Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Hub/Focus City listing

There has been many edit wars on various airline pages for how should hub/focus cities be listed. By looking at many airline articles, many have their hubs listed by size (from biggest to smallest). But American Airlines have their hubs listed in alphabetical order. Okay, once again, how should we list them? by size or in alpha order? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alpha. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Alpha - should we change the example at Template:Infobox Airline which is not Alpha !! MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Though size makes more sense to me, I feel like it would be hard to judge unless we just go by number of destinations, which even so would be more laborious to investigate. NcSchu(Talk) 16:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I also prefer the option of going in alphabetical order. I can think of several different definitions of "size" (avg. number of daily flights, avg. number of passengers handled daily, number of destinations) and these can change and might be difficult to source. Alphabetical is clear and unambiguous, and without the numbers, the ordering by size could appear arbitrary to the average reader. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Former and proposed airlines serving YVR

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Former and proposed airlines serving YVR. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I just ran into this in Air Niagara. Seems that rather then have the word airline actually link to the article on airlines, it was linked to List of airlines. I think this is a clear violation of the MOS and I suspect that this problem exists in other articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Airline codes cleanup

The way this page and all other code pages is, to me, confusing and hard to edit for the general user. I'd like to propose a new way to do it. Instead of Airline codes-All being made up of three template, Template:Airline codes/All being made up of many sub templates, and Airline codes-A being made up of 3 transcluded template (the main one {{Airline codes/A}} being the one that needs to be edited most, but is the most incomprehensible one to look at) the information on table should be on the page. The information will transclude to the main list (Airline codes-All) in exactly the same way, but we can also remove the need for Template:Airline codes/All and all other letter templates. Specifically, this is what I mean: 

{{Airline codes/Page top}}
{{Airline codes/All}}
{{Airline codes/Page bottom}}

to: 

{{Airline codes/Page top}}
{{Airline codes-0-9}}
{{Airline codes-A}}
{{Airline codes-B}}
...
{{Airline codes/Page bottom}}
{{Airline codes/Page top}}
{{Airline codes/A}}
{{Airline codes/Page bottom}}

to: 

<noinclude>{{Airline codes/Page top}}</noinclude>
|-
|AN
|AAA
|[[Ansett Australia]]
|ANSETT
|Australia
|defunct
|-
....
|-
|6R
|DRU
|[[Alrosa Mirny Air Enterprise]]
|MIRNY
|Russia
|
<noinclude>{{Airline codes/Page bottom}}
</noinclude>

Yes, the pages get a little longer (well, a lot longer) but all the templates {{Airline codes/0-9}} thru {{Airline codes/Z}} can be eliminated and deleted. The data will then be easier to see and edit. This may sound confusing, but it's currently being done at List of airports in the United States. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

List of airlines

...is a horribly messy and uneven page. I'd like to reorganize it, and bring uniform organization of all airline lists. I've created a templete {{List of airlines}} for this task. My idea is to replace the content of List of airlines with this template, and move all the content to other pages, essentially making it a disambig-type page, much in the same way List of airports in Canada is organized. I'll put the template here as well so you can have a look at it. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with the idea but have some points on the template. Like to see a straight alphabetic list and I cant see the value in list of countries by area or population as they do not appear to have any relevance to airlines. Not sure about ordered by ISO code when it doesnt give the code and it is very difficult to find some countries. So suggest the By country is just a straight alphabetic list to keep it simple. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I do have a big problem with List of airline call signs. This appears to be grossly incomplete. It also duplicates Airline codes. Why have this information in two articles? It is hard enough keeping it up to date in a single place. Also List of airlines is a recast of Airline codes and you can sort that by country however it is not restricted to currently operating airlines. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The call sign list was only ever a sample listing as all of the callsigns were in the ICAO Code list. We did create problems when the ICAO and IATA lists were put into one sortable list, pretty but sometimes difficult to find stuff and not easy to maintain. I think we try and over complicate things and put all the data in fewer places when simple lists would probably be better. But still agree the list of airlines needs to be sorted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The codes issue is a perfect example of why a reorganization is needed. I had totally forgotten that Airline codes existed, and there is no link to it on List of airlines. I'll add it to the banner, perhaps in the second line, moving List of airline call signs to the see also section. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Oops, I was thinking of something else, disregard. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've cleanup up the countries list so its just one alphabetical list (the links aren't set up yet, but you get the idea). And moved List of airline call signs to the bottom.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Break

So here's the situation as I see it.

  1. List of airlines is being redone as a disambig page, with all the country lists being moved to separate "List of airlines of" pages.
  2. The country lists are by name, then sortable to IATA, ICAO, and callsign.
  3. Airline codes lists all current and defunct airlines by name, then sortable to IATA, ICAO, callsign, and country.
  4. List of airline call signs is redundant to both to Airline codes and List of airlines.

So what's next?

  1. List of airline call signs should be redirected to Airline codes.
  2. The country lists that I create are being done with a standard template {{Airlines list boilerplate}}, which has some code written into it to allow for specific transcluding, which I am currently using to make a "List of airline-All" page at User:Trevor MacInnis/sandbox/List of airlines. If this format is adopted on all country lists, it would be a duplicate of Airline codes-All, minus the defunct airlines. Is this helpful or redundant?

- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re what's next #2. The lists are not duplicates as you sort them since the country lists would not have the country included after sorting as I understand it. Not sure if that is a big deal or not. At that point, would it make sense for Airlines by country-all simply link to Airline codes-All? No issues with sorting. We may want to arrange the columns in both lists to be in the same order as much as possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a few issues with the way Airline codes-All is arranged. It has IATA and ICAO first, which I would think is because the list is supposed to be arranged to sort through those alphabetically. But the default sort is by airline name, and only a very small fraction of airlines have an IATA code. Also, Airline codes is correct (but could use a rewrite to be more about the codes and lest about the list), but I would think the actual list pages ([[Airline codes-All thru Airline codes-Z) should be more properly titled "List of airlines by airline codes-". - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Article creation assistance

There's a new template Template:WPAVIATION creator that can be used to assist in creating new articles. It will start things off by creating a page with all the standard information/headers/infoboxes, etc. You just have to fill in the blanks and save. It's still in the early design stages, so check it out and let me know how it can be improved. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As of

There is a new template for as of dates {{as of}}. Using it may require some rewording. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Galleries?

Has there been a discussion somwhere re: galleries. This edit to SkyEurope, which is on my watchlist, caught my attention because it doesn't seem to actually add anything to the article. The editor is an infrequent contributor, was this past precedent? Just curious if I missed something. Thanks! TravellingCari 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The closest I can think of would be this one from last year: [1]. My position hasn't changed that much, though I do like the idea of illustrating major livery variations. If a Gallery section is needed for photos, my feeling is that there are too many. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic Fleet

Edit war at Virgin Atlantic Airways concerning the addition of registrations and other non-notable data. It has been removed a number of times by different editors but the removal keeps being reverted by IP users who ignore all attempts to discuss. One IP User:217.37.220.150 has now broken the three-revert rule. I have warned him but didnt block as I was involved in some of the reverts. Comments welcome from others and any help from another admin appreciated. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 12 hours for edit warring/3RR, will leave those involved with the article to sort out what should or shouldn't be there TravellingCari 14:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Travellingcari. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Both addresses are owned by RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryanair Flight 9336

...is up for deletion. Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 9336. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviews Going Nowhere

It seems as if our Peer Reviews, and A-Class Reviews are not moving at all. I figure if all our users make it it a priority to review just one then things can go forward. A-class reviews especially, as there are many that need to be passed or failed. -Marcusmax (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sham Wings Airlines

Sham Wings Airlines has just been redirected to Cham Wings Airlines and the ICAO Code changed from SAW to CAW and the callsign from SHAMWING to CHAMWING. Anybody know whats going on pictures of the aircraft are labelled Sham Wing but I thought I would check before I reverted the change. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

New Airline?

Someone created a new article about an alleged airline, Xpressair. I looked it up but cannot find something substantial to back it up. Anybody care to investigate? Elektrik Blue (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a website for the company (Aerosite had a link to www.xpressair.com but that looks like a generic parking page) but there did seem to be quite a few references it it on Google. But probably most confirming of its existence are several photos on Jetphotos. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I got the impression that it might be a defunct airline. The pictures are all from 2003/04 except for the top two whicha re 2007 and have Expressair. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Listed in the latest Flight International airliner census (August 2008) as operating two 737-200s. Although the names on the aircraft images appear to have gone from Xpressair to Flyexpress and the latest images have the aircraft painted as Expressair. Looks like they are really Travel Express Aviation Services PT, ICAO code XAR, IATA code XN, callsign TRAVELEXPRESS, Air Operators Certificate 121-038. They also appear on the latest list of carriers banned in the EU. MilborneOne (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Are on board amenity charges encyclopedic?

Are entries in airline articles that include the cost of a drink, or a meal encyclopedic? I can see how, when an airline starts or stops charging being encyclopedic, but any additional details seems like overkill. How much detail is reasonable and what section should it be in? I think just a simple sourced change notice in the history section is ample. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We don't include restaurant menus and prices on restaurant articles; why should airline articles be any different? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree not needed as not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree. If they charge 50 USD for a cup of water, then it's worth writing--I mean if it's something exceptional. How many channels of movie selection is not encyclopedic, but if it's live TV or internet on board (things that aren't too common yet in the industry), then it's worth listing. Just don't list the price in 55 different currencies. HkCaGu (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside quality ratings

How should these be handled in articles? In some articles, it seems like editors like to add these to airline articles when they are not positive. I'm not sure that these are really encyclopedic unless the airline holds the position for an extended period of time. Also, there are many ratings around and, since they measure different things, all of the ratings are going to be different. In a sense, adding any one of these without listing them all for a one time event could be a violation of WP:NPOV. Even the FAA on time performance ratings have issues for airports (they get dinged for a late departure even if the cause was the late departure of the aircraft from another airport) as I recall. Surveys just measure opinions, and are the opinion summaries encyclopedic? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The page content guideline has Do not include un-encyclopedic opinion web sites which I always assumed that covered not adding quality rating websites mainly due as you have said to NPOV. MilborneOne (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
That covers the web site. What about specific content from a web site or rating organization? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that they fail NPOV, not seen any examples like 165,000 passengers flown today and nobody complained more like one out of hundreds of thousands of punters had a bad day! MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD for rename of multiple categories

Anyone with an interest many want to glance at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008_September 3#Category:Airliner crashes caused by lightning strike. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Skyworld

New Italian airline article Skyworld with destination seeded in a number of articles, suggests airline will start services with five 767s on the 9 September to Gatwick, Ghana, Greece, Bangladesh, India. Terms and Conditions on website are made up, false ATOL number, claims that contracts are covered by Scottish laws. Website is registered to Afrijet Airlines. One (1) google hit indicates that Skyworld should begin to operate a Boeing 767 initially to destinations in India and Bangladesh. Either a lot of wishfull thinking or a hoax! comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it fails WP:V, since the only link I can find related to this airline (as opposed to defunct US-based Skyworld Airlines operated 707s in the 1980s) is the company website. I'm dubious. I'd expect at least an airliners.net thread on a new airline. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just checked the interwiki link to the Italian Wikipedia in the article. It was deleted yesterday, and while I don't read Italian, I didn't see any indication in the deletion log as to the reason. I'm tempted to put this up for AfD on the basis of it failing WP:V, as not only does it lack any third party reliable sources, I couldn't find any. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the website contact info is full of free email addresses (ie. yahoo!), the website barely even works and the aircraft is definitely just a white 767 that was fiddled with in photoshop. I can't find any info on it so I very much doubt it exists. NcSchu(Talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyworld. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

SkyWest article naming

There are two unrelated airlines with similar names: Skywest Airlines in Australia and SkyWest Airlines in the United States. Currently, Skywest Airlines is the Australian airline and SkyWest is the US airline; SkyWest Airlines is a redirect to SkyWest and SkyWest, Inc. is a separate article on the US airline's parent company. It seems to me like the article named SkyWest defies our convention of including "Airlines", "Airways", "Air Lines", etc. in the article title, and ought to be switched around so that the article is at SkyWest Airlines with the redirect at SkyWest pointing to the existing disambiguation page Skywest (or, alternatively, remove the disambiguation page and point Skywest to Skywest Airlines and SkyWest to SkyWest Airlines, matching the capitalization). The differing case (Skywest versus SkyWest) seems to be enough to keep the two articles separate along with the current disambiguation notices at the top of both articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the headache. Given that, I'd vote for a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes I lose clarity as I keep thinking as I type. Let me try again with the solution that seems best as I've been thinking about this:
-- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Delta Air Lines

I am getting pretty concerned with the Delta Air Lines article. There has been a little content on whether or not Delta operates any focus cities. For instance, DL used to have focus cities in LGA, BOS, LAX, and MCO but those were removed from the airline's infobox. Users keep saying that Delta no longer calls them "focus cities" and they have removed them from their website. I went to Delta's website [2] and also the Delta-NWA merger [3] and Delta still calls those focus cities. But user keep saying that those are outdated but the data are from 2008. What are your comments? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that we use this definition of Focus city not always the same as each airlines definition. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Airline

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Airlines of Greenland

Category:Airlines of Greenland is proposed for deletion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wataniya Airways

Removed a lot of marketing hype and non-notable information from Wataniya Airways this has been reverted, I have removed again but could do with other opinions. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly IP user has now declared he is involved with the airline! MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America

There's an edit war occurring on Virgin America primarily between myself and an anon user regarding LAX's status as a focus city. The LAX mention is cited twice as being an airport of interest for Virgin America to rival the size of SFO and as explicitly being a focus city, yet the IP user first tried to keep removing the mention and now he's been adding practically every template that exists to the page even though none of them are relevant. My opinion on this issue is that it's sourced, twice, and as the IP user has supplied no legitimate reason and provided no more-reliable source(s) to discount the information that he's in no place to challenge it on what appears to be his opinion alone. I very much doubt this is going to get anywhere and some third party assistance would be helpful. The anon user brought the issue on to the LAX page as well, which has been protected from editing. NcSchu(Talk) 16:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a consensus by several users over whether or not based on the arguments in the last topic about the sources, Los Angeles International Airport should be included as a secondary hub or a focus city in the Virgin America article. This has been a longstanding debate and since we can not resolve it we need objective third parties to help and get involved. Thanks and look forward to hearing from you. Do not remove the dispute tags until the situaton has recieved such consensus. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The above section post verifies the dispute by the other party. The rationale for the tags is on the talk page.96.5.66.240 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Anybody out there?? Nobody's exactly dived in and started helping so far. Merging the comments doesn't do us any good. It's a response to them that we need. Thanks! 96.5.66.240 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless we get an email reponse from the airline posted we are voting. Majority rules. Lets have as many as possible, five or ten at least. I've voted and given my rationale already. 45Factoid44 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AHM Air

New article AHM Air appears to be a badly written hoax can somebody have a look and see what they think. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AHM Air. Definitely badly written, and it seems to be connected to a magazine which itself didn't survive AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic Hurricane Magazine (Canadian Magazine). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, just needed a second opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

Has there been any discussion here about establishing notability guidelines, or is the text on the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation) ("Commercial airlines offering services to the public are notable. Cargo and charter only airlines are generally not notable. For these less significant items to be notable, it must have been discussed in considerable detail as to its impact on a region.") the currently accepted view here. I ask because I recently undeleted three articles that were speedy deleted; cargo airline Jordan International Air Cargo, charter airline Privilege Jet Airlines, and charter airline Meelad Air. It was pointed out to me that under the current guideline these, and by extension many others, are not notable and can be speedy deleted. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a distinction between commercial airlines offering services to the public and charter/cargo airlines that also offer services to the public. By "commercial airline" I assume the guideline means passenger airlines, since charter and cargo airlines can also be considered commercial airlines. I would state that all three are generally notable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Does they type of certification enter into the decision process? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. How does a "proposed guideline" have the same status as a "current guideline"? Wikipedia:Notability (Transportation) is nowhere near ready for prime time. It's not even ready for serious evaluation yet.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America-Help Needed!

