Jump to content

Talk:Qatar Airways/Archive 1

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

New Changes Fleet

I have added a new section of the QR page whch includes current, past,and future fleet, which is simiar to BA page. Please accept the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halawala (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

QATAR AIRWAYS ORDERS

Since when did Qatar Airways have 28 orders DIDN'T IT HAVE LIKE 108 ORDERS ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiyeda (talk • contribs)

That number includes the order for 80 Airbus A350 which no longer exists. Pcpirate16 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Qatar Airways has 80 A320neo on order not 36. http://www.qatarairways.com/global/en/our-fleet.page


Qatar Airways has 100 777-9X on order not 50. http://www.qatarairways.com/global/en/our-fleet.page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJA1999 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@MiguelJA1999: This [1] set of three edits, that includes two made by you, has been reverted. See ″Boeing 777-9X on order″ section below.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fleet Source

I think we should use the Qatar Airways page as source for the Aircraft Fleet details! -Narv

Turnover

"The airline also has a huge turnover of staff, particulary cabin crew." Where is this information from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.89 (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fleet table

The fleet table is wrong, well some are different to what's posted in the official site. Isaabis 5.45, 17th June 2008 (GMT)

Improved Fleet Information

Hi,

I have improved the fleet information as per the following.

Fleet Table

  • I have given the passenger statistics own little boxes, to tidy it up a little. Much easier to read.
  • Integrated aircraft orders/feature fleet into the main table, like on other airline pages such as Qantas, Emirates (airline), British Airways etc. This way you can see the total orders etc. as a result of this I have removed the feature fleet section.
  • Separated the Qatar Executive as this is treated as another airline. It has its own page here Qatar Executive
  • Made a banner to separate the cargo fleet, makes it easier to see. Other airlines such as Air France have it this way.

Removal of feature fleet section

  • Integrated aircraft orders/feature fleet into the main table, like on other airline pages such as Qantas, Emirates (airline), British Airways etc. This way you can see the total orders etc. as a result of this I have removed the feature fleet section.

Removal of Qatar Executive section

I have update the Aircraft fleet statistics as well.

Thanks

--Boeing747-412 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Founded year

Recently, the founded year has been changed to 1996 by some user, but I checked references that Qatar Airways is certainly founded at 1993 so I changed it back.Hitomi (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Go-Around Controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A conclusion to "Go-Around Controversy" has been reached reached...

I do not think the go around controversy should be in this article. It does not meet the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH & WP:AIRLINES. Also long term i dont think its notable. In a years time i dont think anyone would remember this.. --JetBlast (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This incident is really incident due to several issues:
    • Air war with ATC and other pilot
    • Both pilots have low fuel emergencys
    • Language issues similar to Avianca Flight 52 crash
--B767-500 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • With respect, its not like you make out. It was a pilot who wasn't following the rules. Wasn't road rage at all. I still don't think it justification to be listed here. I have ask a couple of people for there opinion. --JetBlast (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Well it wasnt on a road for starters. It wasnt as bad as you make out. It has no notability because:
  1. The incident was not fatal to humans
  2. The incident involved did not have a hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport
  3. The incident has not resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.
For these reasons it should not be listed. Its todays news but soon it would be all forgotten about. Also please do not alter the text i have wrote, it was only a minor tweak but please do not do this full stop. --JetBlast (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is enough evidence to support the removal of the Go-Around controversy, starting with the Project guidelines. That description does not meet neither of the requirements for an incident/accident to be included, i.e. fatalities involved, a hull-loss, or a change in the regulations or procedures.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
So you is incorrect: Change is result in major change to airline industry in China. Did you realizing Chinese CAA banning airline from hiring foreign pilots? So, basically, you just ignore bullet point "The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." So, we can ignoring your basic argument. --B767-500 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC) --B767-500 (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You have to reading these articles which CAAA major requirement:

