which of the sources is more reliable, but in absence of concrete challenges I would say that the additions are very useful to the article. It may also be useful to upload the maps etc. to the Wikimedia commons or whatever (I have no idea how any of that works), but as they say, Wikipedia is and always will be a "work in progress"! :-). Speed74 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Attempt Number 2

All of the problems listed in the first review have been resolved, so I'm putting this back up for GA review. Thanks for everyone's help! nf utvol (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nashville International Airport/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning and welcome on board Review Airlines Flight 2 to Goodarticleistan. Your reviewer today is Arsenikk ^(talk)

The prose is in need of a copyedit, with some parts reading a bit awkward. Some repetitive errors includes not spelling out abbreviations, capitalizing common nouns, under-linking and lack of hyphens. Some of the issues have been fixed, others are commented below.

Long tons should be converted to [metric] tonnes, not kg. (Fixed - nf)
Although the US is mentioned somewhat down, it would be better to have it in the first or second sentence, for context.

-Why's this? It mentions its location is in Nashville, Tennessee in the lead. Further specification seems unnecessary.

This is not the US Wikipedia, but the English-language Wikipedia, and is read by a lot of people who have never set foot in North America. I doubt the average non-American has heard of Nashville or Tennessee. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the lead also summarized traffic at the airport, such as "serves X destinations" or "a focus city for Southwest" and similar, relevant information. No need to go very much into depth, though. (Fixed - nf)
Last years passenger numbers should be added to the infobox.(Fixed - nf)
The infobox states MNAA and then the de-abbreviated form lower down. Both should be spelled out.(Fixed - nf)
Coordinates should not be placed into the prose. If you are desperate, they can be added in a footnote, but I would instead suggest creating a stub article for the three mentioned airports.(Fixed - nf)

-Thank you! There was an instance of someone going through throwing in unsourced coords a while back that weren't removed. Doing it now.

"Citizens Committee" is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized. (fixed)
"340 acres" should be in singular ("340-acre"). This is accomplished by adding |adj=on to {{convert}}.(Fixed - nf)
The term "utilize" is a buzzword and should be avoided unless no other words are feasible. (fixed)
The article is under-linked. Specific airlines and major components of the airport (control tower etc) should be linked on first occurrence.(Fixed - nf)
"City Aviation Department, the MNAA's predecessor"... What is MNAA? (Fixed - nf)
The sentence "For the first time more than half a million people utilized the Nashville airport, when the six airlines serving Nashville at the time carried 532,790 passengers that year." reads awkward. Drop "utilized", try to shorten the sentence and avoid mentioning two numbers. Historic passenger numbers for selected years is excellent content. (Fixed - nf)
The source does not say the first airport with a library, but the first municipal airport, presumably in the US. Also, a self-reference cannot be used for such a claim (although it can be trusted for the year of the branch opening).

-Why can an official site for the airport not be trusted for the claim? It is, technically, a government publication. Fixed the part about the municipal airport.

As I tried to explain, self-published sources may be reliable for some types of information, e.g. the year of opening a branch, but not for more extraordinary claims. How has the library in question verified that this is the case? Had a historian made the same claim, after investigating the question in matter, then it would have much more weight. Put another way: even though Nashville Public Library believes they have the first airport library, how can they know they are? Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Master plan" is not a proper noun, so don't capitalize it.(Fixed - nf)
Do not use boldface to indicate abbreviations.

-Where's this at? I don't see it in the body anywhere.

Sorry, I removed it for you, but forgot to tick it off. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "currently" with "as of [year]". Suddenly there goes five years and whatever is current is no more (this has happened many times, even with GAs).(Fixed - nf)
I hate to say this, but Puerto Rico is in the US. (Fixed - nf)

-Doh. I don't know how I missed that whole, horribly written segment.

"Besides operating service to many U.S. cities"... "In addition, nonstop service was operated to Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego". This is rather confusing, as it first states many cities and then lists additional services. Please reformulate. How many cities were there that AA flew to? (Fixed - nf)
Why is there suddenly a discussion of the current destinations in the middle of the history section?(Fixed - nf)
When did Nashville cease to be regarded as an AA hub?(Fixed - nf)
American Eagle and Concourse D is not mentioned until they terminate. Context should be provided regarding their opening. (Fixed - nf)
It is "second-largest", not "second largest". I have fixed this and many similar issues throughout the article, so please be aware of this in the future. (Fixed - nf)
Today... should be moved to the "airlines and destinations" section. (Fixed - nf)
Do not abbreviate FAA, MTA and BRAC on first occurrence. (Fixed - nf)
Historical passenger figures are valuable, but as a table they are only interesting if they span the airport's entire history, at for instance five-year intervals. The development from year to year of pax figures is not particularly interesting in an encyclopedic context, but the long-term trends (over decades) is highly interesting. (Fixed - nf)
The facilities section needs a description of the runways, taxiways and ILS. (Fixed - nf)
Under this section, creating very short subsections is messy and does not aid the reader. As a rule of thumb, if you cannot write at least two long paragraphs on a topic, do not create a subsection for it. (Fixed - nf)
EAS?

-It's clarified above in the first mention: Essential Air Service

Airlines and destinations needs an introduction, although it doesn't need to be much. For instance, number of airlines, number of destinations, and any airlines operating with a base at Nashville.(Fixed - nf)
Do not use US Postal state codes. They are completely undecipherable for people from outside the US (and even a lot of Americans do not understand them). Spell out the state, or just leave it blank, as these are major cities.

-Normally I'd agree, but this is the standard per the WikiProject Airport format.