Hello. I am posting in regards to a now long standing dispute over fully protected Virgin America. We have attempted consensus through discussion and polling but have not been able to agree still in discussion or come to a majority in the polling process. As a result of this protection was extended another week and we sought informal mediation 1 week ago but have not recieved a mediator. Therefore, I am again appealing to you for suggestions and or enough objective votes to guide us toward a consensus as we are on the verge of likely having to have protection extended again and still not reaching a solution to the dispute and everyone involved would really like to not have to have that happen if at all possible. Thank you for your time and we hope you will get involved and help us solve this in a friendly and expedited manner. 45Factoid44 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. All of those content tags will scare away most editors. This will take someone with time on their hands. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
To lessen the confusion the three tags say what the dispute is, the problem with a source used by one side of the dispute, and that we need a consensus on whether or not to retain the information in question on the page. I assure any and all editors that get involved that they can easily acquaint themselves with the situaion via the Virgin America talk page in no more than 10-15 min. by reading the two pertinent discussions. Also, feel free to ask me any questions or post them on the talk page if you have them and one of us will be happy to answer them for you. Again, any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 45Factoid44 (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case

MedCab has a backlog of cases. Anyone can volunteer as an informal mediator. I was wondering if an active member of WikiProject Airlines could adopt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-05 Virgin America. Thank you for any assistance! Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles up for deletion

Airline liveries and logos is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline liveries and logos, and Pegasus Airlines destinations is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Airlines destinations. Comments are welcome, and if you're in the mood check out the discussions above on notability, a guideline still needs to be agreed on. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Krikorian Airways to the list of current deletions. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over Air India

There's a slow-moving edit war concerning this article. Some of the issues have been brought to my talk page by the disputing parties (see here) but I'd like input from this project, since I'm not up-to-speed on the various conventions used on other airline articles. I've temporarily protected the article as an alternative to blocking one/both of them, since I'd rather have them talking and able to contribute to the discussion.

Central to the dispute appears to be the treatment of subsidiary airlines within the article on the parent company - should, for example, destinations serviced by subsidiaries be counted within destinations serviced by this airline? I think the important thing here is for this article to remain consistent with what's done elsewhere. Rather than offering views here, could those interested in weighing in please take a look at the article and its tortured edit history and make comments on its talk page. Many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We usually try to keep subsidiaries separate from the main airline page, especially when separate articles exist. This includes destinations, aircraft, etc. NcSchu(Talk) 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New Sites

I think the "Can We Use" section should be updated and be added with more links to help people site sites that someone didn't include in a artocle. I've noticed that on lots of airlines not many have been cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irunongames (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MOS

hi, i have learn that the Airport project have own Manual of Style. However, is that any warning for the user who failed to follow it? I have a headache over this problem, mainly this article, which user like to add flag while the MOS ask not to do so. Please guide me through this. Thanks! --Aleenf1 09:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

All of WP:MOS and its sub-pages are WP:Guidelines, not WP:Policies. They are intended as guidance, not rules. That said, the issue of using flagicons has been pretty thoroughly hashed out. They get out of hand easily and grossly increase page load times. You may find they get deleted if you add them, but it won't get you in trouble unless you get heated about it.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Another AfD

Ya'll might want to have a look at this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Privilege Jet Airlines. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Delta or AA the world's largest carrier?

The merger between Delta and NWA was completed on October 29, 2008. Is Delta now the world's largest carrier or is AA still the world's largest airline? Cashier freak (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The combined Delta/Northwest fleet has about 130+ more planes than AA. In terms of passenger traffic, they are now the largest in the world. Planenut (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of Delta-NWA merger, how are we going to go about formatting this? I've seen a few anons making NWA a subsidiary of Delta (ie. Delta Airlines operated by Northwest Airlines). NcSchu(Talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
We should do it the same way we did US Airways-America West. I don't have a problem with moving Northwest listings under Delta, but at the same time I wouldn't make a big effort to go through and do them all just yet. If we do, I would say they should just say Northwest Airlines, not Delta Air Lines operated by Northwest Airlines. The latter shouldn't be done until the airline is selling/marketing all of its flights as DL (as US/HP eventually started doing). Also be careful to make sure to keep terminal issues straight--i.e. at LAX, NW flights are still operating from Terminal 2, while DL flights are at Terminal 5, so don't list NW under Terminal 5. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone needs to change that Delta is now the world's largest carrier and AA is not anymore. Cashier freak (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
And someone added AMS as a DL hubb and removed LGA and SLC as hubs. Also, destinations flown by NWA were put on the Delta destinations page as well. And AA is still listed as the world's largest airline. Cashier freak (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There was the almost constant reverting needed with the HP/US change. I suspect that we will see the same here. Best to explain on the talk page and then revert away. Do remember about the 3RR rule. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Delta and Northwest will contuine to be operate as two seperate airlines for at least a few months. After that we will begin to see the Northwest brand begin to change to Delta. I say don't make any major changes until the Northwest flights are sold as Delta flight and that might not take place until this time next year. Spikydan1 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We should not put Northwest info into Delta's article until Delta starts intergrating operations. It may take a year or two to do that. They are still 2 seperate, independent carriers. Cashier freak (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

China Airlines

An IP user made massive additions over the past day or so. It's very commercial in nature now. I don't think I have the time to go through the entire article in one go. Can anyone assist? Planenut(Talk) 12:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations

I have removed a list of terminated destinations from Pakistan International Airlines destinations as I understand they are not notable and very difficult to reference (some of the older airlines could possibley have very long lists). They are not used on Airport articles for the same reason. Just checking what the project concensus is, any thoughts from other users? MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Like WikiProject Airports, I only find such lists relevant to mention if they are fairly complete and well-referenced. NcSchu(Talk) 21:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD Ryanair Flight 296

I have nominated this article for deletion. Maybe some of you might be interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 296 (2nd nomination)

Thanks--T*85 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Air Canada hub listing

The hub listing in the Air Canada infobox have been listed by size instead of alpha oder. I thought that hubs should be listed in ABC order and not by size and that it has been discussed before. Cashier freak (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It has, and it should (be in alpha order). NcSchu(Talk) 21:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1970 Fleetlist

I have recently added some fleet lists to some airline articles, a snapshot showing types and numbers operated and aircraft on order. It provides interesting information as most airlines had wide-bodies (and SSTs) on order but were still operating first-generation jets or piston fleets. I thought it gives an interesting snapshot into the history of those airlines and their development, I still have a few more to add when I have time. An IP user has tried to remove the lists from both American Airlines and Continental Airlines as being not relevant or pointless, just asking for your support in trying to make the articles more historical and not current travel guides. It may in time be worth trying to do another snapshot say twenty years later in 1990, any thoughts. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Same IP user has now tried to remove it from Alaska Airlines !! MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now got a user from this project removing the list from Continental Airlines, would appreciate comment. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the lists, it provides some historical information that we sometimes lose keeping the articles fully up to date. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand the basic concept but don't understand why this year is relevant. It's just another unnecessary table in an article and contributes to more cluttering in my opinion. NcSchu(Talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of where I stand. If that specific year is important, then an article that covers that time period would seem to make more sense. That would put the period in perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I picked that particular year just as a random snapshot in time, only a small number of 747s had been delivered and many airlines were still operating first generation airliners. Also many were planning and had on order SSTs and wide bodies. I could have been any year but as you move into the 1970s you start to loose the first generation aircraft. This is an encyclopedia and we appear to ignore in some articles any history before last week when it comes to fleets and developments. No reason why in the future it couldnt been developed into a narrative but it would need more research. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a better approach than sticking snapshot tables into a bunch of articles would be to take things one airline at a time and develop a narrative description for each. Another approach would be to develop a table that gives an overview of a carrier's previous fleet, perhaps like the one at Hawaiian Airlines#Retired. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the retired list at Hawaiian but if an airline has a long history it doesnt give the same sort of information as a snapshot. But saying that I agree with your point that we should develop a narrative for each airline, probably a lot better in the long term. Although I still think there is nothing wrong with the snapshot in the short-term. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

GMC

Did General Motors ever have an ICAO code of GMC? This is listed in the airline codes and I wonder it our data is correct. It does not appear to be in the current databases. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Destinations AfD

Another AfD related to airline destinations articles at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Air_India_Express_destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The AFD was closed as "delete" in spite of my arguments for keeping the list, and in spite of 50% of the opinions being for keeping the list. I think it is obvious I disagree with just about every word in the rationale (which looks like a rationale for why the closer wanted the article deleted, not a rationale for why there was a consensus for deleting the list.) I am considering bringing this to DRV, but I am interested if there is any support for that here. At present, Air India Express is a silly article on an airline which doesn't even tell the reader where it flies, and that is an untenable position. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't really understand the closer's reasoning. There was definitely no consensus on that Afd to delete the article (nor keep). Without being too paranoid, I would suggest the closer having at least a small bias given the reasoning he/she gave. Despite claiming to explain why WP:NOT was used, instead the explanation goes on to compare airlines with television shows. This was a poorly handled case. NcSchu(Talk) 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, I have "cheated" and added a (partial) destination list based on an independent source, to the main article. I would think that an independent source with a list of destinations proves the list's notability. Is this evasion of the current AFD result? Well, the airline article didn't say where they flew, and that was useless. If I had found a list of destinations and used it to draw conclusions as to what parts of the World are important for this airline, I would be committing an act of original research. Adding a list of some destinations can be construed as evading the AFD result. So if I am to follow the rules, I am prevented from improving the article by saying where the airline flies! Hence WP:IAR, a page I have had several clashes with in the past, is my justification. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fully support taking it to DRV. Only logical thing otherwise is to delete the other 278 lists of airline destinations. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Better would be to interwiki them somewhere. They aren't encyclopedic, but they are useful.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The argument that they are unencyclopedic has never been proven and that argument is probably the most commonly used one in a case where no other argument will stand simply because you can apply it to almost anything. If the argument is that they are lists of information, that is still not a reason for them to be deleted. They just need to be expanded upon. We don't delete stubs because they don't contain enough information, we ask viewers to expand them. I myself will try to visit some destination articles and add opening paragraphs and bulk to make them more than just lists, and this is something other editors should try to do too. NcSchu(Talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support a DRV, not sure I understand the argument against having destination lists. Maybe we should delete all the aviation articles also, because obviously you can just go to the airlines website, click on the "about" section, and find out about the history of the airline. --T*85 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Air India Express, is not a silly little page, it looks like it must have been improved substantially from when it was called that. I like the page, and full support this page being further refined with what ever destinations need to be added. Heck many of us in the U.S. did not even know Air India was such an expansive goverment holding with so many airlines under its "wing!" (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.144.206 (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ted

Is UA's subsidiary, Ted, really ending all of its services on January 5th or is the airline still gonna still fly to Cancun and San Juan? Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ted as a brand/product is going away, but United is not discontinuing any Ted routes. Ted-configured aircraft will also be around for a few more months until they can be refit.-choster (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

TED is an airline within an airline and still flys under the UA code with UA crews that are interchangeable and a fleet that actually interchanges with the rest of the UA fleet. TED does not need to be called an airline but a brand.

(Holding Company Guy!)166.129.144.206 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Lufthansa Italia have a "recentism" tag?

User:Invitamia placed a recentism tag on Lufthansa Italia - I don't see why there needs to be one as, while it is assured that the airline will start, there isn't really much of a historical perspective that could be added AFAIK. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it does need to be noted regardless, Lufthansa Italia will be flying as IATA LH, and does not seem to have its own IATA code. (Holding Company Guy!)

Regards 166.129.144.206 (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Qantas-British Airways merger

Recently, Qantas and BA are now in merger talks and will create the world's largest airline. Isn't Delta already the world's largest airline after the merger with NWA? I don't how should it goes. If these two airlines merge, it may become the world's largest airline. I don't know. Any comments?? Cashier freak (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you want comments on. NcSchu(Talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I meant is the combined carrier (if they decided to merge) going to overtake Delta as being the world's largest airline since Delta is after its merger with NWA. Cashier freak (talk)
Let's see how the mergers go before we start speculating -- both are still only in the initial stages. Jpatokal (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Were you referring to the QF-BA merger or the DL-NWA merger? The Delta-NWA merger is now a done deal. Cashier freak (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget, Delta owns Compass, Comair, Mesaba, see here : Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world (Holding Company Guy!)166.129.144.206 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability of WestJet incidents

I just reverted the recent addition on WestJet of an "incident" where several aircraft diverted due to fog, which seems to be a very non notable event (sure, it might get some immediate press attention, though no sources were provided, and it seems like a relatively routine event). I noticed that many of the other entries in the Incidents and accidents section appear to be of the type "some issue occurred so the plane turned back or diverted and landed without incident" type and thus non-notable, but I'd appreciate it if someone else would take a look too. My first impression is that only the LAX close call and the YYC runway overrun are notable enough for inclusion. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Cleaned up many of the ones left along with a lot of MoS issues. Incidents need to result in death, significant injuries or significant airframe damage. Incidents are not routine mishaps. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. If the event results in death, significant injuries, or damage causing compromise to the airworthiness of the aircraft then it's not called an incident, it's called an accident. But I bet you know that. Subtler points: There's an exception for contained engine failures (where it stops working or where pieces fall out through the aft end). US definition varies slightly from the international definition. Now then, since when does MOS speak to notability requirements for individual paragraphs in an article? LeadSongDog (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Its a common aviation project guideline on the encyclopedia. The citation for airlines is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
If the event results in death, significant injuries, or damage causing compromise to the airworthiness of the aircraft then it's not called an incident, it's called an accident. Lead dog is right about this. (Holding Company Guy!)166.129.247.216 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)166.129.247.216 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)166.129.247.216 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Flags again

The airline code templates were the target of an anon user adding flags to the table for Brazil. I reverted, but just letting everyone know to be on the lookout. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Vegaswikian, I have included Flags in list of aircraft in the past. Sometimes when national prestige are involved like the first SST's flags help to denote that point. I get the impression flags are not popular usage and should be used sparingly. Be patient with people for many people are not familiar with the complexities of you guys editing process of debate and insight retrieval upon certain topics. Speaking of insight, if someone could include a picture of the American Airlines consolidate Vultee upon its page, it would sure be insightful to some when they realize American Airlines once flew a single engine airplane much like many Alaskan and other air transport companies do now with the Caravan and Pilatus products. I would do myself, but I am not familiar with the uploading of a picture process. (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.247.216 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Destinations in table form

Since when did we use tables for airline destinations? pikdig (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

How about linking to an example or two? I vaguely remember stumbling across a few airline articles that have tables but can't recall which they were. The Airports project has come up with a table format for the destinations on airport articles, so I wouldn't be opposed to coming up with something for airlines as well. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon Cape Air which has its destination in table form. pikdig (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't really like that one for a few reasons. First, it's default collapsed and I don't think it should be collapsible (Airport destination tables aren't). I hate the bright green background color. It's not sortable, though I'm not sure you'd be able to make it sortable in a meaningful way without a lot of redundant information (listing the state and/or country with every line for example). And it has inconsistent use of flags. Consensus on the aviation projects has been no flags. The notes ought not to be italics. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


There's also one on Tiger Airways destinations it has the same format with Jetstar Asia Airways destinations. It seems ok to me, although the commence and terminated sections be omitted. And the remarks be changed into notes. pikdig (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I like that Cape Air Destinations infobox thingy... Looks good. (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.144.206 (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OpenSkies

An editor recently changed the articles on OpenSkies and L'Avion to merge the two fleets and change the tense on L'Avion to past tense, adding that the fleets and airlines have apparently now been combined. I'm wondering where we stand on this, because I can't find info to support the complete integration. In a recent interview in USA Today, CEO Dale Moss says this: "We fly to Paris with three flights a day — two from Newark and one from Kennedy. We may go to two from Kennedy and one from Newark. That hasn't been finalized. Our focus in the next 90 to 120 days is to integrate the two companies." So he kind of says right there that they aren't combined completely yet. He's also talking as if the EWR flight is now an OpenSkies flight, but yet to my best knowledge you still have to book that flight through L'Avion. Does anyone know if L'Avion flights are operating as OpenSkies flights? If so, should we then change L'Avion flights to "Openskies operated by L'Avion" or just "OpenSkies"? What about the recent edits? NcSchu(Talk) 16:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bit of original research from a website:

  • F-HAVI recently seen 2009-01-19 as flight A00003 from ORY/LFPO (Paris) to EWR/KEWR (Newark).
  • F-HAVN recently seen 2009-01-19 as flight 001.
  • G-BPEJ recently seen 2009-01-19 as flight EC0021.
  • G-BPEK recently seen 2009-01-19 as flight EC0002 from JFK/KJFK (New York) to ORY/LFPO (Paris).

which appears to indicate the two avion aircraft are operating as Avion flights (A0) and the two open skies as Open Skies flight (EC). MilborneOne (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like any other merger in progress. Keep them separate until the fleet is merged under a single certificate. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It probably deserves reversion if only because it doesn't seem sourced from anything; I'll go ahead and revert the changes. NcSchu(Talk) 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Air Alpes

Hey all, I have been working on Air Alpes earlier. It still could use some additonal work, for it was computer translated apparently from French, and the translation really did not come out well. I encourage others to continue work on this one so improve the article. (Holding Company Guy!)166.129.144.206 (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Air India Cargo

Is there some reason Air India Cargo merits a complete separate page. It utilizes the same callsign, ICAO desginator, and IATA code as air India??? Perhaps I am missing something on this one, not suggesting for deletion or anything.(Holding Company Guy!)166.129.247.216 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Airline article

If anyone has the time, can they get references for our article on Airline. Apparently with a lot more references, this would be upgraded to a B-class article. There is no reason why this project should not try to get what is in effect our lead article as a featured article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Scenic Airlines