Quoting from your first link "the CAAC ordered Juneyao to reduce its flight capacity by 10 percent, temporarily barred it from carrying out plans to expand or hire any foreign flight staff" - The ban is only temporary for one, its not a reform. The ban will probably be lifted. Also this ban only applies to Juneyao Airlines and it is not an industry wide change so it still doesn't meet the criteria for being notable. Sorry. --JetBlast (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to get opinion of other editors because you are just one inputs. Sorry. Thanks --B767-500 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
You have to get input of Chinese Wikipedia which have opposite opinion of incident. I do not reading or writing Mandarin, so maybe you just have to use translate.google.com. Sorry. Thanks --B767-500 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not the only one, user:Jetstreamer also agrees. --JetBlast (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sitting on the fence for this, although I'm leaning towards removal since the incident does not follow WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. Having said that, I think that there's room for editors to add events like this, which don't happen very often and can cause a (short) sensation in mainstream media. Nevertheless, I think the removal by Jetstreamer was the appropriate action to do; the guidelines are there for a reason, and that's to prevent the addition of non-lasting events like the incident in question. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have multiple editor which they want to keeping article:
So we just have to see what is output of other editors. ;-) --B767-500 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely non-notable for Qatar Airways. All they did was declare a 5-minute to emergency and the investigation found they had 18 minutes. This event is absolutely notable, however, for Juneyao, as it is a major safety violation. HkCaGu (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked to have a look at this discussion by User:JetBlast so far, the challenge is to the addition of Juneyao Airlines incident by User:Hitomi and the edit warring by B767-500. The incident was added a number of times by User:Hitomo and User B767-500 and was removed from article by User:SempreVolando, User:JetBlast, User:Jetstreamer, it should not have beed re-added while awaiting a talk page consensus here. Additionally User:HkCaGu has supported not adding and User:Sp33dyphil is neutral. Despite the assertion above as far as I can see SBR249, 67.176.65.236 and 147.231.88.1 have never edited this article or talk page so the statement is a bit misleading to show them as supporters above and can be disregarded. The onus when an addition to the article has been challenged is to gain talk page consensus for the addition, I dont see such consensus so far so in my opinon it should be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Before, I tried to ask User:SempreVolando for times and got no answer.

I realized the reason for discard this section is "not meet WP:AIRCRASH". However, purely consider about the response of mass media and widely known by people(recently I asked several people(Chinese, American and Canadian) in different ages, everyone realize this incident and shows interest). Also, it has enough sources.

Not only contents meet WP:AIRCRASH can be created in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a air crash collection. This incident is not only an aviation incident but also a model social and moral occurrence which is extremely followed with interest by people.

Therefore, said contents, should be created and not limited in WP:AIRCRASH. Also, I suggest to create a single page for this incident, to describe the incident details, and to keep Airline pages clean.

Reference:[2], a similar case occured in Taiwan, which may not be a traffic accident, but shocked the society.Hitomi (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen: I have removed (once again) the incident. This time I will rephrase my arguments to see if all we think the incident should not be included here become even more convinced, but also (and most important) to convince the others to rethink their actions. Here in Wikipedia we have guidelines. We may agree or not with them, but they exist, it's a fact. If you are against them for the reasons we are discussing here, we should engage in a discussion for the modification of them in the appropriate talk page, not here. That said, it is also true that rules can be broken, but only if the article gets improved. Then, I'm just trying to point out that this is not about winning or losing, but about thinking if the disputed information is worth appearing in the articles of Qatar Airways, or in the one of Juneyao Airlines. Just convince me (us) that there is an improvement of the article with the “Go-around controversy” appearing in it and I will promptly relent my convictions, but let me tell you that "the incident had repercussion in the Chinese press" is not a valid argument, for we are not considering the rest of the world in that assertion. Hope my opinion shed some light into the subject.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this incident should not be mentioned on Wikipedia as non-notable, for the reasons given above. As Wikipedia editors we must strive to add only encyclopaedic content. One element of that concerning incidents which (may) make headline news is to consider whether an event which has attracted short-term publicity or media interest will still be notable 5 or 10 years from now, for example. I don't think this incident will even be remembered. Remember that verifiability does not equal notability. In aviation, lots of minor incidents occur across the world every day and the guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH / WP:AIRLINES / WP:AIRPORTS were drawn up to prevent articles becoming littered with minor, non-notable events like this one. SempreVolando (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


I agree with my role model editor, HkCaGu. We should delete from Qatar Airways, but keep for Juneyao Airlines. Thanks for your good inputs. --B767-500 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As B767-500 now agrees i will close this discussion. Thanks to those who contributed. --JetBlast (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding engine choice section

Similar to British Airways#Engine choice. Most Qatar Airways aircraft are powered by General Electric and IAE engines. The current engine choices are:

  • Airbus A319-133LR (IAE V2500)[1]
  • Airbus A320-232 (IAE V2500)[2]
  • Airbus A321-231 (IAE V2500)[3]
  • Airbus A330-202/203 (General Electric CF6-80E1)[4]
  • Airbus A330-302/303 (General Electric CF6-80E1)[5]
  • Airbus A340-642 (Rolls-Royce Trent 556)[6]
  • Boeing 777-200LR (General Electric GE90-115B)[7]
  • Boeing 777-300ER (General Electric GE90-115B)[8]

Thanks. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "AirFleets.net archive".
  2. ^ "Airfleets.net Archive".
  3. ^ "Airfleets.net".
  4. ^ "Airfleets.net".
  5. ^ "Airfleets.net".
  6. ^ "Airfleets.net".
  7. ^ "Airfleets.net".
  8. ^ "Airfleets.net".

Cabin section

There seems to be a lot of redundant information in this section. I will cite a couple of examples:

The routes on which the Boeing 777 (new business class) operates could fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

This also seems to apply to the section on in-flight entertainment, which is quite wordy. Here is how I would rewrite it:

Qatar Airways' in-flight entertainment system is provided by Oryx Entertainment on all aircraft. With the exception of some Airbus A320 family aircraft, all aircraft have personal seat-back television screens. Some Airbus A330s and the remaining Airbus A320 family aircraft are fitted with main screen entertainment. Qatar is updating Airbus A320 family aircraft to seat-back AVOD and removing main screen entertainment from some Airbus A330s. (some sort of reference needed).

Smoothsilver (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The system is not provided by Orxy. The system is branded Orxy by the airline. --JetBlast (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, so replace the first sentence with: "Qatar Airways' in-flight entertainment system is called Oryx."? Smoothsilver (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Six Continents" club

I've opened a discussion on the following passage, which appears in similar form on a number of pages including this one:

...making it one of only a handful of airlines to fly to all six inhabited continents.

(This version on the Qatar page actually seems fine to me and is similar to several references on Emirates; it is more emphatically misleading on pages like Korean and Etihad.)

Please SEE HERE. HAdG (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Expressen article

Swedish articles from Expressen:

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have challenged the addition of the criticism section so it really needs to gain consensus here before being added again, thanks. Not against having a criticism section but it has to be given due weight and the text that was added did not reflect that it was the view of two or three disgruntled members of staff out of 30,000 so really should not be included. MilborneOne (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Since "praise/criticism" sections are best not used, a better approach would be to use a different name like "labor relations" or something like that. In consideration of weight, perhaps there would be more of a likelihood in adding it if other outlets began covering what has been stated in the Expressen articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a news article from a well respected Swedish news outlet. If CNN or BBC covered only quoting 3 staff members would you continue to prevent it from being published. Also, the nature of the article discusses Qatar Airways actively trying to censor their staff so they don't talk about such things, therby preventing further media discussion. Even more the reason why this should be placed on their Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.211.105 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

None disclosure agreements and similar are standard stuff in labor agreements and are not unusual or notable, most of the article comes from one disgruntled ex-employee who cannot be considered a neutral and unbiased commentator. The way of working in Qatar may not be what she expected but is only notable if it differs from the norm for that part of the world and has widespread commentary in independent sources, some of the observations raised may be related to how Qatar operates rather than the airline. With 30,000 employees you would have thought there would be widespread evidence that the other 29,999 are not happy with the conditions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the text again as it has been challenged it really needs consensus here first. MilborneOne (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Today's count shows no less than eight dead links in the References. We must improve the citations for the relevant entries in the article; otherwise, those entries should be deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 777-9X on order

