Talk:Tasman Empire Airways Limited

Untitled

The comment that the 1960 Coral route was the last international flying boat is mistaken.

Chalk's was running Grumman Mallards from Miami to the Bahamas until the 2005 crash and may resume if they can get the remaining planes recertified. John L 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, there was another company, Antilles Air Boats, that was using a Sandringham long into the 1970s too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I agree absolutely. Sometimes people don't do research properly! The silly thing is that the Sandringham was a RNZAF Sunderland S.25 before it was sold and converted to Sandringham standard. Those aircraft were overhauled by TEAL under contract from the RNZAF. Lin (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

profit

"In the first year, the annual report revealed that 130 trans-Tasman flights had been completed carrying 1461 passengers for a profit, prior to tax and dividends, of NZ£31 479."

The figure NZ£31 479. is unclear i'm assuming this is not 31479 pounds as making this out of 1400 passengers does not seem right. NZ£31 47 shillings and 9pence maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgprout (talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well Andrewgprout, you have to remember two things, first is that, right or wrong, NZers are taught the SI system of metrics and in that system there are no commas every thousands, which means that NZ£31 479 equals NZ£31,479 for those readers who were taught a prostituted SI system. Secondly, if you divide the number of passengers carried into the gross profit you'll find that the profit was about NZ£21 per passenger. Which isn't much! Remember that this was a monopoly-service, only ships were otherwise carrying passengers. Why do you think it is not right? I could change the number presentation, but it seems that it is within Wikipedia's style constraints. Lin (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lin - I think you are right that the NZ£31 479 needs to be NZ£31,479 and this contributed to my initial questioning of this figure. I can't see that Wikipedia in general suggests not putting commas in numbers - so I think this should be changed unless you can point me to where it is forbidden. And I understand that it is what the reference does say, however this could easily be an error by someone not understanding pounds/shillings/pence notation.

I also understand that air travel in 1940 was the preserve of the rich and TEAL was a monopoly. But NZ£31 479 in Q1 1941 equals $2,757,936 in 2013 dollars - that is a profit of about $2000 per passenger in 2013 money. This is quite possibly true but is not "isn't very much" at least to me. Andrewgprout (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Article title

It seems that TEAL might not be the best name for this article per the convention followed for some other airline companies like Trans World Airlines, Northwest Airlines and British Overseas Airways Corporation. An article about the color teal also exists which also seems potentially confusing. Perhaps the article should be moved to "Tasman Empire Airways Limited" instead. The article seems to have be "TEAL" since created back in 2004, but that might've preceded WP:TMRULES and other Wikipedia pages related to titles of articles about companies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think TEAL is a more common name hence the current article title. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Sure, TEAL may be the common name but do not ignore WP:NATURAL which does override WP:COMMONNAME (E.g. American Broadcasting Company not ABC). I also think that Tasman Empire Airways Limited should be the name of the article. Username006 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Also redirected TEAL to the dab page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

---

TEAL → Tasman Empire Airways Limited – The current title is too ambiguous as it can easily be confused with the colour Teal. Sure, TEAL might have been the WP:COMMONNAME but per WP:NATURAL and WP:PRECISION: when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. Here, it is clearly required as it needs more detail to distinguish itself from Teal. Username006 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. The airline was not almost exclusively known by its acronym, so full names are preferred. Station1 (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Giving that all-caps TEAL has been known as Teal in normal version, i would purpose the capital letter version to redirect to true one (Teal colour) via RFD. 125.167.59.189 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Thus, the capital letter version should redirect to Teal (disambiguation). Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support full name appear to be used often enough per Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2022 (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.

Playing Ducks and Drakes

A bad decision that one folks. No-one ever called it anything but TEAL. And in case you have not seen the link take a look at this image.Eddaido (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

did you say Teal ?