I have an irate user at Scenic Airlines who doesnt appreciate me keep removing a load of non-notable accidents and has resorted to upper case edit summaries!, I am going offline soon would appreciate another pair of eyes on the list. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that irate user is me. You and others were deleting factual historical accident and incident data. Your Scenic Airlines data concerning base of operations is inaccurate. Since I doubt you or other editors have ever worked at Scenic, I am not sure how you have the ability to even question my contributions which had references. Anyway, I have added now only two additional Scenic Airlines fatal accidents which meet the Wiki guidelines on all three points.--Canyonair (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like there may be a conflict of interest here. The last edits I made were based on the information from the airlines page. If that is wrong, then we can still use it unless someone has a better source then the airline itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The reason why the accidents were removed (references or not) was because we have notability guideline which have been explained by others on your talk page. Certainly the 1997 C208 accident is OK it just needs a reference, still doubt that the 1996 207 accident of a positioning flight is notable. And has also been explained already the fact you work for the airline actually does cause problems if you edit the article as it is a conflict of interest. But we do welcome your input and the fact you have come here to discuss it, if you think the article is wrong then bring it up on the article talk page or here and it can be discussed and the article can be corrected. One of the problems when you known something is wrong that you are not a reliable source, that is not intended as an insult just that the encyclopedia requires a reliable source for all the information added and individuals are not reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am gradually figuring out how wikipedia works. The 1996 Cessna 207 accident resulted in a fatality and hull loss, but may or may not have resulted in a procedure change. Does the accident have to meet all three criteria? Also, can I reference my accident webpage to some of these accidents?--Canyonair (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Typically, only one is required. For example, neither US Airways Flight 1549 nor Continental Airlines Flight 1404 resulted in any fatalities, though both were hull losses and are notable. A web page you operate probably isn't going to be considered a reliable source; the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources should help you determine what is appropriate. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deer Jet

I have just been looking at the Deer Jet article, and it seems to me that it deals with two different entities. There is Deer Air the airline with A319s; and then there is Deer Jet, the operator of a G-IV, Hawker 800XP & a G200 [BTW I have pics of all three aircraft in my collection :-) OK I know I'm boasting]. It seems to me that there needs to be two articles, but I don't know how to go about this to preserve the edit history. YSSYguy (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3000 photos now available

For sometime there have been available some 3000 photos from a photographer in Switzerland who has a wealth of photos, especially from the 1970s-1980s of aviation in Europe and the US (and elsewhere). He has licenced them all under GFDL. I have uploaded several dozen over time, and they can be found at Commons:Category:Photos by Eduard Marmet. All available photos can be found at http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Eduard%20Marmet. Only Eduard Marmet's photos are able to be uploaded. If uploading, do so to Commons only and use this template Commons:Template:EduardMarmet. Using this template will add the necessary OTRS permissions and will also place the photos in Eduards commons category. If uploading, be sure to remove the airliners.net banner from the bottom, etc also. Bookmark those link, and make use of them, as they are available and there is a wealth of photos there for all aviation topics. Any questions, contact me on my talk page as I may not see discussion here. --Russavia Dialogue 13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

US Airways Shuttle on US airlines template

An IP editor (possibly Holding Company Guy) has added a section to {{Airlines of the United States}} for defunct airlines-within-an-airline (Ted, Song, Metrojet, etc). He added US Airways Shuttle to that section, which I removed since US Shuttle still operates. He added it back, noting that Shuttle no longer operates as an airline-within-an-airline, but only as marketing. I still feeling it is misleading to list it as the US Airways Shuttle name is still used and widely known. I'd appreciate some additional opinions at Template talk:Airlines of the United States. Thanks. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hawaiian, I left you a note back at US Airways Shuttle. US Airways Shuttle was folded back into US Airways prior to its merger with America West and the US Airways group. I referenced this with a link. I did however leave your AWE ICAO code up there because it seems to be an issue for now. I think we could possily get rid of the airline box now because it is no longer an airline within an airline and might pose some confusion to people thinking it is.

(Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.56.135 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Zest Airways fleet dispute

I am currently having a dispute with User:202.78.71.210 on Zest Airways regarding its fleet sized. He keeps on insisting that the information I add is wrong, even though I have a reliable source and he does not. We are currently engaging in a discussion in Talk:Zest Airways#A320 Order. I am inviting WP:AIRLINES members to engage in the discussion so consensus could be reached. Thanks! pikdig (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

need your input

There has been some disagreement over what is or is not a notable airline/air taxi in Alaska, due to it's somewhat unique status of having so many air carriers and a spread out population. Some have suggested that the relevant WikiProjects should set some sort of inclusion threshold. I have re-opened an old discussion here and would very much appreciate your input on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey glad I have come across this page. Air Taxi, Feederliner, and Commuter are often debated and misunderstood by the youth, and much of the world. Feederliners and Commuters can often be consdiered regional airliners. For hire charter on demand operaters in the U.S of very small under 9 seat aircraft (some of which can even be considered mini-airliners) are generally considered air taxis, especially if they are for short ranges and not under 9 seat bizjets.
In Europe however, Air Taxis have functioned as and have occasionally been labeled as feederliners, especially the Britain Norman Islander for one. Hope that helps as a start. (holding company guy) 166.129.144.206 (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering American airlines used the single engined Vultee for a time as a full fledged airliner, I think any of the new generation large single engined Pilatus PC-10 and Cessna Carvans can be consider as mini-airliners. If an air taxi has an IATA ICAO and call sign, and operates scheduled service, I would consider this an airline. If it operates scheduled service that would be an airline especially if it is feeding or benefitting from a code share arrangement such as Frontier flying Services and Alaska Airlines are. (Holding Company Guy) 166.129.144.206 (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Note

I have significantly expanded this page and it's proposals, including a review of the various positions that have been stated at AfD and elsewhere. See Talk:List of airlines in Alaska/discussion of what constitutes an "airline" in Alaska Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you brought up the question, what constitutes an airline? This is a very good question as many times actions of Airline Holding Companies are mistaken for actions of airlines. For instance American Airlines and AMR Corporation are used almost interchangeably, when in reality, AMR operations encompass the outsourced carriers as well as American Airlines, and American Eagle Executive Airlines, American Eagle Airlines. Additionally, AMR does the strategic planning of American Airlnes at this stage, American Airlines is just there for the ride, so to speak. I am not accusing AMR of being an evil and bad entity like Frank Lorenzos Texas Air was. But it is hard to deny that AMR likes to front American Airlines as the imagined operating entity, so AMR may operate under the radar of the traveling public.

Good to see people raising questions as to what is an airline? (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.161.219 (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to ask ourselves, are AMR Corporation and UAL Corporation and the holding companies are "really part of the airline cultures or part of the business community. As the airlines are all about cutting costs these days, why should those corporate entities part take in the benefits of day to day airline operations, such as travel, compensation and benefits. Have airlines become irrelevant now as entities with the operations of such holding companies directing the strategic planning and success of an airline companies subsidiaries. Think Air Midwest, Skyway Airlines and such. The parents organizations are still in business and operating other airlines. The heart of the airlines that operated under them though are gone.32.177.37.150 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Terminated Destinations

Recently I have been removing terminated cities for airlines that served an old airport for that city but the airline transferred operations to the new airport for that city. I was wondering if transferred operations from airport to airport in the same city should be considered a terminated destination? Cashier freak (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is the city that is being served via the airport. Apart from the odd enthusiast (or airline employees - I have flown to a lot of places and never left the airport :-)), people fly in order to get to a town or city, not an airport. I think you should keep going with what you have been doing. YSSYguy (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world

Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world is being added to some airline articles by an IP user, apart from nominating for two awards, one as a really badly designed navbox, and the other as a navbox that could possibly be a category, i have deleted it from a few airline articles. Any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the same comments apply to Template:Airline holding companies of the United States. Personally I have no problem deleting both. Or at least a total overhaul to a reasonable layout. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
These templates are an awful, ugly mess. The only reason I originally created the US template was because of the IP user who was adding it as tables directly into articles. I have actually recently been thinking of brining this up here but hadn't gotten that far yet. My thinking was to either delete them, or modify them so that they list only the holding companies themselves; it's not up to the template to provide that much detail about what airlines belong to which companies or whether the company holds one or more airline companies. Plus the overly verbose wording describing each category (which seems to be a hallmark of this particular IP user). {{Hilton Family}} looks about like I'd expect these templates to look like. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll note that 166.129.92.135 is undoing removals of the templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The IP user continues to expand the navbox which is slowly turning into an article! I have removed it from all the articles it is used on although I suspect it may get added back. Should we TfD ? MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be reasonable. I suspect that this will only result in the IP going back to in line templates. However at that point it could be classed as vandalism and treated as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
166.129.35.163 is undoing the template removals. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
And not it is 166.129.225.72. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I presume it the same user from New Jersey the IP changes each time he/she logs on. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
TfD for comment - Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Airline_holding_company_organizations_of_the_world. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just came across this discussion area. Nah this Holdings Companies of the World is not Vandalism. I have been working and updating it consistently, as well as trying to streamline it to meet Wiki Standards and apparently Milbornes Standards!!!

By placing the infobox on the holding companies pages across the worlds consortiums/comglomerations/holding company organizations, I was hoping to solicit additional information to refine the articles by those who are familiar with them and have come across additonal sources as many times, investments by other airline carriers become misconstrued.

Example, Lufthansa's investement in JetBlue. This is just a minority holding rather than Lufthansa becoming a parent company of JetBlue. When we are speaking of "World," much of the worlds accurate news is not printed, conveyed and translated correctly initially, and thus affects Wiki's clarity and accurancy, and thus the holding companies transparency initially when it comes to the airlines. I am sure half of the none English speaking world still thinks as many people in the us do think Delta Connection and US Airways Express are actually airlines rather than brands!!!

Just trying to make and help Wiki stay accurate with my passion for aviation. Unfornately many are inclined to look at wiki as a joke for a source, when in reality it can be pretty reliable, especially when the tyranny of the few is not allowed to dominate researched as done by myself for the many, and for wiki. Like I say holding companies is legitate and if someone feels it is questional feel free to tweek here or there, or do your own research to verify what I have contributed thus far. Peace and no drama!!! (Holding Company Guy!) OH STRONG KEEP STILL ON THIS ARTICLE from ( 166.129.144.206 (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with discussing and describing ownership of airlines on the individual airline articles it doesnt need an over complicated navbox. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Milborneone, perhaps you can suggest a location on Wiki, where I might be able to go and find the information at once and all on once page, which company is in Actual control of what airline, without me having to go through 50 airlines indiviually to find this information.
If you can do this, I would be in support of deletion. There was just a recent question someone posed as to which airline company is bigger the New Delta inclusive of its holdings or Qantas and its holdings. By going directly to holding companys box, one can see pretty quickly if it is a relative question, if anyone has any basic knowledge of the various airlines, and all of a sudden one was to realize some airlines had some unknown airline holdings among its subsidiaries. (Holding Company Guy!)166.129.52.78 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Taking that into account, if you think it is notable and an important subject to cover, you can certainly start an article (though I think you need to be registered to do that now), e.g. List of airlines by holding company. Though others may disagree about the notability of the list and it could be brought up for deletion. I will say that in my opinion, having a list in a standalone article is a better approach than the current list disguised as a navigation box. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue is, to understand fully the demise of many airlines, and why many airlines tend to go defunct, you have to understand what organization is running them. By looking at the organization running them you can get a better idea of a companies history. Example: Look at MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities recent acquisition of Arrow Air! I can only bet people fond of World Airways and Arrow Air are quaking in their footsteps knowing that one of their favorite airlines may become the innocent vicitim of an Eastern Airlines Texas Air type of demise, as this particular holding company has already shuttered ATA Airlines, leaving many to wonder who will be next??? By having this list of holding companies, it assist with understaning the history of these remaining airlines like Eastern Airlines!!! (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.247.216 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources about the ownership of each airline then information can be added into the airline article. If the holding company is notable enough then it would also have an article and relevant reliable information can be added. I would suggest that you need to read the guidelines on Original Research and also note that this is an encyclopedia about reliable information not opinions and speculation. Also as Hawaiian717 has noted nothing wrong with you starting an article about airline holding companies although you would need to consider notability and use reliable sources. But I think we keep repeating ourselves in that the information you are discussing is not the right subject for a navigation box designed to help readers move around the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
MilborneOne writes the information you are discussing is not the right subject for a navigation box designed to help readers move around the encyclopedia., Okay, the point I am making it does help readers navigating around the encylopedia. I for one go to the Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world and read about those holding companies that are currently included within "Wiki," such as Tiger Aviation, then research others that are not included within "Wiki," but may have a blurb about the parent holding company hidden away amist an Airline Topic through my own independent research outside of Wiki.
Example Trans States Holdings parent of Trans State Airlines and GoJet. These are two contentious entities that could benefit from a Trans States Holdings page, so readers could understand this company and these companies history better, which the infobox helps to identify clearly and easily. (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.247.216 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The point of a navigation box is to help people move around among related articles. For example, Template:Hilton Family when placed on articles for the various Hilton hotel brands helps people move among those articles. If we're going to keep the airline holding company templates, I'd want to redesign them similar to the Hilton template. Having a standalone article, which could be linked from the title of the template similar to how Hilton Hotels Corporation is linked from the Hilton Family template, would help for article development (see that an article currently doesn't exist for Trans States Holdings) as well as show the relationships between airlines and holding companies, without dumping this huge sprawling template all over the place. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
If we are missing an article on a notable company, then it needs to be created. Clearly if Trans States Holdings is notable it should have an article and trying to create this article in a template is the wrong way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well personally I am not trying to create the article regarding Trans States Holdings. That I shall leave to other individuals. It does help if people are familiar though that Trans States Holdings exists, which this document we are discussing informs those who are not aware. The world is round not square. Anyway, I have spent some time revamping the format of the navigation box to address someof the concerns the wikipedians such as yourself have had in terms of length and format. I have not removed any information because I did not want to be accused of vandalism or anything!!! I did clarify some grammar and flow though. I should think many would be pleased with the new format.

I must say the section regarding North American individual holding company enitities could be better managed if placed into more geographical terms. Would appreciate some additional comment. If this addresses some of the issues. (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.247.216 (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


The template which precipitated this discussion has been deleted an a more appropriate list article has been started. I posted some thoughts about refining the current format of the article and I'd appreciate it if some others would weigh in: Talk:List of airline holding companies. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User 166.129.12.231 again

Now he is changing heading for incidents to Incidents resulting in mortalities or airframe loss. Please keep an eye out for these changes. I don't recall seeing any discussion to change this particular heading. and cle3arly it must be discussed first. Do we need to consider blocking this IP? I noticed this at National Airlines (NA) and the edit summary is not helpful. Reverting of all edits might be called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Hey this would be an accident then makes sense he changed it. Incidents and accidents are two different things. 166.129.133.221 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I corrected it from incidents but did not want to use the term accident as you have done for I did not want to be accused of sensationalization. I am glad you changed it to accident for Incident as it was is not correct.