As stated, these codes are not understandable for people from outside the US and are a major hassle even for people within. I can of course fail the GA review for violating criteria 1A (prose must be clear and concise, which is not the case here). Anyhow, I cannot find any references to this style on the Airport Project page. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The military facilities needs references. (Fixed - nf)

A large share of the references are from the airport itself. While this can be okay for some aspects, additional sources can be useful, especially because they can expand the information. Are there any newspaper archives which can be used to source the airport's history? Some of the news might even be relevant enough (especially the AA hub issues) that it is covered in national news sources.

Placing article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Most of these suggestions had completely gone under my radar. When you look at something enough, it's very easy to miss the most obvious faults, hence why these reviews are great for improving articles. As for the history, unfortunately, there is a complete dearth of it out there for BNA except from official sources and one newspaper article on the 75th anniversary from over the summer. I have tried looking up books and external articles to no avail. And, unfortunately, the Tennesseean (Nashville's paper), is completely terrible when it comes to making archives searchable, or even keeping articles online for any time period. I made a few comments above, and placed fixed in parenthesis at the end of ones I corrected. Thanks again! nf utvol (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a GA review is to improve the article, and as such it has been successful. A most interesting article. It is a shame that not more sources are available, especially about the history, but if they are not available, then one must take what is available. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments:

I created no:Nashville internasjonale lufthavn
The lead mentions the Sustainable Master Plan program. This is not mentioned in the body and it is in my opinion not important enough to include in the lead.
I've done some copyediting, including moving around a bit of the lead as it looked odd with two very short and one long paragraph.
The lead says 35th-largest, but body says 34th largest.
I converted the information about the runways to a table.
I counted and the airport does not serve 90 destinations, but closer to 40.
Refd 1, 11 and 34 need an accessdates; ref 11 needs a publisher and/or author.

Much better; still on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments yet again, thanks Arsenikk. I agree that Sustainable Master Plan could be removed. I don't believe it has its own wiki article, so it reads like marketing material if it's retained. I'll remove it. Good catch with the 34th largest. I think that it only recently jumped to 34th place, just didn't get fixed in the lead. Sloppiness on my part most likely... As for the destinations, that number comes from BNA. I believe they are drawing it from "direct route" timetables where flights make a stop at an intermediate airport, usually a hub, but continue on with the same flight number to a final destination. It should be clarified that these flights are such and not necessarily non-stop flights. How I initially read it was that it was defining markets differently than airports, as in, an airport could serve multiple markets (for instance, Philadelphia International serving Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton and Southern New Jersey; or Baltimore-Washington serving both the Baltimore market and the Washington market). Those are both entirely speculative though, and unless someone has a better idea, that tidbit should probably be removed or modified to show non-stop flights.

As for references, I'll fix those as best as possible, although access dates may not be doable.nf utvol (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the above issues. nf utvol (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Nashville International Airport

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nashville International Airport's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "transtats.bts.gov":

From Salt Lake City International Airport: "Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City International (SLC)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved January 24, 2011.
From Raleigh–Durham International Airport: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1&Airport=RDU&Airport_Name=Raleigh/Durham,%20NC:%20Raleigh%20Durham&carrier=FACTS
From Charleston International Airport: "RITA | BTS | Transtats". Transtats.bts.gov.
From Northwest Florida Beaches International Airport: "Panama City, FL: Northwest Florida Beaches International (ECP)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. December 2012. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
From Logan International Airport: "Boston, MA: Logan International (BOS)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. October 12, 2011. Retrieved October 14, 2011.
From Evansville Regional Airport: "Evansville, IN: Evansville Regional (EVV)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), U.S. Department of Transportation. May 2014. Retrieved May 27, 2014.
From Athens Ben Epps Airport: "Athens, GA: Athens/Ben Epps (AHN)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), U.S. Department of Transportation. December 2013. Retrieved June 5, 2014.
From Cleveland Hopkins International Airport: "Databases". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
From McKellar–Sipes Regional Airport: "Jackson, TN: McKellar–Sipes Regional (MKL)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), U.S. Department of Transportation. December 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2014.
From Orlando International Airport: "Orlando, FL: Orlando International (MCO)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Retrieved April 26, 2014.
From Northwest Alabama Regional Airport: "Muscle Shoals, AL: Northwest Alabama Regional (MSL)". Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), U.S. Department of Transportation. December 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UA Start Inaccuracy

I noticed on the page that it said United Airlines flights would start in July. But, I just booked a flight with United Airlines on an Airbus 319 in early June. Something's not right here. 98.193.225.39 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find out through UAs Reservation System that the first UA flight from Nashville to Houston flies on June 5. 2600:1004:B164:E908:B598:38E2:FA79:244 (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OneJet, Boutique Air, Corporate Flight Management services

How are these charter flights? These flights are bookable to the public via the airline's website and these carriers operate out of the main terminal per the airport's website (they have dedicated ticket counters at these airports). 97.85.118.142 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are neither, but are commuter flights. See the list of airlines on the bottom of every airline's page. In the past, some users have argued they should be in the passenger section while others think they belong in the charter section. I personally think they should be under passenger, but I think this needs to be opened up on WP:Airpots, for now though, LEAVE THEM AS PASSENGER UNTIL DISCUSSED FURTHER. Stinger20 (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WN BNA-SEA

Can someone with an autoconfirmed account please remove the resumption date for this route, as seasonal routes do not need resumption dates, and the page is currently protected. 198.236.17.79 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. HkCaGu (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nashville International Airport. 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) 19:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Carriers Listed in Destinations

I just removed JSX and Red Way from the desinations. Both are charter carriers, Red Way operating limited charter flights from Lincoln, Nebraska to various vacation destinations, not regular service. JSX is a jet-share service that sells seats on private jets, also considered a charter service and not a regular carrier. If anyone has an objection to my removal of these, please let's discuss here before they're added back. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]