Talk:United Airlines fleet

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

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

This article is supported by the airline project.

Orphaned references in United Airlines fleet

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 United Airlines fleet'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 "ReferenceA":

From United Airlines: https://hub.united.com/en-us/News/Company-Operations/Pages/united-orders-boeing-737-max-9.aspx
From Delta Air Lines: "Delta to Invest in Customer Experience, Fleet Efficiency". News.delta.com. January 25, 2010. Retrieved July 7, 2011.

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 ⚡ 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

747 fleet

It's still definite the 747-400 is going to leave the fleet - it's just that the A350-900 isn't replacing it. Instead, another VLA (that isn't the A380) is.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_29_2012_p01-01-472305.xml

Therefore, removing that the A359 is "replacing" the 744 isn't vandalism, and there's a source to prove that the A359 is no longer the replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.201.81 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help!

template:help I tried to add the flight 93 crash to the 757-200 part, but i caused a serious issue that i cant fix. I'm very sorry, but can you help me?

Answers below please------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ — Preceding unsigned comment added by R32 nissan skyline (talk • contribs) 13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crashes should go on the Accidents and Incidents section, never in the fleet table. SurferSquall (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

777-200 or 777-200er

@Lkas123: Hello, according to united website they only have the 777-200 not the 777-200er. https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/travel/inflight/united-airlines-fleet.html Realbruno (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United does have the 777-200ER. The website just groups them together. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/United%20Airlines-active-b777-0-typeasc.htm 172.113.30.201 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Aerospace ES-19

I don't think the soft order for Heart Aerospace ES-19 aircraft should be listed in United's Fleet section. If delivered, these aircraft would not be operated by United but rather a regional subsidiary (Mesa, etc). Typically such regional aircraft are listed on the fleet tables for those companies and not the mainline. It might be better suited as a text entry but not in the fleet table.

I agree. United already owns other types of regional aircraft and signs contracts with other carriers to operate. The E175s come to mind. The Heart order is a very similar arrangement. There's no reason why non-mainline aircraft should be listed on this page. 2601:644:400:81:FDB3:98F0:1D82:8AE7 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery

There is no reason not to have a gallery of images on this page. Stop removing it. I’m sure most people would like to see the planes. SurferSquall (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that's more of a violation of WP:NOTGALLERY (i don't make the rules), but if you still think that it should be included, i'm happy to negotiate with something that you and I will accept. RedLambda (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These galleries have existed on these pages for years; why remove them now? Clearly nobody else has had an issue with them. Wikipedia themselves acknowledge their rules aren’t perfect and don’t always need to be followed to the letter. SurferSquall (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be images of the planes. Might make more sense to put the images in the table of plane types though. It's what you see on train fleet related wikipedia articles. Piemadd (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should be in the tables. I’m not aware of how to do this, please make that change if you know how. SurferSquall (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and put the images you've added in the table when I have some time. Piemadd (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thank you. that is the best way to have the images presented. SurferSquall (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't though? If you actually read WP:NOTGALLERY you'd realize its talking about entire articles just being galleries. It doesn't bar having a gallery section on a page. Stop power tripping over rules you didn't even read. Piemadd (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Nobody minds that there are galleries. It is also a useful visual aid for readers who don’t know what the planes look like. SurferSquall (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in here to say before anyone goes and adds gallery images, I would post a talk discussion about this over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines. You’ll get a lot more traction and a lot more editors that normally edit these pages to pop in and offer their opinion. Again, WP:NOTGALLERY should be taken into account and not just ignored and you should try to reach a consensus first, hence why I think opening a discussion about this over at the Wiki Project is probably the best idea. (See WP:CON). I also would not put the images into the tables themselves if the consensus is reached that the galleries are ok. Would mess with a bunch of the uniformity between articles. Separate gallery section should be suffice (again, given that it’s agreed upon to include the galleries in the first place). VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it would be nice to have a consensus, the way the article is now isn’t a violation of NOTGALLERY. That rule bars entire articles being galleries, or most of articles. SurferSquall (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s why I recommended making a talk page over at the WikiProject. I may end up just making one to see what most editors think. Stops any back and forth editing and reverting which I think most of us would like.

Update, I have opened a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, feel free to add your thoughts and we’ll see what others think. VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit this website because I found some issues in it and I want to add information including the United Airlines flight 35 where the wheel fell off after takeoff in San Francisco where diverted to Los Angeles RyanFordham (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I currently can't because it won't let me RyanFordham (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update the Boeing 787 Dreamliner 125.160.112.170 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ORD is not United's biggest hub by any measure. This sentence must be updated. 144.160.112.214 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I can't find any mention of O'Hare International Airport in this article. You're probably on the wrong talk page. Liu1126 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Options

@VenFlyer98 Can you please explain why you think it’s important to list options? No US airline lists options. Options are nothing more than a promise by a manufacturer to extended fixed prices. Airlines don’t have to purchase and they can always renegotiate. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: It's just sourced information in the notes column. If they are renegotiated, then the information can be edited. Nothing at WP:ALFC states options shouldn't be included. If there ever was a consensus discussion where it was decided to not include options, then by all means please provide the link where this was discussed. It's sourced information in the notes column, it shouldn't be an issue. You seem to be one of the few editors that remove options information, usually stating "we don't include options for US carriers" but again, where is the consensus for this? Thanks. VenFlyer98 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address my main question... why is it important to list options?

WP:ALFC doesn't state that options should be included. It states that "Other material should be limited to seating, aircraft on order and route information." So it says nothing about options at all.

The consensus for not including the information is on the pages. Look at the Wikipedia pages for all of the US mainline carriers, none list options. You're correct that the information is properly sourced, it's just unencyclopedic at this point. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning, that in the past, including an Options column has been discussed (including here and here) but ultimately wasn't included. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: I think it’s important to put it in the notes column because it’s a part of an order. That’s all. Other mainline carriers don’t list it because someone will eventually remove them (such as yourself) while never providing a good reason outside of something like “we don’t include options.” Ok, but why? Just because something is done at 1 page doesn’t mean the same goes for other pages. Additionally, the 2 conversations you linked are 1. Both over 10 years old and 2. Ended with no consensus and just died out. You can’t say it “ultimately wasn’t included” and link those when they clearly had no effect on the decisions to remove options information. VenFlyer98 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have the WikiProject Aviation for concerns like this: issues that effect all aviation related pages. If you feel strongly that options should be listed, may I suggest you start a discussion there or even a more formal request for comment.

As to the "why": because options aren't orders. Neither party has any financial skin in the game, simply a promise of future pricing. It's no more newsworthy than getting a quoted price. It's not "part of an order" -- it's part of a press release. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney: Of course, I am always open to conversations at the main project. The other thing I don't get is when you remove option information, you've only been doing it from US carrier's pages. Why should they be an exception? It should be an all or nothing scenario. I understand your "why," but that's why it's in the notes column. It's a note that the airline has potential options for the order. If options were being added up in the main order column, I'd get your point (that would also probably violate WP:CRYSTAL but I don't see the issue putting it as a note if there's a source with it. VenFlyer98 (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]