(Holding Company Guy!)166.129.133.221 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a standard heading for a reason. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well we need to use incident when it is an incident and accident when it is an accident. Maybe that standard heading needs to be changed to Incidents and Accidents as has now been done, as being the new standard heading. (Holding Company Guy!)166.129.133.221 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We don't include incidents or accidents if they necessary have loss of life or airframe loss; we also include them if the accident/incident has resulted in a notable change in air policy or a similar effect. NcSchu(Talk) 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I use FAA langauge when referering to Aviation terminology. Death does not equal an Incident, but an accident. I think we are on the same page??? (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.133.221 (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)(Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.133.221 (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't address what I was talking about. The Incidents and Accidents section is more than just a section for situations that involve death. NcSchu(Talk) 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
See Aviation accidents and incidents for clarification. Note the requirement that the death or injuries relate to aviation operations. There are some borderline cases possible, e.g. a cabin cleaner poisoned by chemicals during a stopover between legs.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if that's addressed to me or to the other person, but as described in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Accidents notability, there are more cases that can be included under these sections than simply 'accidents' as per the FAA definition. NcSchu(Talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It was directed at both HCG and NcSchu. Please understand that Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Accidents notability isn't even a guideline, it's just an essay that still needs considerable work. In the end, we keep going back to the general notability guideline. It's difficult to conceive of a non-notable accident on a scheduled commercial flight in an era where a bad smell gets published, so we pretty much accept those automatically as deserving of articles. But we'd be hard put to find an argument for excluding any incident from a one-line mention in an existing article if we use the Chicago Convention definitions (which are essentially identical to the ICAO and the NTSB definitions). LeadSongDog (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WIkiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope creep on Template:Airlines of the United States

I've been noticing what I'd consider scope creep on {{Airlines of the United States}}. Over time additional defunct airlines have been added, and recently additional sections for defunct "regional airline brands" and "airline within an airline" brands. I'd like to get some others' thoughts and try to build consensus for a definition of the scope of this template. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the template should have any defunct airlines (including made up defunct classifications), it only has a limited number of defunct airlines anyhow which is probably against NPOV. No prejudice against a separate Template:Defunct airlines of the United States but we already have a list and a category. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Clearly this airline within an airline stuff is not needed and overly complicated. I still maintain that information about ownership belongs in the airline article. The average reader just needs to see the airlines. The purpose of the template is to not group by ownership types, who cares about this except for a small subset of readers or editors. For this level of detail, this encyclopedia is not the place to define things to this level of detail. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Air UK Leisure

An article within the scope of this WikiProject, Air UK Leisure, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air UK Leisure. Thank you. -

Has any further discussion happened on getting a notability guideline set up? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Air International December 2000

Does anyone have a copy of Air International - December 2000? I am chasing the article "Aeroflot's Offspring: Russia's Regional Airlines Part: 1 - Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Komissarov analyse the major Russian regional airlines, particularly in the aftermath of Aeroflot's deregulation, and the country's financial crisis of 1998." - and also Part 2 - which I would assume is in the January 2001 issue. If anyone has this mag, and can supply me with that particular article (scan of the article is enough) I would appreciate it, as it will be useful for an article I am working on now. --Russavia Dialogue 10:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alliance page tables

I have just reverted a change in table format at Oneworld as it was adding some information not particularly relevant to the alliance and also looked really bad on a small screen size. The user who changed it has pointed out he/she was only making it the same as the tables at Sky Team and Star Alliance. They look really bad as well! and I am not sure fleet size and passengers carried is really needed (or the need to update the fleets every other day), any comments please. MilborneOne (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey MilborneOne, I have made another version of it by removing 2 of the columns, namely Million Passenger Per Year and Fleet Size. Now it just has 5 columns and I have had a look at it under 800 x 600 resolution, it looks alright. Check it out, I have done it in my Sandbox... User:Aviator006/Sandbox.Aviator006 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that i remove by original objection. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Changes made to all oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam Member Airlines tables to remove Passenger and Fleet columns, and standardised look and feel (similar to oneworld tables) to ease viewability under lower resolution completed.Aviator006 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
One comment, I think the table overuses flag icons. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hawaiian, there were no new flag icons added as part of my update, just re-arranged the table format for display consistency. Aviator006 (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab World or Middle East

81.143.30.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made several edits to change Middle East to Arab World in various airlines. Some examples, EgyptAir, Libyan Airlines, Syrian Arab Airlines and Emirates Airline. There is also Air Arabia and Jordan Aviation which are slightly different. What do others think. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert. The Arab World is a cultural concept, not a geographical region: it's much larger than the Middle East, yet (arguably) excludes Israel. Jpatokal (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thansk. That what I thought. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Vladivostok Air

Hi there. I just updated and overhauled the Vladivostok Air page. I gave it an extensive history from the site and also have changed the number of aircrafts and destinations to the correct amount. I have some other plans to revise and add more stuff on service and stuff like that. I think that this article should be reviewed again as it is currently a stub and is more like a "C" class article now. It also needs to be rated on the importance scale. --76.22.21.99 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Spirit Flight 321 (2nd nomination)

courtesy heads up that I've put this up for AfD StarM 02:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Polo Aviation

I just noticed that Polo Aviation was proded and deleted back in January. Did anyone else notice this? I personally believe that, per Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Airlines, it should be restored. For now I'll restore it to my userspace here so you can take a look at it. Any comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be a charter operator with no scheduled service, so it doesn't look notable to me? Jpatokal (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ATA Connection

If anyone has the time, ATA Connection could use a good rewrite and cleanup. Also Trans World Connection which features the return of the flags. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

American Airlines

Did AA dehub San Juan to a focus city or do they still call it a hub? Cashier freak (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On the American Airlines page, the infobox notes that SJU has been dehubbed and it is now a focus city. Do we still amke it a hub. AA said that they are going to cut flights from SJU. Can you fix it. Thanks! Cashier freak (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fleet tables

For the fleet tables for all the airlines, should the fleet numbers be borken down into "total, orders, options, and rights" like it is on American Airlines#Fleet...Rather than the number in service and orders and options listed directy below in parenthesises. I think breking the fleet down into that many sections makes table to narrow and hard to read in some sections. Spikydan1 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Second image in infobox

Please see Template talk:Infobox Airline#Second image?. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alliance Pages - Member Affiliates vs Non-member Affliliates

In mid February, while I was standardising the Member Airlines Section of the 3 Alliances Pages, oneworld, Star Alliance and SkyTeam, I have made an additional column in the oneworld page with the heading 'Non-member affiliates', by incorporating an existing list of non-member affiliates into the alliance table. I think this information is very helpful to the readers, to clearly distinguish which subsidiaries/franchisees are members of that particular global alliance or not (ie. BA CityFlyer is an Affiliate and OpenSkies is a Non-member Affiliate).

I have added the same Non-member Affiliates column, into the Star Alliance page and added information about Singapore Airlines' non-member affiliates (ie. Silkair, Tiger Airways and Tiger Airways Australia) and tried to separate them (member affiliates and non-member affiliates) as much as possible. As I am not as similar with the other 2 alliances (ie. Star Alliance and SkyTeam), please feel free to correct or amend and place the relevant 'affiliate' in the right column! :) Aviator006 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Skysouth

I'd be grateful if someone with the relevant knowledge could please have a quick look at this article about a UK airline which has recently ceased operating. I was not sure, for example, if it was technically correct to categorize it as defunct, etc. Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really a UK airline the services were operated by Skydrift Air Charter and Skysouth was just a marketing name for the Shoreham operation. I suspect it can be proded and anything really important moved to the Skydrift article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I don't see why it would be necessary to delete it, indeed I would prefer it kept as it is of historical interest. There was, whatever the organizational ins and outs of it, effectively an airline running a scheduled service there and I find that interesting and keepable as historical fact. My enquiry was actually about keeping it but making sure it was correctly categorized, not deleting it. Thanks and best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Destinations (again)

Sorry to bring this up again but we are still having destination sections being reverted between text/tables/tables with flags etc. I dont think we acutally have a standard format agreed by consensus. No personal view on what it should be but the airport project have been looking at Template:Airport-dest-list as a standard. Although I am not sure that has been agreed either. It would just make life easier on protecting the airline pages from edit wars and reversions if we could point at an agreed guideline. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in earlier posts elsewhere, wiki airline related contect is increasingly looking immature the colours and flag and tables have to go.116.71.52.93 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Project consensus in the past has been to not use flags. I don't recall anyone raising objections to using {{Airport-dest-list}} so I think we have consensus for that as well. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Good point but the airport page guidline has still not been amended! do we just need a Template:Airline-dest-list in a similar format. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

CRK as PAL hub

An anon user keeps on adding CRK as a hub on Philippine Airlines. Although Philippine Airlines only has plans on making CRK a hub, they don't even have a single destination out of CRK! So it should not be in stated in the infobox that CRK is a hub of Philippine Airlines. I am right, aren't I? And I have also been attacked thrice by these anon users. Can you please help me out with this? pikdig (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If the airline does not have any flights out of that city. Then it is not a hub or a focus city so it does not need to be listed in the infoxbox. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for predicting future events. Cashier freak (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Airlines Based in Hawaii

An article within the scope of this WikiProject, Airlines Based in Hawaii, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airlines Based in Hawaii. Thank you. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nostalgic airline slideshow

FWIW there's a nostalgic slideshow (backed by "Time to say goodbye") covering the rise and fall of many airlines, most but not all of which were from the USA. Click here to have a look/listen. --TraceyR (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Creation submission needs project help

Someone want to work on this? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Locair AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have a look at it later today if nobody else has done it first. MilborneOne (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Article created (didnt realise you had to move it!) but I only used some of the original content! MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Fleets

A lot of airline articles appear to be using fanboy sites like CH-Aviation (and others) as a source for fleet data. Has it ever been established if any of these are actually reliable enough for wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue strongly against using CH-Aviation (user Tobibln seems to think it is the bee's knees). Airfleets.net is another bad one. Each time I have checked either site to look at an Australian airline it has been inaccurate. Skippers Aviation is a good example, airfleets does not list nine Metros and Cessna Conquests in Skippers' fleet and CH-Aviation is even worse, not listing the six Brasilias in the fleet. CH-Aviation also manages to get the Qantas fleet size wrong. YSSYguy (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It does seem peculiar to rely on a Swiss site for information about a small domestic Australian operator. Surely there's an official registry that will be more reliable. But while for developed countries that is normally the case, it is not universally true. Consider Category:Aviation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Most of those airline articles are based on rather sketchy sources, but still better than nothing. We should use the best sources available and try to corroborate with others. Where there is doubt it should be made clear to readers that there is doubt. Pretty basic stuff.LeadSongDog (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Skytrax

Link to relevant discussion on Olympic Airlines article talk

Sorry an old one again but the last discussion in 2007 ended without any clear consensus. The guideline says Do not include un-encyclopedic opinion web sites but a user on Olympic Airways keeps adding:

  • Customers evaluation - According to the skytrax website, Olympic is given 2 stars for service quality, thus classified as poor.http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/olymp.htm (A North Korean airline is the single case awarded 1 star.)

I removed it using the guideline but the user has questioned it, one of the arguments is Skytrax is mentioned in loads of airline articles. Anybody remind me what the current thinking on this is? Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy Carrier

A user has added the navbox Template:Legacy carrier to a number of US airlines, I have removed them from some of the airlines as duplicates navigation in other boxes not really needed should be a cat. Brought it here for other opinions, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the definition of a legacy carrier? The template only lists US airlines, but nothing about the template name limits it as such. Plus it has the whole "defunct" problem, which tends to endlessly grow as more and more defunct carriers get added. Who decides who the "Big Six" (soon to be Big Five) are? I agree it's not needed; I propose nominating the template for deletion. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The definition of a legacy Carrier is a airline that flew interstate routes prior to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. The Big six can be disputed but what "defunct problem" it just means its a airline that went out of business. --HereFord 22:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The "defunct problem" refers to issues with {{Airlines of the United States}} where there is also a "defunct airlines" section that is slowly growing. Where do you draw the line at what gets included? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
When a airline seises to operations.HereFord 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Since yhis is a common term used in the airline industry im going to put the template back on the article if you still have problems on what defunct means it might help you to read Wiktionary:defunctHereFord 23:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the definition of defunct. I have a problem with defining what airlines to actually list. It may not be as big an issue with this template as with the other one, where you could conceivably list every US airline that has ever failed. There are lots and there's already a category for them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Note:I removed "Big Six" from the templateHereFord 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the navbox again after it was added back in by Hereford as I believe we dont have a consensus here to include it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The only problem as been the Defunct list and as Hawaiian717 said its not a problem with this template.HereFord 21:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ, I objected to the navbox and Hawaiian717 agreed it was not needed, doesnt sound like consensus to add. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether an airline is defunct or not is irrelevant, Pan-Am is defunct as is Eastern but to say they were not legacy carriers is crazy! SJHQC (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion was about a template not about them being a legacy carrier or not. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

bmibaby

Just to note that there is a big never ending discussion on bmibaby about it being all lower case or should it be Bmibaby or the made up BMIBaby. One side is using common usage of a registered trade name and the other is using grammar and wikipedia rules and not being a servant of the advertising industry. It is one of those arguments that will not really end without some outside intervention. Dont want to start a discussion here but project members may be interested that other airline articles use the lowercase template so the argument may spread. MilborneOne (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Airline vs. virtual airline vs. brand

I am a bit puzzled what to do with "virtual airlines" such as Click4Sky or mere marketing brands such as Smart Wings (even not a legal entity). I would prefer to start the opening paragraph of article about Smart Wings "Smart Wings is a brand..." JanSuchy (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest opening paragraph should be Smart Wings (a marketing name of Travel Service) is a Czech low cost-airline. - the other example Click4Sky is not really an airline of any kind it appears to be just a ticket broker and it doesnt look notable enough to have an article!! MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with Smart Wings having it's own article. We maintain separate articles for other similar situations, like go! (airline) (branding of Mesa Airlines) and GeorgiaSkies and New Mexico Airlines, both part of Pacific Wings. Click4Sky seems like it ought to be merged into Czech Airlines. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your proposals. JanSuchy (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Flags again

Despite all the previous discussions that flags were not to be used on destination lists and article the page content guideline does not mention anything about flags. Can I add something about not using flags or do we need yet another debate! thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the previous debates show that we were negligent in updating the project page afterwards, good catch. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no objections. As this was brought up many times, however the consensus on all the discussions says not to use flags. However, WP:MOS page mentions flags but not about the airports. I would add it to the page. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a line about not using flags on the page content guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Airline Codes template

In the Airports Project discussion area, a decision has been made to eliminate the need for the {{airport codes}} template from airport articles that already contain the {{Infobox Airport}} template; display of the codes in two places is redundant. A suggestion was made that Airlines adopt a similar policy. See Airport codes template discussion. We leave the suggestion here for discussion. - Canglesea (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Does (Insert airline name) exist?

It's got a flashy website, but I can't find any actual news on its startup? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not listed in the latest Flight World Airlines Directory which is only a few weeks old. Blog entries for 2007 when it was announced but nothing since looks like it didnt get of the ground. MilborneOne (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Are there any objections to a speedy delete, or should I AfD it? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I would try a speedy first. MilborneOne (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Google News on "Air Pampas" (not the space) gets an April 7 result.LeadSongDog come howl 03:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is now userified at User:LeadSongDog/Air Pampas, just in case someone wants to fix it up.LeadSongDog come howl 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Same for AerOasis. Founded in 2006, but hasn't had a flight yet, no google hits. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How about FirstJet, a New Zealand airlines that was proposed. And JumpJet, proposed in 2005. And Kiwijet, proposed in 2007.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination of George Murnane III

An article within the scope of this WikiProject, George Murnane III (former CFO of Mesa Air Group), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Murnane III. Thank you. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Destinations (yet again!)

I’m thinking of a bit of a clean-up of the airline destination lists – because there’s too much of repeated information.

Something like this: Instead of:

Basically, simply list the airport where the city’s name is clearly obvious; and only prefix the city name where it’s not.

Eg: Miami Airport (obvious to all that it serves Miami) but Milan – Malpensa Airport.

I think it’s much cleaner and does away with endless repetition. Let me know what people think. Thanks! Jasepl (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think my biggest concern is with this proposal is the inconsistency of having some destinations listed with just the airport name and others listed with both the city name and the airport name. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but I agree with Hawaiian717 that it might be inconsistent. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus Turkish Airlines

I have removed a Timeline from the Cyprus Turkish Airlines article which consisted of information already in the article or a load of non-notable trivia (examples - 1992 introduced its own premises for catering, 1999 Second Airbus A310-200 purchased). A new user keep reverting my removal despite request to discuss it. Can somebody have a look and see if my removal was reasonable or not. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Destinations

I know we keep going round the houses with this but Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content gave a misleading link, it said following the world based format show in articles like Airline destinations. but that article is a redirect and does not have a list of destinations. I have redirected the link to British Airways destinations as a good example. I dont have a view if this is the right example or not I just felt we needed to show something on the content guide. Any comments please ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Northwest/Delta

I have removed a headcount of how many Northwest aircraft have been repainted in Delta livery at Delta Air Lines fleet as not encyclopedic it has been reverted. I also removed the same information from Northwest Airlines (which also included all the repainted aircraft registrations!). If you have time from daily updating info like this! then comments welcome please. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Palmair

Palmair is a UK tour operator which has an aircraft operated on its behalf by Astreus. The aircraft is painted in Palmair colours. Palmair is a registered tour operator (with the appropriate licences) it does not have an air operator certificate or a CAA operating licence. A user has changed the article to reflect that it is an airline (infobox and categories etc) and not a tour operator and reverts any changes. Evidence put forward that is sells flights it must be an airline, although that is a function of the tour operator. None of the booking conditions and legal bits on their website mention they are an airline but just refer to their ABTA membership (an association for travel operators) and their ATOL registration. Need some second opinions on this please at Talk:Palmair, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Terminated destinations from airine articles

Hi! I am suggesting removal of Terminated Destinations from Airline Destination pages as they are Terminated and only God knows that whether they will be restarted or not. They are History. There is no point putting them. Majority of the airline articles do not have them so far i have seen.
(Druid.raul (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

I understand that discussion in the past has agreed that terminated destinations can be included if properly sourced. As this is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide the fact they are history could be important in relation to the development of the airline. The main struggling point was finding reliable sources for the information. Listing terminated destination for the last few years for an airline that could be decades old will probably look odd and it should try and give a more balanced view over the whole history of the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

TACA

IP user at Grupo TACA doesnt understand a request to use talk page after I removed a contribution to Incidents, accidents, and other relevant news a few of the other entries are also a bit dubious and a really strange destinations bit. It is also an article about both an airline and a group and appears to be a bit of a mix up. If anybody can pass by the article and see what they think, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways was promoted as a featured article in 2005. Now, it needs more references. Otherwise it could lose its FA status. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo reqs for airline hq buildings

Hi! I have been sending photo requests for airline headquarter buildings across various geographic WikiProjects.