I've reverted this edit. The number of aircraft on order is 100 according to the official source that supports the fleet table. Please do not make modifications without providing proper sources.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, I've reverted three unexplained edits that were not in agreement with the supporting sources provided in the article: [3], [4], [5]. I'll be requesting page protection if this behaviour continues.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Two more edits of the same kind ([6], [7]) reverted. Requesting protection.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The source currently provided is unsuitable because it mixes up firm orders, options and purchase rights. It's not only the 777X order number that is wrong (correct would be 50 firm orders and 50 purchase rights, as can be seen in the official Boeing press release: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-07-16-Boeing-Qatar-Airways-Finalize-Order-for-50-777Xs), several Airbus numbers are also wrong, (see A320 neo for example: http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/corporate-information/key-documents/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=40124) => correct number of orders is 36 A320neo + 14 A321neo not 80 A320 neo! Given these facts I vote for the removal of the current source for orders and a replacement by the official numbers provided by the manufacturers.SideshowBob7 (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE. Besides this, if the official reference is used to support the active fleet I don't see why it cannot be used to support the rest of the table. But if you are not in agreement with this, you may use the references you provided above to give the correct number of aircraft on order. I may add a note explaining the discrepance between the figures provided by the airline and the ones given by the aircraft manufacturers. One way or the other, the request for protection is still in place as the unexplained modifications to the fleet table have to stop since they are not in compliance with the supporting reference.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean vote literally, just replace it with suggest. I agree, that the current reference works fine for the active fleet, but it is useless for orders because almost all numbers go against those provided by the aircraft manufacturers. Due to this difference these numbers will always create disputes and probably lead to permanent edit warring on the article. Page Protection won't help much in this case, because as soon as it is over, the changes will most likely start again. SideshowBob7 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the 777X order to 50 per references, both Boeing and Qatar press releases indicate the order was for 50 + 50 purchase rights, just to show the confusion the Qatar press release headline says "QATAR AIRWAYS PLACES AN ORDER FOR 100 BOEING 777-9X – THE LARGEST SINGLE AIRCRAFT ORDER IN THE AIRLINE’S HISTORY" then in the next line makes it clear they have only ordered 50 "Order finalised for 50 777-9Xs and purchase rights for an additional 50 aircraft" refer to http://www.qatarairways.com/global/en/press-release.page?pr_id=pressrelease_boeing-order-100-fia-160714&locale_id=en_gl I presume whoever updated the Qatar fleet got carried away. I have not looked at the Airbus orders. MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@SideshowBob7 and MilborneOne: I think the best way to overcome this is to add links to the aircraft manufacturers as inline citations. Separately, the page has been protected. I actually requested for protection given that there were no explanations for the latest alterations of the fleet table when it was supported by just the official reference which, again, did (and also does) not provide a breakdown for the 777-9X order between firm orders and purchase rights.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

More unsourced changes

This time regarding the A380 fleet. Following are the last three edits that modified the number of A380 aircraft in fleet and on order: [8], [9], [10]. They have been reverted, as no citations were provided for the changes. I suggest the authors of these edits to start following the basic policies, with WP:VERIFY among them.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Medieval rules

Wow, they used to check who dropped off female cabin crew for work!, and other bad stuff. Apparently the CEO claims there's a 'vendetta' against QA. Worth including I think. Malick78 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Qatar Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Qatar Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Qatar Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Qatar Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Qatar 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, 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) 10:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Qatar 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, 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) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Qatar order from Boeing; A320neo order still stands at 50.

No mention yet in the article of the 'letter of intent' for 60 737 MAX 8 alongside the latest order of 30 787s and 10 777 aircraft (which I understand is not a firm order, but it could be mentioned in passing.) Also, it looks like the order table for the A320neo should be modified, as Al Baker has now stated that the order for 50 A320/321 neo stands as it is, despite the first four frames not being taken up. Therefore, there have been no order cancellations and the total orders for the neo family should be 50, not 46. Reference: https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/qatar-airways-boeing-100-aircraft/ Dominic Gates of the Seattle Times also reported similar comments. 122.57.26.99 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Lounge section

The lounge section of the page is extremely out of date, as it talks about the Premium Terminal at the old Doha International in the present tense. There are other grammatical errors in the section as well, such as, "After commenced full operations at its new hub, Hamad International Airport in 2014, Al Mourjan Business Lounge for Qatar Airways’ Premium passengers opened in July 2014." There is no mention of Al Safwa First Class Lounge, it refers to Hamad International Airport as "New Doha International Airport," or the fact that the Premium Terminal is no longer in operation, as Doha International has closed. Suggestions for how to improve this page? Rufusmi (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding an {{outdated}} tag to the section.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article

--Jetstreamer Talk 21:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Qatar 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) 13:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Qatar 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) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Qatar Airways fleet page

Hello Wikipedians,

I would like to inform you that there is a Qatar Airways fleet page and I don't accept deletion for it. FINAL WARNING or I will request protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro Dude51 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? Everyone can edit the article they want.--Jetstreamer Talk 15:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2018

Please update the fleet numbers for Boeing 777-300(ER) to 47 from 41. Information from www.airframes.org/fleet/qtr B77X (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a reliable source.--Jetstreamer Talk 19:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Qatar Airways A380s to be replaced by the 777X

On the fleet section, update the fleet notes for the A380 and the B777X, because the B777X will replace the A380s after their planes reach 10 years of their life time.