dumpy flying critter lands on water

Cessation of TEAL

@PH AKL I mean you are correct in that the company just changed names however if you leave it showing still in operation it is also not entirely correct. The data needs to renamed as merge so that the two separate articles can still exist. I guess your argument is similar to this one Talk:Air_New_Zealand#TEAL_merge. But before you change what is said you should get a consensus. Paulpat99 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The appearance of two entities, when there is only one, was created long ago. Readers worldwide should receive correct information, especially as Air New Zealand has celebrated 75 years of continued operation (1940–2015) through major exhibitions in several prominent New Zealand museums. The "Ceased operations" error, or "change of name" issue, was corrected with an inline citation linked to the New Zealand Companies Office, under an existing article banner of "lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations", some time ago. In consequence, editors have considered merging separate articles—"Tasman Empire Airways Limited", "History of Air New Zealand", "Air New Zealand". This was discussed in Talk:Air_New_Zealand#TEAL_merge, where the airline's Certificate of Incorporation was recognised. The discussion was closed with no consensus in December 2022. Outside of Wikipedia, it is apparent that many people have strong and fond memories of TEAL, and the age of flying-boats, enough for it to be distinct in the airline's history. Also, since the page's name change from "TEAL" to "Tasman Empire Airways Limited", its popularity has shot up from a visitor average of about 5 to 32 per day.PH AKL (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s reasonable to see this page as regarding the TEAL brand, which did have a very clear end point. And so it is reasonable, imo, to list its “cease” date in the infobox, so long as the date is clearly indicated—as it is—as being a rebrand and not a close of business. — HTGS (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Paulpat99 agrees that "the company just changed names". HTGS sees cessation of the TEAL brand. The Defunct Airlines task force marked an existing airline as no longer existing. "Ceased operation" and "defunct" are inconsistent with the History of Air New Zealand page, with its "Tasman Empire Airways Limited" section, and the Air New Zealand page. In comparison, History of Qantas and Qantas maintain Qantas Empire Airways Limited within, rather than make QEA out to be a separate "ceased operations" defunct airline. See ASIC company register for Qantas Empire Airways Limited / Qantas Airlines Limited. With a view towards a consistent or single source of truth, immediate tasks for editors may therefore be:

Delete infobox content: "Ceased operations 1 April 1965, renamed Air New Zealand Limited[1]"

Reinstate infobox content: "Founded 26 April 1940. Renamed Air New Zealand Limited from 1 April 1965[1]"

Delete the following categories added in 2006 and 2018: "Defunct airlines of New Zealand" "Defunct flying seaplane operators"

Request "the Defunct Airlines task force" retire from Talk:Tasman Empire Airways Limited header. The article does not meet task force guidelines. The airline did not fold or merge with another airline to form a new company.

Delete the following category added in 2012: "Defunct Airlines task force articles"

Reconsider merging articles, or leave as the current "no consensus" status.PH AKL (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Qantas is a different situation Qantas Empire Airways Limited was created/owned by Qantas so it is like a parent company swallowing its subsidiary. Meanwhile this case TEAL and NAC combined to make Air NZ a new name for the two entities combining.

I see it wasn't until recently that it said ceased maybe by just removing the ceased line and saying renamed as air nz then no further changes are needed. Paulpat99 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In a brief online search: Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited (QANTAS), registered on 16 November 1920, is noted as delisted through voluntary liquidation on or about 22 October 1947. Qantas Empire Airways Limited (QEA), registered on 18 January 1934, was renamed Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) on or about 1 August 1967. Tasman Empire Airways Limited (TEAL), incorporated on 26 April 1940, was renamed Air New Zealand Limited on 1 April 1965. Both airlines are in continued operation. New Zealand National Airways Corporation (NAC), established through the New Zealand National Airways Act 1945, ceased operations when it was dissolved and vested in Air New Zealand, through the New Zealand National Airways Corporation Dissolution Act 1978, on 11 October 1978.PH AKL (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

My primary concern is with giving readers useful information, and so, to the average reader, it seems useful to say when TEAL ceased to “exist” in the way that most people would understand. I think if we were ultimately concerned with “cease” semantics in this way then this conversation would equally apply to the Fleet size parameter and the Destinations parameter, both of which could easily be applied to Air NZ, under that logic that this company still exists.

Readers with the bare minimum of intelligence will understand what it means that “TEAL ceased” at the exact moment it became Air NZ, per Ceased operations: 1 April 1965, renamed Air New Zealand Limited. A caterpillar has to cease in some sense for the insect to become a butterfly, after all.

Or alternately I am ultimately not opposed to the reorganisation of the three pages, TEAL, Air NZ and History of Air NZ — HTGS (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Average readers" and "most people" understand "renamed" and "change of name", and that fleets and destinations carry on with the airline company.PH AKL (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)