Here are some articles that need their respective airline headquarters:

Former HQ building requests:

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Are pictures of headquarters buildings inherently notable/interesting? And why these airlines? Hawaiian Airlines doesn't have a photo of the building on its article and doesn't appear on your list, for example. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
1. There's nothing to stop Hawaiian Airlines from appearing on this list, is there? I'll go add it. Anyway I'm trying to first get the major airlines of the world and work down towards smaller carriers. Also I'm listing carriers in which the locations of the headquarters are certain/easily found. As Hawaiian posted its address on its website, it shouldn't be difficult to find.
2. In article about a company, typically its main offices are one of the photos on that article's page
3. Sometimes the airline offices are architecturally interesting - I.E. British Airways and Continental have very beautiful headquarters
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I got the ExpressJet HQ on here. I already took one Continental Airlines HQ photo and uploaded a night pic of the same CO HQ building taken by a person on Flickr. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fleet table images

I have reverted a number of changes to fleet tables where editors are adding images of each aircraft type. They do not add any value and are just for decoration and they bloat the table. Images are better either in commons, the related article or in around the main text. In most articles example images that dont relate to the airline have been used or duplicate images already in the article, almost gallery by stealth. But with big articles like Air Canada using this format and setting an example! Just looking for a project view. MilborneOne (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It does make the table bigger, but I don't think it's too bad. At least on the Air Canada article, the images are kept pretty small, probably about as small as can be and still be useful. If anything, it would probably be even more interesting to have for the historic fleet. I'm not opposed to it, and it could allow us to trim some of the other images that decorate the articles. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pan American World Airways FAR

I have nominated Pan American World Airways for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Yellow Air Taxi

The discussion is here and in it's final hours. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Operating certificate

We have an anon proposing changes to add a ton of definitions at regional airline and has already started in at operating certificate. I think there are two issues here. One is to what level do we need to break this down in airline articles and the second is how much expansion is needed to operating certificate. My first instinct would be to keep all of the technical requirements for the various levels of certificates in operating certificate and then use general terms elsewhere. Otherwise, how would we deal with the different definitions used by the various countries? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Been seeing this editor around recently too. I think it's Holding Company Guy. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree that any detail of licensing and aocs needs to be in Operating Certificate. First time I have look at regional airline what a really badly presented and written article needs a good culling and starting again or something else drastic. Appears to be a vehicle for making points about US regional airlines most of it not needed. Even the start is wrong Regional airlines are airlines that operate regional aircraft true but that is not why they are regional!! MilborneOne (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to have at it. There are many articles in the encyclopedia that are developing and need an occasional major overhaul. Freeway is probably still another good example. One problem that I have with some articles, and I have not looked at this one with this in mind, is that frequently you can not find citations for many of the factual points made by other editors, Lake Tahoe being a good example of that. So rewrites should try to add citations in my opinion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Algérie Patrol Request

Hello. Can someone clean up and see that this article gets straightened? There are tons of copyvio images, unsourced edits, and other stuff that needs to be fixed for this article. I've already found two images that are copyvios, and I haven't checked the content. I need help. Cheers. Elektrik Blue (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The images that were copyvios (the ones I could find) and the material copied from the Air Algerie site have been deleted/removed. The person uploading them has been blocked indefinitely as it's not the first time. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Aviacsa

With Aviacsa apparently unable to operate since its certificate was suspended, do we need to mark this fact on every airport article or do we just rely on the link to the airline? I don't think we need to mark service suspended on every airport article. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Page content

I have tweaked the format at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content and included some examples and some notes on listing destinations. This is to try and give some clearer guidance for some editors who spend a lot of time reverting each others format edits. If you think what I have added is wrong then comments welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Only a couple of things to add:
  1. Terminated destinations - maybe state that the BA terminated list is the template to emulate as well
  2. I had suggested earlier that perhaps we can omit the city name, when the city is clearly mentioned in the airport's name (eg: Sydney Airport, instead of Sydney - Sydney Airport) I realise this might be initially a bit difficult to implement, but it will get rid of a lot of clutter and endless repetition.
Jasepl (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Dont have a problem with your additions. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fleet details

As part of my general keeping an eye on things I removed a list of engines from a fleet table (at Cathay Pacific) as non-encyclopedic. I have always removed this info before under the page content guidelines as not being other information considered encyclopedic. Also the engine information has no relevance to the airline article and are not notable. I have been reverted with the comment Engines are encyclopedic (notability is the wrong criterion here). Any comments supportive or not having engine data against aircraft types in fleet tables or otherwise. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You twice deleted the engine information, which is verging on edit warring. Your first deletion was accompanied by an edit summary of "engines are not really notable", in apparent ignorance of the fact that WP:Notable applies only to whether articles should exist and not whether particular information in a notable article should be deleted. In any event, I believe that engine information clearly is encyclopedic and should remain in the Cathay Pacific article. I, too, welcome others' comments. See also this. ShondaLear (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I concur with MilborneOne - this information is not noteworthy or encyclopaedic and I don't think we should have it. Jasepl (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Would also agree that engine types chosen and operated by individual airlines on individual aircraft types have no encyclopedic relevance. SempreVolando (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:NOT I agree, engine types are not necessary in a general encyclopedia. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think WP:IINFO applies here; engine types shouldn't be listed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs, I have changed the Guideline to reflect. MilborneOne (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Legacy carrier

Can someone look at Template:Legacy carrier? I'm not sure what to make of it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt really add any value as a navigation aid, it also appears to be based on Legacy carrier a completly unreferenced view which may not be a NPOV. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainline (flight)

Can someone take a look at Mainline (flight)? I'm not convinced that the tables here are anything more then POV pushing and not encyclopedic hair splitting. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Look like an article designed to make a point, so probably doesnt meet NPOV. A quick PROD or AfD as a load of nonsene I think. The term mainline can be described if it is really needed in one sentence in the Airline article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the "point" that you think the article is trying to make? ShondaLear (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the article there seems to be a confusion between subsidiary or sub-contract (or dba I guess as well) and low cost operations. Also a lack of referencing on why this is a notable term (even though I believe it is). Thanks/wangi (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

Anybody any idea what this about - Category:User aer lingus? MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the text not really what categories are for. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Should be MFD'd too if somebody wants to do that (along with the template?); but go easy with the user as it looks like just "keenness". /wangi (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary purpose

Consensus on the page content of articles related to this project has been discussed on this page but please note that User:ShondaLear has now created a new talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/page content. He/She has made the comment I would not be concerned at all with this page if MilborneOne weren't attempting to use it to prevent and regulate edits of airline pages. As is obvious from my edits that is exactly what I have been doing, and attempting is probably accurate as a look at the edits on some asian airlines would show. I note that the The primary goal is to make airline articles have a consistent feel and also add my role as an Admin is protect the encyclopedia from edit waring and such like. To stop the many battles that have raged and to meet the primary purpose the use of the page content guideline seem a reasonable way forward, all users are invited to discuss edits and consensus on this page. I would be interested if the project has any other ideas to meet the primary goal (and stop edit wars) other than a consensual page content guideline. MilborneOne (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should choose one role or the other concerning this project: editor or administrator. You seem to be combining the two in a confusing manner and, more importantly, engaging in the kind of edit warring you claim to be trying to prevent. (You were similarly confused in your RFA, where you apparently thought that two reverts were perfectly fine.) And where exactly is this "primary goal" stated and does this goal actually represent the consensus of editors? "Consistent feel" could be used to justify almost anything, including the most nit-picky of previously unstated prohibitions like including engines in a table. ShondaLear (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Where was Eastern Air Lines's HQ before it closed

Eastern Air Lines had its headquarters in the Miami area before it closed. What publication would state Eastern Air Lines's final headquarters address? I'm trying hard to find it. With this address I can determine whether it was in an unincorporated area or in a municipality. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing articles

If you're wondering what airlines are missing an article, wonder no more! Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Missing articles lists almost 4000 missing articles that need to be created. Get to work! - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Look like it is taken from the ICAO list, some are defunct, lot of single-aircraft users, flying schools and a few military units as well ! The codes are issued to lots of outfits that are not airlines and would not pass a notability test.MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done a few - mainly redirects to alternate names - do you want them removing from the list when created or redirected! MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, let's remove any created, redirected, or just plainly non-notable (if non-notable they should be unlinked from whatever pages link to them). I'll divide the pages up into groups of 100 as well, to make things easier. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
To facilitate a simple check, how about first AWB-adding links to
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ARTICLETITLE
and to
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=ARTICLETITLE&cf=all
Then if both come up blank, assume non-notable. That'll chop the number to something more manageable.LeadSongDog come howl 18:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

One airline without an article is Líneas Aéreas Nacionales SA (LANSA), a notorious Peruvian airline that according to Flightglobal only operated from 1963 to 1971. Wikipedia has articles for the two 1970s accidents that precipitated the airline's demise, LANSA Flight 502 and LANSA Flight 508, but LANSA is an article about a computing language, Líneas Aéreas Nacionales disambiguates several national airlines, and LAN Perú is about a Peruvian airline that began in 1998 (there's also a Air Perú but I've not clue where that fits in). Transport in Peru mentions airports but no Peruvian airlines, past or present. LAN Airlines, operating since 1929, might be the place where the history of the ill-fated LANSA might fit in as an unaffiliated predecessor to LAN Perú, but that's just a guess. The only thing I've done to slightly improve the situation is to add a hatnote to LANSA.

Here's the paragraph about LANSA from Flightglobal:

Lineas Aereas Nacionales SA (Lansa), the Peruvian scheduled airline formed in 1963, ceased operations on December 25, 1971, when the airline's only serviceable aircraft, an Electra, crashed killing 91 people. The Peruvian Government cancelled the carrier's operating authority on January 4, 1972, on the grounds that the working capital of Lansa had been exhausted.

It would be great if a more systematic coverage of the history of Peruvian airlines would be undertaken. Thanks. 72.244.200.207 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, found Líneas Aéreas Nacionales S. A. (Peru) and used it to create a stub. 72.244.200.207 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Cabin configuration

User:ShondaLear has questioned my statement at Talk:Cathay Pacific Also note that the cabin configuration of individual aircraft, reliable or not, is not encyclopedic. although the subject at hand was the removal of an external link to a wiki that did not not meet WP:EL. Also note that the airline official website has all the cabin and seating information that would be required. Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make the point this is the configuration of individual aircraft not aircraft types or seating classes. MilborneOne (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Very messy at the moment. The standard table used by other airlines should be "re-adopted" Planenut(Talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Standard table for what, have you an example ? MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Usage of non-free historical logos being debated

Members of the airlines project, please see: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo - It is a debate over whether and how historical logos should be used on the English Wikipedia. This affects airlines since many have historical logos. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft Photos in Fleet section

I noticed that several US carriers have photos of the aircraft in their fleet tables and I was wondering if it was really necessary to have them? Charmedaddict (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Necessary? No. Overkill? Maybe. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they should be necessary, but it is a nice addition, being able to see what the specific aircraft mentioned looks like in the airline's livery or flat-out looks like.

Ishwasafish click here!!!

17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point but I believe there is no reason, as I previously said in an earlier thread, what if a certain image is not available, there table looks a mess because it is missing out. So I'm against it. Thanks. Zaps93 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scanderbeg Air

Not sure about the article. It claims to operate flights, but the sources seem to confirm that the flights are actually operated by Sky King, Inc.. Should this article exist? There are sources, but they are thin. It does not appear to have any codes. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the small print http://scanderbegair.com/Rules.pdf it look like a tour operator acting on behalf of publiccharter.com and the charter will be performed by a qualified 121 air carrier including but not limited to Charter Air Transport,Sky King, Inc . Doesnt appear to be notable enough as a tour operator. MilborneOne (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


TAP Portugal Article

The article on TAP Portugal is in dire need of cleanup. Only one source for a relatively long article and several contradictions throughout. For example, it states that there are 4 A320s on order but then next to it, it states that there will be 6 deliveries. If anyone knows anything about TAP Portugal, or would like to help add sources or cleanup the grammar, spelling, contradictions etc, then pleases do. Thanks, --Plane Person (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Air Zara International

Just an FYI; this has been tagged for speedy deletion. User's only edit is: "Air Zara International. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I.C.A.O Code: A Z D. Fleet: 3 Type: Boeing 737-200 -17, Boeing 737 -200 F - 17, Beech 1900 C" - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Current and Terminated destinations format concensus

Who decided that British Airways Destinations layout is the standard format for airline destinations articles for current and former places? where is the concensus for this? as far as I know the bold letters for country names in current places was done without approval, by Druid.Raul and the former destinations list layout was done by me, initially in Sri Lankan Airlines again without concensus, after which Jaspel decided on his own, that it should be standard format, on what basis?.

In main article based destinations list it was decided Region, Country, City and Airport should be the rule, with no need to add Continent to the format, yet Jaspel is going around adding continent and in some cases removing regions all together, even though he wasnt interested in the discussion on the subject.

How many people are needed for a concensus? can just two people decide on format for articles.116.71.44.223 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are you? You keep saying "I" - but you have only made a handful of edits. Where did this claim of your having designed any standard anything come from? Jasepl (talk)
Milborne, Zaps93 and I discussed main airline article destinations layout, where atleast I and Milborne reached agreement that Region, Country, City and Airport, should be the format for main airline article based destination lists, whereas Zaps93 said any any main article list exceeding twenty destinations, should have a seprate destinations list page or article like for bigger airlines, scroll up and see for yourself. Not just that, its a fact I made up the terminated destinations format without concensus just for the heck of it first for Sri Lankan Airlines, and then for a few others, you can check revision history of Sri Lankan Airlines, after which you or someone else, unilaterally decided to make it the standard format without a concensus amngost editors and administrators, why its been accepted as standard without votes in favour of it, and why admin are so lax with editors is weird on their part.116.71.54.153 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to mention I have been editing and maintaining wikipedia since 2006 under different ISP addresses, due to changes of location related to work and not to masquerade.116.71.54.153 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any further discussion or consensus in regards to the standard format for airline destinations and terminated destinations, as well as the guidelines to when a Destination section should be separated into a List? Aviator006 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The separate list article has been at about 10 destinations for a while. Is there an issue with that? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

List of regional airlines

I was tired of weeding out regionals out of List of low-cost airlines, so I've created List of regional airlines. Admittedly, this could become a huge list. If so, we can split. In the meantime, I'll try to build up this list and continue weeding the low-cost list. Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugly Infobox design

I have mentioned this on the related talk page but I am not sure anybody watches it! Anybody know why the design of Template:Airline infobox has been changed to a really ugly version - has this been discussed anywhere? MilborneOne (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree... what a mess of an infobox! Bring back the old one, this one is just ugly and untidy! Zaps93 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Replied over at the template talk page. I'd suggest keeping all discussion on one page (and informing the original contributor is always nice as well). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Article watch

Just to note I have reverted a large change (well a complete change actually) to the Corsairfly article, very promotional and mainly unreferenced. The IP comes out as belonging to Corsair, can users just keep an eye on it please. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the changes aswell, I have put the article on my watchlist. Zaps93 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Project participation

There is a discussion and poll about project participation going on here. Please take a look and share your opinions. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How to List Taiwan and China?