Article from https://simpleflying.com/qatar-airways-a380-retirement/

On 13th February 2019, Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker has indicated that the airline plans to retire its fleet of A380s once they reach ten years of age. When Qatar Airways retire the A380, they will look to the Boeing 777X as an effective replacement for the giant jumbo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealkuba11 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Plans are plans. Let's see what the airline will end up doing when the time comes.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Qatar Airways to phase out A319/A320/A330s

A319s and A320s will be replaced by the A321neos and the A330s will be replaced by upcoming 787 and A350 deliveries.[1]

2604:2000:1540:8403:551A:C414:D1DA:F359 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://m.gulf-times.com/story/631270/Qatar-Airways-to-replace-all-Airbus-A330s-in-3-yea

Qatar Airways Fleet Images

Hi Wikipedians!

I live in Qatar so I need to show proof that Qatar Airways have this aircraft, in case they retire it soon. Though, sorry for any inconvenience.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.87.107 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Back and forth reverts do not help the project, and we have Commons for hosting images. Besides this, there's a section in the article with historical aircraft.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added the 747 image which means we now have two images showing the previous livery the 747 and a 727 further up the article. Dont think we need any more as has been said you can follow the commons link for more. MilborneOne (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


Actually, I think it is better to remove the historical images and add the new ones. On other airline pages there are photos of every aircraft the airline owned, Qatar is a really famous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.153.87.107 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

News Report

There has been recent news in Australia of a horrible incident regarding Qatar Airlines... Here are some articles on the topic. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-54682565 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/i-was-absolutely-terrified-australian-witness-recounts-qatar-strip-search-ordeal https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-25/passengers-invasively-searched-qatar-after-report-baby-found/12811716 Many more appear if you search up 'Qatar'. I feel this should be added to the article somewhere, but not sure exactly where and how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.225.53 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It has now been removed from the article several times by different editors. It was government authorities who removed and searched the passengers, not the airline. The incident should be described at Human rights in Qatar not here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
It can be noted this is now covered at Australia–Qatar relations#2020 airport incident. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlHitmi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle East through Many Lenses

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 September 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Callmepenguin3, Djjacksoncramer, Gertrudebell123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Confusedjury (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

To Be Replaced By. Boeing 787-9.

Should we include or remove that bit of the article? CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

It's been challenged, so whoever restores it should provide a reliable source. All content should be sourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
See WP:PROVEIT: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, You restored it, so unless you have a source it is required to be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This statement requires a source to be added in the first place. A quick Google search does not confirm that this statement has been officially made by QR recently or at all - so this seems like an estimation or original research to me which does not belong in this overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:3AE9:E201:8594:A887:20AB:683 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for removing that. As the policy requires, to reinstate it a ref is required. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

777-200LR replacement by 777-9 in 2024?

777-9 entry into service has been delayed to at least 2025, therefore Qatar in particular introducing their airframes in 2024 is an impossibility, the citation is clearly outdated. However I am not sure there is a suitable citation available to replace it, is it o.k. to replace an inaccuracy (which has a citation) with a fact that does not? Unityoc (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we need a citation to replace a citation, see WP:V. How do you know that entry has been delayed until 2025? You must have read that somewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Well the 777X page itself gives 2025 as the entry into service date, citing AirwaysMag. Would this citation also be sufficient for this article? It is not specific to Qatar Airways but given they are planned to be the launch customer for this new plane type it is a reasonable connection to make.Unityoc (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure if you have a ref that says that Qatar is the launch customer as well. It is all about making everything verifiable for the readers. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After 5 months of zero comments, the result of this discussion was to not split as there is no consensus. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

An editor has BOLDLY split the Fleet section in to a new article. It has been disputed and I am posting to the talk page. This split requires CONSENSUS per WP:BRD.  // Timothy :: talk  07:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted both of your edits since the mass removal of content does not seem to be encyclopedic. Please use this talk page to discuss them before making further such changes.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

per WP:SPLIT the fleet section is too long for some readers to read/navigate comfortably and thus I split it. SurferSquall (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The only information I removed was in the fleet section, to split the article. Not sure what else you are referring to SurferSquall (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

What I am proposing is this: leave a brief summary of the fleet on the main page, and create the separate fleet page. see Lufthansa or United Airlines for an example.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More unused refs not used in the article

Jetstreamer Talk 17:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qatar_Airways/Archive_1&oldid=1254777409"