How shall we list P.R.C. and R.O.C.? pikdig (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be listed as China, People's Republic of and China, Republic of (Taiwan). Aviator006 (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Aviation contest

As many of you are aware from the invitations I sent out, there is a new contest starting in the Aviation project. If I somehow missed you, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Contest. I created this contest for, what is provisionally titled The Peter M. Bowers International Award For Meritorious Service in the Pursuit of Aviation Knowledge or PeMBoInAwMeSPAK, with the aim to motivate increased quality in aviation articles and improve participation in the Aviation WikiProject by offering a form of friendly competition for project members. We already have 20 members signed up, if you would like to take part you can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the competition will start soon; if you can't take part, come out and help the competitors by assisting in their peer reviews, article promotions, etc. Hope to see you there! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

V Australia hubs

What airports should be listed as the hubs or focus cities of V Australia? pikdig (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick look but I would say LAX is a focus city they do not appear to have any hubs. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Should we add MEL? Because MEL will soon serve LAX, Phuket, and Johannesburg. pikdig (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You should add MEL only when it has become a hub as things could always change. Aviator006 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
LAX is not a Hub or Focus City for V Australia. They serve the same number of cities from LAX as Korean Air but you don't label it that way for them. It's simply a US gateway. Yes, they codeshare with VX there but does Lufthansa with United and JAL and Qantas with American but you don't see that kind of categorization for them based on such logic either. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Also to mention, had a look through its website and it doesnt clearly state which cities are its hubs or focus cities, though it has been stated that LAX is a gateway to connect to codeshare flights within the USA on their partner airlines. --Sb617 (talk · contribs)

New jat airways

Be aware of this afd discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Peruvian Airlines

Peruvian Airlines article created today, looks a bit iffy I have already removed the ICAO code PAL (belongs to Philippine Airlines). Appears to operate 747s on domestic services. Appreciate anybody with south american airline knowledge to have a look. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The lack of info on the company website, and the image makes me suspicious. It's labeled a 747, but is obviously a 737-100 or -200. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The source linked, poorly translated by google, says its a non-scheduled charter essentialy, and has a fleet of "our Antonov aircraft and five Boeing, along with some units Hercules, some Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier" -- does this even pass WP:N as a non-scheduled airline? --Admrboltz (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid carrier

Can someone with more knowledge take a look at hybrid carrier and see if it should be improved or deleted? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted I would suggest it appears to be a made-up term. MilborneOne (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can provide a source. WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NFT. Isn't a hybrid carrier a ship that transports a Toyota Prius? :P -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Cathay Pacific now open

The peer review for Cathay Pacific is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Dragonair now open

The peer review for Dragonair is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Trevor MacInnis contribs 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

BEA single - advice requested

I would appreciate any advice from the folks in this WikiProject (as more knowledgeable about Airline articles than I am) about the inclusion of a bit of information for Other facts of interest. I have left a discussion point at the article's talk page. Any advice/opinions are welcomed! Thanks, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Southern Star Airways

New article Southern Star Airways from New Zealand, cant find any evidence that it exists? MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:HOAX - I have placed it on AFD. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AF headquarters question

Is this the AF headquarters building? http://www.flickr.com/photos/ettorephotos/3173333343/ - If so, I think I will be able to upload this to Wikipedia on fair use grounds, as French law states that photos of recently built buildings are copyrighted. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Airlines

Hi guys, I would like to now the rules on how to name an airline. As I don't know them, for me there seems to be an inconsistency:

  • British Midland Airways call themselves bmi (even in their postal adress, as can be seen here: [4]) but we - especially in airport dest-lists - call it BMI (something I have never seen anywhere else)
  • On the other hand, Izair [5] call themselves IZair, and that's exactly how we name it, too. (this is quite new, done some days ago by WhisperToMe)

I guess there are more such cases. Please enlighten me, I just wanna know the rules, so that it becomes consistent for me. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the tendency is to follow the WP:NAME recommendation to use conventional English capitalization rules even when the trademark use would encourage otherwise. Thus, since BMI is an abbreviation/acronym/initialism, it gets used in all caps even though the airline uses lowercase. But since we have different editors editing different articles and doing things a bit differently, not everything follows that convention. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I often refer myself to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) in regards to how to call an airline when I do updates to articles. The article name as I've seen is usually the common name of the airline or the name appeared in their trademark (in this case, BMI), and the first words in the lead will write out the whole company registered name (in this case, British Midland Airways Limited). Aviator006 (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"(in this case, BMI)": but they style it as bmi. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Please refer the guidelines with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Aviator006 (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


Air India flights operated by Indian Airlines

CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI446/447 = Chennai-Singapore-Chennai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI448/449 = Chennai-Singapore-Chennai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)


BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI444/445 = Bangalore-Singapore-Bangalore (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)


INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI102/101 = Delhi-Kolkata-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI112/111 = Delhi-Kolkata-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI126/127 = Delhi-Hyderabad-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI841/840 = Delhi-Abu Dhabi-Delhi (Operated by 737-800 Aircraft of Air-India Express)
AI480/481 = Delhi-Singapore-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI638/639 = Delhi-Amritsar-Delhi (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)


CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI191/144 = Mumbai-Chennai-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI141/140 = Mumbai-Hyderabad-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI442/443 = Mumbai-Singapore-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI845/844 = Mumbai-Abu Dhabi-Mumbai (Operated by 737-800 Aircraft of Air-India Express)
AI620/621 = Mumbai-Bangalore-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI130/131 = Mumbai-Ahmedabad-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI631 = Ahmedabad-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family Aircraft)
AI690/691 = Mumbai-Kochi-Mumbai (Operated by A320 family aircraft)


HOW can you say that all these are not Air India flights but Indian Airlines(IC) flights JUST because they operated on A320 family aircraft? In that case why have you listed Dammam as a Air India destination on Calicut International Airport and Cochin International Airport when both Dammam bound flights from these 2 airports are operated on A320 family aircraft? (i've just temporalily put in the Indian Airlines column, since you cannot put destinations operated on A320s in the AI Column according to User talk:Jasepl)



COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI911/912 = Kochi-Dammam-Kochi (Operated on A320 family Aircraft)


CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AI917/918 = Kozhikode-Dammam-Kozhikode (Operated on A320 family Aircraft)

Since you all say destinations that are operated by A320 family aircraft cannot be listed on the Air India column of Indian Airports, so where should Dammam be put in Cochin and Calicut airport articles since Indian Airlines does'nt even go to Saudi Arabia. (i've just temporalily put in the Indian Airlines column, since you cannot put destinations operated on A320s in the AI Column according to User talk:Jasepl)




What i suggest is that which ever domestic flight has a Air India flight code should be listed in the Air India column of Indian Airports (even if they are operated on A320 family aircraft because now all aircraft, be it Airbus or Boeing are now owned by National Aviation Company of India) to avoid unnecessary confusion created by User talk:Jasepl and his so-called created WikiProject:Aviation norms

These are the destinations which Air India goes according to their Destination Map (I've listed only those which are served under AI codes)

11 Domestic Destinations
  • India
    • Ahmedabad
    • Amritsar
    • Calicut
    • Chennai
    • Cochin
    • Bangalore
    • Delhi
    • Hyderabad
    • Kolkata
    • Mumbai
    • Trivandrum
18 International Destinations
  • Kenya
    • Nairobi
  • China
    • Hong Kong
    • Shanghai
  • Japan
    • Osaka
    • Tokyo
  • Singapore
  • Saudi Arabia
    • Dammam
    • Jeddah
    • Riyadh
  • United Arab Emirates
    • Abu Dhabi
    • Dubai
  • France
    • Paris
  • Germany
    • Frankfurt
  • United Kingdom
    • London
  • Canada
    • Toronto
  • United States
    • Chicago
    • New York City
    • Newark

(Druid.raul (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Air India and Indian Airlines are in the process of a merger. So airlines are still operating seperately under its own codes, aircraft, crew, etc. Another thing is that we put the destination to the airline that is operating the aircrafr...and since these aircraft are owned by Indian Airlines and not Air India it needs to be listed as "Indian Airlines". Once the merger is completed (when a single-operating certificate is achieved) then we can all write it as Air India flights. This is the exact same situation as the Delta/Northwest merger and those flights are still listed under the airline that operates them. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways and the JFK Airport hub

On the press releases, it clearly states that JFK is the main hub of JetBlue Airways. Yet a user on the article yet reverted me (and someone else sometime back) saying that it's not a hub. I would be more inclined to believe the information off the airline's own website and about page, rather than from people's own hearsay. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this. --Sb617 (talk · contribs)

Simple solution is to include a reference using the {{cite web}} or {{cite press}}. Then removal would in my opinion be vandalism. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Delta/US Airways Shuttle flights

Need your opinion on how to list the Delta Shuttle/US Airways Shuttle....Should we list them as "Delta Shuttle operated by X/US Airways Shuttle operated by X" or should we treat them just as if they were mainline DL/US flights. Thanks! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just plain Delta / US Air in my opinion. Other airlines also have a “sub brand” – United’s PS, Iberia’s Puente Aereo, Air France’s La Navette, Lufthansa’s Italia... None of these have a separate listing. I think the only instances where we do an “operated by” is when one airline operates a route for another airline, eg Loganair for British Airways.
For the shuttle flights, that is not the case. It’s either Delta operating for Delta, or some other airline operating for Delta. Jasepl (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought we list the airline under whose callsign the flight operates, instead of the one according to the flight number? Therefore, I would leave these flights as they are listed now. The airlines that are operating as Delta/United etc. Shullte are independently registered airlines, in contrary to Lufthansa Italia. It's the same as with BA Cityflyer or Contact Air. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Originally the shuttles were independent companies; however, in the last decade they have been merged operationally into their parent airlines and I think it is fair to characterize them as a branded service. They no longer have dedicated equipment or crews, and in fact some Delta Shuttle flights are now operated by Republic.-choster (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
And also, some of the shuttle flights utilize mainline aircraft. Also, the US Airways Shuttle flights betweem LGA and BOS/DCA are listed as US Airawys flights per their official website. Also, some IPs also state that they have their own ticket counter for check-in. Does it really matter? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
To Choster: do you mean it should be listed as DL mainline destinations since when you said they are no longer an "independent carrier". 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe that it should be listed as DL Shuttle operated by X. DL Shuttle is a brand name just like DL Connection and has different airlines operate under that brand. In the case of DL Shuttle, DL and S5 are the operators for the brand.

Ishwasafish click here!!!

19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be listed as Delta Shuttle operated by X as the branding (such as DL Connection or the likes) is now farmed out to Shuttle America iirc. If it is a separate branding, or service within a carrier operated by another airline, it should be listed as such. Lrdc9 (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that Shuttle America is operating as a Delta Connection carrier not Delta Shuttle. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
S5 also operates for the DL Shuttle brand.

Ishwasafish click here!!!

19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How about US Airways Shuttle? Should those be listed as US Airways Shuttle operated by US Airways or list them as mainline destinations since the above discussed was only about Delta Shuttle. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I make the same argument that I did previously for DL Shuttle.

Ishwasafish click here!!!

19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Obviously people are getting these airline franchising brands confused with AIRLINES. Maybe some one needs to come up with the page topic of Airline Franchising Brands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.161.188 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2009

AA New York-LaGuardia hub dispute

Need your help to settle a dispute on American Airlines. Suddenly, New York-LaGuardia was added as a hub for American Airlines. Yes, AA's website lists New York as a hub but they only mention JFK to increse flight operations there. A discussion was started here at the AA talk page. Please add your thoughts on whether or not LGA is considered a hub for AA to that page. Regards! 74.183.173.237 (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Initiative for the removal of unscheduled charter flights from airport destination lists

Hi guys, this is about the problem that many airports (especially in the Mediterranean and the Caribbean) list a huge amount of charter destinations that are apparently not served on a regular base, as no schedules exist. IMO Wikipedia polica sees these entries to be removed. Additionally, some former destinations were never removed from the dest-lists at airport articles. A good way how to find them would be searching the What links here list of airlines for airports that are not included in the destination list/article of the respective airline. I have already done this with SAS, Finnair, and Czech Airlines. I would invite you to help me. Maybe you just could list the airlines that you have reviewed here. Best regards. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

edit: I also included this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How to list PRC and Taiwan in airline destinations

When listing PRC and Taiwan in airline destinations, should we list People's Republic of China, Republic of China or should we list the name use (China for PRC and Taiwanfor ROC)? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this was answered further up the page at #How_to_List_Taiwan_and_China. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I personally believe China and Taiwan as people may not know the difference between the two and as China and Taiwan are more common it makes me believe it is the correct way to put it across. Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Our China guidelines say to use ROC and PRC. In fact the ROC =/ Taiwan - Taiwan is just a name that the ROC is often called by. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To MilborneOne: Yes, i just realized it after i posted the topic. However, I see that most airline destinations list China and Taiwan and China as "People's Republic of China" and "Repubic of China" but I would put Taiwan in parenthesis beside ROC to differentiate the two. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Chucking in WP:COMMONNAME here, we shoud use China and Taiwan. Probably best to use piped link from article titles. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Khyber Afghan Airlines

Khyber Afghan Airlines is totally unreferenced. How do I check to see if the ICAO codes are actually assigned to the airline? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/ Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.airlinecodes.co.uk/home.asp KHY = No results found - I put a hoax tag and a PROD on the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I also found a lack of sources for MarcoPolo Airways - The one that was cited was NOT an RS, so I prodded this one too. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ardfern has been the most prolific creator of airline articles so I'm surprised that these are issues. We either need to find the source that he is using or verify more of his articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Code KHY callsign KHYBER is allocated to Khyber Afghan Airlines refer ICAO 8585 Edition 149. I have removed the prod and hoax but it still needs more content and sources. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have de-prodded MarcoPolo Airways as well ICAO document has MCP/MARCOPOLO/MARCOPOLO AIRWAYS Afghanistan. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! So it seems like some codes do not show up at airlinecodes.co.uk, or the codes may have lapsed? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect more to do with the way an amateur site like airlinecodes works rather than the official sites like http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/CNT/3-3-K.htm and https://extranet.eurocontrol.int/http://prisme-web.hq.corp.eurocontrol.int/indicators/aircraft_operators_browse.jsp I suspect they stay on the official sites longer because nobody bothers to tell ICAO when an airline closes! MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird digits (e.g. Airbus A320-214) should dropped due to confusion

I don't think appropriate we are using extra three digits:

  • Airbus A320-214
  • Airbus A320-231
  • Airbus A320-232

Why? Because of numbers mean engine type, but it meant nothing about fuselage length. Another editor saying that similar to "B737-300", but I don't think correct! Meaning of numbers different! I want to put all Airbus A320-2xx in single records in US Airways! Thank you for investigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This dicussion is further up page, please take up there. Zaps93 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Better format for fleet tables

I had created a better format for Saudi Arabian Airlines fleet which is consistently being reverted by Zaps93, many other airline articles have this more oragnised looking table format for cargo, passenger fleets and VIP aircraft, I dont understand why its bothering him.115.42.67.101 (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't hate nor dislike it, the think that bothers me is, it hasn't been discussed nor decided apon, so I am simply following the rules. Comments welcome. Zaps93 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You said quote "ruined fleet table", it means it was your personal view and nothing to do with rules and regulations, no one else was bothered about similar change made in other articles by other people and not me, anything that makes an article look better or concise should be accepted.115.42.67.101 (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I've requested that both parties discuss this issue on the article's talk page. Input from other editors is welcome too. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel the single table format looks way better than having several separate tables for cargo, passenger, etc. Also, the total and last updated date at the end of the single table is a good addition!
On a semi-related note, the fleet table colours are also great in the Saudia article: much better than the multicoloured ones we see in so many other airline pages. Jasepl (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • On another semi-related note, I propose doing away with listing the destinations served in the fleet tables. There really is no encyclopaedic reason to include it. Jasepl (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And the routes should also be dropped. They are more travel guideish. Also short, medium and long are not clearly defined or the same for all airlines and are more a function of the aircraft. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur. Aircraft flying routes change all the time and everyone's definition of long and short haul is different; medium haul is all over the place. It's not just not encyclopaedic information, it is also impossible to keep accurate. I don't think we need much more than the make/model of the plane, and the number in service/on order. Jasepl (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the 'notes' section definately needs to stay aswell as it provides extra, notable information. Zaps93 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, as my point of view, here is my example of what the fleet box should contain;
FlyExample Fleet
Aircraft In Service Orders Options Passengers
(First1/Economy) 		IFE Notes
Boeing 737-700 10 5 3 124 (12/112) Panasonic eFX AVOD Deliveries: 2010
Boeing 737-900ER 2 0 0 179 (12/167) Panasonic eFX AVOD Exit from service: November 2009
Total 12 5 3 Last updated: 9 October 2009
Your opinions? Best regards, Zaps93 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Drop IFE and it starts looking good. One point on 'In Service'. This opens up the need to include those that are parked. Maybe 'owned' in the heading? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
In Service tends to mean those that are actually in fleet even if stored... Maybe change it to 'In Fleet' though to avoid the confusion? I also believe we should keep IFE as this may be the reason why some people look, to see what they can expect on their flights. Zaps93 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • IFE shouldn't be there: we're not a travel guide (whether or not people look for that information here). Besides not being encyclopaedic, most airlines don't always have IFE consistency across their fleet, or even across aircraft type. Jasepl (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I see your point Jasepl and Vegaswikian, just that maybe it should stay on major U.S. airlines like it has been for years? Other than that though, what's your overall opinion? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why make an exception for some airlines? The premise is the same: that's its not encyclopaedic information and this is not a travel guide. Besides that, looks good to me: Aircraft, In Service, Orders, Options, Seating (F/J/Y etc), Notes. Jasepl (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It has been a newer add for many airlines. If you want to push the retention of IFE, then we would also need to add seat pitch, the size of the personal space in the upgraded first class cabins and who knows what else. It simply does not belong and it is not clear that if we were going to add another column this is the most notable feature. One could argue that the need is for which aircraft has a power port to plug in the computers and DVD players! Let's avoid the non encyclopedic features. And as Jasepl said, sourcing would be a bear. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • On second thought, do we need to list options? I mean that's just what they are: Options. There's no guarantee when or if options will turn into reality. They're always converted from Options into Orders before joining the fleet, so just In Service and Orders should suffice, right? Jasepl (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, no IFE, but I do believe Options should be listed, they have always been there and are notable in their own way. If an airline has an option say for 3 737's, but converts 2, then they will still have 1 option. So the table should have; 'In Service/In Fleet, Orders, Options, Passengers, Notes'? Regards. Zaps93 (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Exactly. an option is an uncertain number, by its definition. If an when an option of 3 737s is converted into an order for 2 737s, then the order column is upped by 2, right? My opinion is that options are not needed for that very reason. Jasepl (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I think you misunderstood me, my fault. I ment that an airline places an amount of options, it's not just a random number decided by a random group. Just my opinion though. Zaps93 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Options need to be kept, they are an indication of a future order and I believe that the airline pays cash for the option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How to list destinations in Turkey - Europe? Asian? or both?

I have recently been a bit confused to the whole 'how to list destinations in Turkey'. I know there is no correct way and believe a solution should be agreed apon to resolve issues. I personally believe it should be listed as below:

Asia
Europe

But some editors have been disagreeing and putting it all under 'Europe', this is false as Bodrum and Dalaman are in Asia, not Europe. If this cannot be used, then maybe begin a new section named 'Eurasia' and list destinations in Eurasian countries there? For example:

Eurasia

Comments and opinions please! Best regards, Zaps93 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for whatever reason Turkey is considered European (even though the majority os its territory lies in Asia). And that is fine. But it would be plain silly to split up the destinations between continents.
Same deal for Russia, Kazakhstan, Egypt etc.
And Eurasia is not a commonly-accepted continent; heck, everything from Iceland to India to Japan to Greece is Eurasia.
So leave it the way it is: list all destinations in a particular country under a single continent. For convenience, if nothing else.
FYI, I took the liberty of re-formatting your post above, so that it all appears in one section. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking airline destinations

c.f. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Linking_airline_destinations discussion.

NevilleDNZ (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NRT is 'seasonal focus city' for UAL -- I really thinks so

I know before, other editors removaled NRT as focus city for UA. But they didn't think about seasonal focus city! UA cutting non-stop service from U.S. to PEK and TPE, so NRT benefitting by re-became focus city! I hope you like change :-) !

  • Bangkok-Suvarnabhumi - NONHUB
  • Beijing-Capital [begins 26 October] - NONHUB
  • Chicago-O'Hare
  • Honolulu - NONHUB
  • Los Angeles
  • San Francisco
  • Seattle/Tacoma - NONHUB
  • Seoul-Incheon - NONHUB
  • Singapore - NONHUB
  • Taipei-Taoyuan - NONHUB
  • Washington-Dulles —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You will need to provide a source for NRT being a UA focus city. Also, Narita is just used as point-to-point flights for United. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think you thought of as correctly. Planes to NRT be timing correctly to passengers interchange with other flights. --B767-500 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Does United say anywhere that NRT is a focus city??? If you can provide a reliable source saying it is a focus city then it is a focus city. You can't just decide for yourself that NRT is a United focus city Spikydan1 (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the airline's company profile http://ir.united.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=83680&p=irol-homeProfile: It lists UA's hubs at ORD, DEN, LAX, IAD, and SFO. The only time NRT is mentioned is that it just serves Asia from NRT and one of the 2 carriers authorized to serve US-Narita routes from any US point...never mentioning focus city. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New airline HQ photos uploaded

A user on Flickr changed the license of his image of the British Airways headquarters. EDIT: This is so I could upload the image to Wikipedia. A Wikipedian from the Seattle area uploaded images of the Alaska Airlines headquarters. I'm still trying to get more airline headquarter photos from different places around the world. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

These photos are nice, however, many of the buildings referenced and illustrated are only partially occupied on various floors by these airlines. Sometime it can be misleading but completely worthwhile to have these photos of headquarters illustrated. Thanks too all doing a very nice job on these. It would also be worthwhile if the actual parent companies of some of the private firms that hold airines could be illustrated too.

For it is from these ivory towers of detached and remote corporate directors that execercise control of the destinys of many of the airlines. 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Objective Third Party Opinions and/or Expert Needed at the Virgin America article

If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to get enough opinions on this topic to even fill a whole hand while there is numerous participation with everything else? I mean, seriously. And don't get cranky like you're doing some big grandiose out of your way thing by sending one or two people over there because its really not that much, this is what this page is for, and its been two weeks for goodness sake so its not like anyone's rushed or harrassed you. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If we don't get enough outside participation to create a landslide in a particular direction then mark my words this article along with the ones about LA, LAX, and the rest of the Virgin brand are about enter a serious rough patch that won't end until the argument gets fully resolved. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Much like anyone else who understands that Airlines do not mean crap by themselves anymore - and it is only the indivuals behind the scenes who control the mostly Delaware Corporate Law Entities airlines have become, and this destiny is of what is of real value in articles now.

One way to improve this article would be to explain in depth and breadth who VAI Partners LLC owns 75% of the capital stock are! The article is slick, too slick in fact to believed it is not a collabaration of solely wiki contributers. 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Oneworld now open

The peer review for Oneworld is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! - Aviator006 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


How many people are employed directly by ONEWORLD? NOT employed by the Airlines of ONEWORLD, but by ONEWORLD itself.

Remember TEXAS AIR CORPORATION and the NEW YORK BUSINESSMAN Frank Lorenzo when 1/4 of air travel within the United States was controlled by the greed of no more than 40 people. Yes these 40 enrichened themselves vastly at the expense of 10s of thousands that they put out of work at the bankrupted other airlines they controlled to acquire their riches.

Right now they same thing is still happening. We just don't want to see this happen at the ONE WORLD, STAR ALLIANCE, and SKY TEAM level when some one truly comes up with the idea of megaconglomeration international holding parent companie mergers. Waited maybe we have already with Synergy bringing together of Synergy Aerospace Holdings of Avianca and many other airlines under that group, and Grupo TACA's holdings.

Makes one think 32.176.75.82 (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did a major overhaul of {{Airline holding companies of the United States}}. As I explained on the talk page, it had gotten a bit out of hand. It was essentially an unsourced article masquerading as a template. Consider the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 20#Template:Airline holding company organizations of the world. The same argument could have been made for deleting this outright, but I decided to just cut it down to something useful and more in line with WP:NAVBOX rather than putting it up for deletion.

I'd also like to get people's thoughts on {{Alaska Airlines}}. I think it's a bit much. {{Delta Air Lines}} is much more reasonable. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor has apparently decided to attempt to engage in a revert war over {{Airline holding companies of the United States}}. Need input on which version to use. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like some thoughts on the footer links that were added to {{Airlines of the United States}}. I'm pretty sure this is the same anonymous "Holding Company Guy" editor we've dealt with before. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the organization of the WORLD and WIKI should be turned over to OBAMA and 717.

Like OBAMA, ONLY maybe HE KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE MERE PLEBIANS and PEASANTS NOT HYBRID ENOUGH to think for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian Aviation magazine - perhaps others

I think I may rewrite and expand 1989 Australian pilots' strike (User:Russavia/Strike), and one of the sections I will include is a list of the airlines which operated in Australia during the dispute (User:Russavia/Strike#List_of_charters). I have had a look at airliners.net and have managed to find some photos of some of the aircraft which were flying down here at that time, but what I am missing is usable references. I remembered seeing a Hawaiian Airlines TriStar in Perth at the time, and managed to find photographic "evidence" of this. And I am sure that I am missing other airlines and aircraft. Does anyone out there have copies of Australian Aviation magazine going back to this time, or perhaps other magazines (Flight, etc) which may have covered this? Any help with providing references for these would be appreciated. Can contact me via my talk page if you wish. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the online back copies of Flight at www.flightglobal.com MilborneOne (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The following information is all from Gordon Reid's monthly Traffic section in AustAv (Aerospace Publications Pty. Ltd. Weston Creek ACT, ISSN 0813-0876)

No. 54 January/February 1990, p83-83
Aeromaritime 737-300 F-GFUA for Australian Airlines (AA)
Air 2000 757-200s G-OOOI/J for Ansett (AN)
All Nippon 747-200s JA8174 and JA8181 did SYD/ADL/SYD once each before & after the Australian F1 GP; both AN & AA shared both a/c
America West 737-300s N166/167/168AW for AN; Ansett 737-300s VH-CZM/O/P went to Am. West in return
Arrow Air DC-8-62AF N791AL for Ansett Air Freight; appears to be the first aircraft to be chartered, arrived MEL 28/8/89 and into service the following day
Brittania 737-300s G-BNRT & G-BOLM for AA
Dan-Air 727-200 G-BPNS (ex-Ansett) for AA
Garuda DC-10-30s that were normally laid over in Perth as part of normal ops were used to fly PER/MEL/PER; nearly all of Garuda's DC-10s were apparently used & both airlines shared the a/c. Garuda also did Port Hedland/PER using a variety of DC-9-30s for AN
Hawaiian - the L1011 you saw was N763BE; it did a single SYD/PER/SYD shared by both airlines
737-300 G-MONP leased by Inter European from Monarch used by AA
Lauda Air 737-300 OE-ILG for AA
Monarch 757-200s G-DRJC & -MOND for AA
Omega Air 707-300 EL-AJT leased by AA but never actually operated
Paramount 737-300 G-PATE leased by the Queensland Govt. for AN
Royal Brunei 757-200s V8-RBA/B/C leased one-at-a-time by the Northern Territory Govt. and shared by both Airlines; V8-RBC appears to have been the first passenger a/c to be leased, entered service 2/9/89
Singapore A/L A310-300 9V-STP did a one-off DRW/PER/DRW for AN
Trans European 737-300s OO-LTA and HB-IIA used by AA
JAT 737-300s YU-AND & -ANJ used by AA for about six weeks then used by AN
No. 55 March/April 1990, p102
Inter European 737-300 G-BNGL used by AA
Dan-Air 727-200 G-BPNS replaced earlier a/c

The RAAF transport fleet was also heavily used until 15/12/89; IIRC 707s, C-130s, HS.748s and even the Caribous. Anyone in GA who had a Cessna 310 or Beech Baron or anything bigger made a lot of money. There were six DC-3s flying out of YSBK; IIRC one had an incident on landing with the Canberra Raiders Rugby League team on board. YSSYguy (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more info

No. 57 June 1990, p78
AN used a leased a/c for the last time on 31/3/90, however 737-300 G-PATE commenced flying with East-West on 1/4.
No. 58 July 1990, p54
AA finished with its use of leased a/c on 25/4/90; East-West ended its use of G-PATE on 30/4/90.

A large proportion of the a/c used by AN were owned by AWAS and were on lease to the various airlines which then sub-leased (or in the case of G-MONP sub-sub-leased) to AN. YSSYguy (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Requesting help regarding the airlines LACSA/TACA/TACA COSTA RICA

There has been controversy regarding the naming and content of the article Lacsa, due to its relationship with Grupo TACA, and the recently created TACA Costa Rica. Please see the discussion here. I just do occasional edits on Costa Rican and Brazilian airlines (I am not an expert on the subject), so any advice, experiences with similar cases, and provision of reliable sources (publicly available) is welcome. Please drop by and help us resolve the confusion in order to fix the content and accuracy of the Lacsa article. Thanks.-Mariordo (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps you but

Grupo TACA is part of a Conglomerate, and is being merged with another Multinational Conglomerate by way of a Parent Company forming a holding company.

Some airline simpletons, are discourging people from trying to explain these concepts, by practicing tyranny of the majority by a small editing minority by using their abilities to figure out how wiki works.

Sorry you are having any problems with this. There are many of us on WIKI trying to make it clear and understandable in the most simple and least boring terms possible. 166.128.29.40 (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 166.128.29.40 (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Basically, the Banana Republic airlines were brought together under a multinational "Grupo" business organization, and from there the individual airlines identities were branded as a common conglomerate multinational airline organization called and branded simply as TACA.

National Pride of the former Flag carrier airlines followers, employees, and citizenary maintains a desire for many of the TACA brands to still be representative of their individual countries, but basically this confusion is of all the different parties is not being recognized in the pages of Grupo TACA on wiki.

Kind of like how many people still think Delta Connection is an airline! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.75.82 (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


P.S. No offense intended in Banana analogy. Much of Central America is admired and adored by aviacion oficiandos - sin los acentos gramaticas. desculpa. 32.176.75.82 (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Airline holding companies template

I made a note of this earlier but didn't get a response, so wanted to bring it up again before I take more drastic actions. I redesigned {{Airline holding companies of the United States}} to be more in line with a standard navigation template, but I keep getting reverted to the massive version by an IP editor. My feeling is that this has grown beyond a navigation template, and the similarly massive template for worldwide airline holding companies was deleted some months back in favor of a list article. I would like some consensus on whether going forward we should keep the massive version, the simplified version I developed, or delete the whole thing. The simplified version can be seen in the template's history here: [6]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support your small version Hawaiian, big information is more appropriate for a list article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of a nav template is to provide a tool to navigate between like articles. It is not intended to document all of the related holdings and copious details. I have written some rather large templates in the past and generally they were nominated at WP:TFD. The only solution to avoid deletion was to reduce the size and better focus them even if that meant splitting up related templates and creating a new parent one. So yes, the smaller one is better and the larger one would probably get deleted if the size was not reduced TfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on this consensus I'm reverting back to the simplified version; I'd appreciate it of others kept an eye on it too. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Reminder: Consensus = Ideally, achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.63 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In over a week, a total of three editors (including myself) posted their opinion and all preferred the simpler version. We cannot wait forever for everyone to give their opinion, as some never will because it is not within their area of interest. Normally, I would have also posted a notification on your talk page as well about the discussion, but since you use a constantly changing IP address, there was little point to doing so since I had no way of knowing if you'd ever get the message. I did post on the template's talk page. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A Consensus of Three, Tres, Trois 3 ... Some Concensus Tyranny of the Minority VANDALISM at WIKI continious by THE ABOVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.128.29.40 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2009


I have started a discussion about the scope of this template on the template's talk page. I'd appreciate input from editors (including anonymous IP editors) there. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews and doubts about editing in Aviation Articles here at Wiki

Folks, I would like to encourage you to feel free. This is not a totalitarian setting we are living in. Try to make it conform without being over the top on ABSOLUTE STEPFORD STRUCTURE.

IF you find or feel there is a better way of putting information in to be more clear, accurate or fair... feel free and do it. WIKI should be a place for additonal knowledge, insight, and wisdom. Problem is way too many of us invest way too much time trying to make people understand certain issues, and others do not seem to care about the accuracy of these issues, especially when it comes to big airline business practices that just seem to get glossed over because they are confusing, or complicated.

Maintain the fight for clarity. GCH 32.176.75.82 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for so clearly laying out your agenda. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft sub-types

It is my understanding that we dont normally list the subtype in fleet listing to either include airbus engine codes with multiple entries different (ie. A319-112 or A319-132 would be listed as either A319 or A319-100 but only one entry). And we dont include Boeing customer codes either, or have multiple entries for different customer codes. On Olympic Air User:Zaps93 disagrees and keeps adding multiple lines. Any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I only have 1 reason for my edits. For Boeing aircraft like the 737-300 or 747-400 I see no point to list their sub categories as they have no relevance to the engine model on the aircraft, but as for the Airbus series, their codes (eg. A319-112) mean the engines type they have. A319-112 are equipped with CFM56-5B, but the A319-132 is equipped with IAE Model V2524. All I am saying is for Airbus aircraft, to help people research airlines is to add teh sub-types so that they can tell the engine model if desired. Zaps93 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think that aircraft sub-codes are useful. They should be linked by a pipe, such as Airbus A319-132. For the Boeing customer codes there is a dedicated list. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As reader of article, I just got annoyed and confused with extra info I did not want to see it! I just want to you to include "-132" in comments section. Main column include text didn't make any sence. Why? makes difficult to dealt for my eyes (extra junk), so I just want to remove from main column and got info in comments section. --B767-500 (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not junk, its the model of engines which is good, notable information unlike the Boeing customer number which is irrelevant. It's good information to have in the article. Zaps93 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Airbus - I still dont think the engines used on an aircraft by an airline is notable unless the first of a type. We also have some airlines that do operate a number of different sub-types which causes confusion to the reader. It is also possible for aircraft to change from one sub-type to another when an engine is changed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally believe it should be there though. It is helpful information, just like the amount of an aircraft in fleet. Yes they may change but that is why we update it. Zaps93 (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
IMO aircraft subtypes are not notable, as long as there is no impact on the number of passengers carried. Subtypes in Wikipwedia are confusing to the reader, as he gets no information on the meaning. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for pros, but for the common people. If one wants to get more information, they can look it up somewhere else. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GT Air

The GT Air article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regions for airports

There seems to be an edit war brewing over which continent to use for airport destinations. I hope all participants can assume good faith and reach some consensus.

Some of the problem has been about whether certain destinations are in Europe, or in Asia. The boundary of these continents does not have a single universal definition, but it would be good to have a consensus on a shared convention to use in the airport related articles. By default, I would recommend retaining the basic convention established long ago in Template:Airline destinations. Click on the link to view.

Some of the allocations might be seen as somewhat arbitrary, but that will be true for any chosen convention. Eastern Europe, for example, includes all of the Russian Federation and Turkey. These nations stride both continents as usually defined geographically; but it is advantageous in this context, I think, to simply keep each nation in a single region. I have not checked in detail, but the list appears to fit closely with is fairly similar to United Nations World Macro regions and components, which makes sense in this application, I think.

I have no prior involvement with this wikiproject, and offer this suggestion as a starter. If there is a solid consensus for some other classification, that's fine... but then the template should be changed also. If there is no clear consensus, then I strongly advise simply keeping to what is given in this template, as it is widely used in high level lists and has been around for quite a long time. If the template is satisfactory, we may be able to get a rapid resolution of the potential edit wars. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


  • Dear colleagues! Following our dispute with User:Jasepl on asian/european countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, I'd like to share my opinion here also. I'm sure it is rather objective to use for our purposes, no doubt noble and necessary, this very criterion United Nations World Macro regions and components. Being the author of some articles dedicated to airline destinations in different european languages, may I wait for the consensus established here in order to use English Wiki standards in other linguistic Wiki spaces.
It seems to me that any change to the convention established in the template should be discussed here and have a clear consensus from a number of editors active in this area. Such a change would impact many articles and lists. Please don't start work on major alterations until there has been time for more opinions to be expressed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a comment should we not use the location as described in the individual country articles rather than re-inventing something. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Would u please precise what u mean? Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 November 2009
MilborneOne, the individual country articles for the ambiguous cases don't always give a single location. See, for example, Turkey. Also relevant is the wikipedia List of countries spanning more than one continent. There are multiple conventions in place for different purposes. Your task here is to pick a single consistent convention for use with Airline destinations. I regret having mentioned the UN list; since it is only one of many possible conventions that you could consider and what I really would prefer to recommend is sticking with the convention that has been in place in wikipedia for this purpose in the past. I believe this is best seen as what is given in the template Template:Airline destinations. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Really? U regret? UN list is the most objective because it was maiden by United Nations - each opinion was taken into consideration. Un list is the most correct because it is based upon evident and objective criterion - geography. And now - voila! - we coming back to the start of discussion: let's use what we used inspite there is a conflict! Fancy, colleagues! Dimitree 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
The exception I have found so far is Cyprus and Turkey. In the UN list, they are both listed in "Western Asia". In the Airline destinations template they are both listed in Eastern Europe. That is the reason I regretted citing the UN list; I had effectively introduced two conflicting sources. This also means you can't cite these together and then simply speak of "violating the rule". You've cited two different rules. As I did also, unfortunately. It's not that I have any particular preference for a one correct answer. I simply think it is easiest to stick with the convention wikipedia has been using as given in the template, that's all.
I remind you, in the strongest possible terms, to continue to recognize we are all working here in good faith. We can't just say "call things by their name". We need to sort out what naming conventions to use, and there is a genuine difference of viewpoint. We all need to listen to both sides. I personally think the convention of using Europe for Turkey and Cyprus is a bit better; but I won't mind if the consensus goes the other way. Note that this was discussed briefly above at #How to list destinations in Turkey - Europe? Asian? or both?, and two views were expressed without coming to a definite conclusion. I'd stick with Europe in these cases. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Explain me why User:Jasepl puts Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, classified as asian countries in both sources, in Europe? Explain me why User:Jasepl puts Russian Federation, classified as european in both sources, in Asia? Considering that there was a consensus (Template:Airline destinations), his actions seemed to be beneath the rules. Thank you! P.S.: aren't you tired of reminding in the strongest possible terms? --Dimitree 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
I cannot speak for another editor, but in general I assume that he is working as he thinks best for the encyclopedia. Consensus can change, or he may be unsure that there really is a consensus in the way you suggest, or he may want to change the consensus.
As for "rules", another foundational wikipedia principle is Ignore all rules. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Now if an editor ends up just being disruptive of the project, they'll usually get blocked by other editors, so do we tend to muddle along. The most important principle continues to be about how we go about resolving the disputes that inevitably arise. Meaning no offense, but you've not been very helpful in the past for how you've approached this issue, and no, I'm not at all tired of emphasizing the critical importance of the principles of civility and constructive dispute resolution, for long as it is still needed. Without that, everyone just gets angry and you have edit wars and lots of blocks. But I think we're getting to a better engagement now and this reminder won't be needed so much.
Let's get back to a focus on the actual point at issue and not on other editors.
I agree that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are all best classified as Asia (specifically, South-West Asia). I agree that the Russian federation is best classified as Europe (specifically, Eastern Europe). I don't where others stand, but I think Turkey and Cyprus are also best classified as Eastern Europe, rather than Asia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
So what is the problem? If Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are classified asian, let's put them in Asia. If Russian Federation is calssifeid european, let's put it in Europe. If Cyprus and Turkey are trans, let's follow an objective criterion: template or UN list. It is very easy, isn't it? But User:Jasepl launched an editor war and his work involves a conflict. Just check his diffs and you'll see that since his "work" all above mentionned countires have been moved from places they were before him, here, in Wiki. Moreover, something he has done for purpose: placed Russian Federation in Asia even when other editors (not me!) reverted his editing! So what are we trying to find: consensus or different truths? If this semantic puzzle with no sens goes on, I'll address to the Arbitration. Thanx! --Dimitree (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
We are trying to find consensus, of course. You do that by talking as we are doing here, and presuming good faith in other people. Be patient.
If you go to Arbitration now, you may get in hot water yourself. An edit war involves at least two people. By definition, an edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. It is not launching an edit war to be bold in making a change you consider good for the encyclopedia. See WP:BRD. Neither is it an edit war to revert the change, in the first instance. An edit war results if both editors then continue to revert each other without trying to talk to each other, and both sides are at fault when this occurs.
A basic requirement for Arbitration is a demonstrated attempt to have first used appropriate dispute resolution steps, and this (as I apparently still need to remind you) requires you to assume good faith and be civil. This is not an option. It is fundamental.
I do not see any problem with you continuing to revert an initial edit by Jasepl to any article where he alters continents from what has been previously in an article for some time and from is in the templates. I also urge Jasepl to stop making changes of that nature unless and until there's a clear consensus for it.
Back to the substance. We cannot simply declare some standard to be imposed on all editors. A consensus can change, and if other editors don't like the standard you propose, then it is not a consensus, by definition. There really is no way around talking about a disagreement when it arises.
My suggestion is still to go with the template, and I think that is what you are doing as well. I think you and I agree on the actual appropriate regions. But we can't simply declare that to be the consensus, and it is not appropriate rush to arbitration simply because other people have a different suggestion.
I think I was the first person in recent times who has explicitly suggested using the template as a suitable guideline. I would like to hear from Jasepl and other editors if they are happy with this suggestion. It would certainly simplify things, but let's hear from a few others please. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
As Dimitree is encouraged to respect consensus and to discuss the issues collegially, I think Jasepl should be also. Could he please be encouraged to explain his position on the issues raised and identifications being discussed here? Is this not where we are working through these issues? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course; and the passage just above does indeed explicitly urge Jasepl to stop making these particular changes until there is an consensus, and requests him and others to comment here. I'm sure he'll be back again soon. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Just note that the current guideline suggests that continents and areas are not used in airline articles and only that they may be used in the stand alone articles. Also note that the good example for continents/areas and regions is currently the British Airways destinations article not the Template:Airline destinations, although this could be changed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks MilborneOne. A current guideline would be great: I presume you mean WikiProject Aviation/Style guide. I did actually have a look through this when the dispute came to my attention, and could find no clear resolution to the particular issues that were the focus of an edit war, or at least an edit skirmish, in lists of destinations. The appropriate section would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Destination list; but that only indicates the list template to use.
OH! I have just found the link to another guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)#Destinations. This does say: "Destinations should use the world based format show in articles like British Airways destinations". The problem is that this looks more like a format guideline than a content guideline. It can't resolve consistency issues with Azerbaijan, for example, since BAC doesn't fly there. This article locates Turkey and Cyprus in Asia.
The guideline does say that "Destinations should be listed in alphabetical order of countries"; and then adds that "If needed the list can be sorted by continent and region in stand alone articles only. It is suggested that regions are only used if the number of countries in a continent exceeds ten."
It might be a good idea to update the template to fit whatever you guys want for locating countries to regions and continents, because it can be sufficiently comprehensive to cover all countries. What do you think? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Сolleagues! What are we talking about?! There is UN standartised list of countries where clearly indicated that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as Cyprus and Turkey are asian; Russian Federation is european. Let's follow it untill any further changes. It is so evident and so easy! We can modify somehow Airline destinations template following this UN List. What is the problem? Is it that someone thinks that more phisically distant from Europe country (Azerbaijan) must be listed european and less physically distant from Europe country (Armenia) must be listed asian? Absurdity! --Dimitree (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC) P.S.: this absurdity is much more evident because User:Jasepl even did not present any arguments in proving his point of view...
For the love of Harry! .... Dimitree, we are talking in order to getting a consensus. Wikipedia is not in the UN. The consensus is chosen by editors here. There is absolutely no credible basis for insisting that the UN list is a gold standard. (Note also that this list is a bit out of date, and has an explicit caution at the bottom about not being officially endorsed. It's just a handy list, like many others around the place.) Your proposal is a perfectly sensible one, but you HAVE to let people have a say on it before it is a consensus for wikipedia. You are proposing a change to the wikipedia consensus.
Frankly, I still think that we are better to stick with Turkey and Cyprus in Europe. I like this primarily because this is used on the Template, and in most relevant wikipedia articles. Cyprus is in the EU, and Turkey is likely to be in the future. It also seems to be the most common convention in aviation lists up until recently.
I hear, and I understand, that you are proposing something different. What does anyone else think? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the argument against using the UN standard? What alternative is being proposed? Including Turkey in Europe because it is likely at some future date to become part of Europe seems kind of flimsy to me. If it were up to me we would use Middle East, Eastern Europe and other well established designations. :) But I'm just wondering what the basis for the other side of the dispute is. I haven't really seen it yet. What are the source or policy based objections to Dimitree's proposal? And I do think Duae has made a good effort to mediate. So let's try to keep the discussion civil. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much CoM. I don't actually have a stake in this, so my own reply is not important. Mediation is the only reason I'm here at all. Hence I'd like to see if there are answers from anyone else. Whichever answer is chosen, it would require changes to make the destination lists consistent with each other; should that be something the project would like to work towards. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I just consider evident facts - geography. Nothing more. From this point of view all countries in discussian are there where they phisically are. User:Jasepl already told that political criterion (Unions, Alliances, political structures) are not relevant for this. And I disagree on including Cyprus and Turkey in Europe (at least Turkey) thinking that "a day wil come when Turkey is in Europe". It is a political union. Geography - this is the most objective basis As example - UN List. There is a well-known region Middle East, but here in Wiki it is excluded. Why? Because smone thinks it is better to divide Asia in multiple endless puzzle? The same for Europe: eastern/western/southern/northern. What for? Does it help somehow? It seems to me NOT. It just helps to launch wars. Between editors, sure ))) Thank you! --Dimitree (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(Point of order... please don't insert a new comment into the middle of a previous comment by another person. It loses signatures. I have taken the liberty of moving your comment above from above out of the middle of my comment and down to its chronological order. Thank you.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Airline Holding Companies

I spent some time cleaning up the List of airline holding companies article to remove uneeded graphics and information. We dont need graphics to tell us where continents are, we dont need logos for airlines, I had also reverted to more standard presentation (an overuse of the small html tag). I had also removed information not related to holding companies, such as governments and removed single airline parent companies as a large percentage of airlines have parent companies all of which can be found on the individual airline pages. An IP editor has reverted the changes which I think is a retrograde step. I have reverted it back but would appreciate if other editors can review my changes and to make sure they were appropriate as clearly the American IP user does not agree. Support or just to tell me my clean up was wrong appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Airline

A user has added financial fields in the Template:Infobox Airline has this been discussed ? doesnt look right for an airline more to do with companies. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also why is there an AOC section? I never noticed this before. Zaps93 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It was added in August with no discussion but it wasnt challenged at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, most of us don't watch the templates, which could edplain why the change went unnoticed. I'm not convinced that this information is maintainable at this level. We already have a ton of information in each article that requires updating, fleets, destinations, fleet age, so adding this would appear to be a burden. One part of me argues that if this is desirable from the company wikiproject and they are going to update it, then fine. On the other hand, how many companies release this detail for all of their flying subsidiaries? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I suspect that the sort of detail added would only be available for a very small number of the 3000 airline articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I have notifed the user who added the fields (User:Lcmortensen of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and as for the AOC, that will be difficult to aquire for some airlines. Maybe the user was unaware it needed to be discussed first. Zaps93 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Things don't have to be discussed first per se, as this would negate WP:BOLD. Anyway, I added the AOC, as this information is obtainable for a large number of countries from their civil aviation authority, or other relevant organisation. Having financials or statistics in the infobox is not all that bad an idea either, because airlines actually are companies - they are simply companies involved in the airline business. And most airlines would release some types of data, such as revenues, passengers, etc. Perhaps relevant stats which could be included are RPK, TPK, etc, etc. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize that it needed to be discussed. The financial field came around because I had done some work with financials for New Zealand companies - i realized that airlines are companies too - the template already have some of the Infobox Company fields (Key people, headquarters, etc.) The inspiration came with the Air New Zealand article - Air NZ is a NZX 50 company (the top stock index in New Zealand), so it looked odd without financial figures.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Air New Zealand, thanks for your working trying to keep things clearly accurate. You are up against some control freaks here though so don't waste too much time with WIKI things but do continue. 32.176.67.80 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Airline destinations

I'm abit confused by the 'new' format that the destination articles must be named, e.g. Aer Arann destinations - List of Aer Arann destinations. I personally find the way that User:Russavia has been presenting them a terrible untidy mess. If you go to the category section, instead of having the airlines listed there, all you mainly see is 'List of' not 'American Airlines', etc. What's the deal?! Zaps93 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding List of makes a longer title, does not add to the understanding of the topic and is not required by the MoS the last time I looked. Looks like this is being done to match the category rename. That rename does not require or suggest the the articles need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
As noted on my talk page, the renaming of the airlines is inline with WP:LISTNAME. It's for this reason that articles are being moved. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 23:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Vegaswikian, this needed to have been discussed before you changed the article names! Zaps93 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, the name may be longer, but the guidelines for lists do make for good reason to move them. Another example, I created Ambassador of Russia to Austria, and as part of its featured list review it was mentioned that it should be renamed as per WP:LISTNAME, which is why it is now at List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria. Sure, it adds a few characters to the title, but it clearly defines exactly what the article is about. And it is no different with articles contained in Category:Lists of airline destinations. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 00:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Not a fan of prefixing "List of" to the articles, but if that's what we have consensus on (if indeed there is consensus) then... However, Russavia, it will be nice if in future, were you to discover any similar guideline, that you at least bring it to the attention of other regular editors on the discussion pages before starting on a mass-renaming. Besides avoiding needless confusion and conflict, it's also a much appreciated common courtesy. Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Jasepl, you say: "if that's what we have consensus on (if indeed there is consensus) then" and revert again? There is no consensus yet. So, logically, no reverts and movements. I think "List of..." may refer to a list of longest non-stop flights or 5 star airlines or busiest airports and so on (different nature of one thing) and can not refer to airlines destinatios (one nature of different things). I'm sure it is better to keep previously agreed standard. Thanx! --Dimitree (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to suggest that if there is any concern about leaving them as is, we modify the project page to make it clear that the current naming is acceptable. I believe that the 'List of' prefex is to avoid using 'Table of' or other wording. If you read the above guideline in total, you will see this key phrase 'it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'. Since the contents of the article are clear from the title, there is no need to change. We would still be in compliance with WP:PRECISION and we also need to remember that 'A good article title is brief and to the point' opens that naming policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I see no reason that these lists should be treated any differently from any other list on WP - they are after all List of XXX destinations. They aren't articles; they are for the most part, unreferenced lists with little to no context (99% of them). Vegas, you know as well as I do, that these lists are already on thin ice given their past AfDs, and it would be better for members to reference the lists, rather going against what seems to be an established MOS for such things. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll tell you why, because when you go to category you will be searching for ever just to find a certain airlines destinations, but without the 'list of' it is so much simplar and easier, it has been this way for years with no problems so there is no need for change! Zaps93 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
One would not spend ages trying to find the lists, as they would be sorted alphabetically still. Other categories use this as standard, and there is no reason why articles in this project should go against MOS. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 18:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
'It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'. Clearly this is the case here. There is not basis in fact that people will have a problem finding these 'lists'. If there really is a problem, then simply use the '*' as the sort key. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
True Vegas, exceptions may apply, however, there is as yet no relevant reasoning why Lists of airline destinations should be named any differently from any other lists on Wikipedia. I really can't see any reason why the exception should apply in this instance. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, since all lists are not "List of foo", the better question is why do these need to be changed? The project consensus has settled on this format over time. It is clean and not ambiguous and is probably closer to the way destinations are discussed in the industry and by passengers. I don't think anyone asks for a list of destinations. I try to get hard copy timetables when I see them since they are so convenient and easy to use. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mimika Air AfD

The Mimika Air article has been relisted at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

United Airways (United Kingdom)

Hi guys,

just started the article on this airline (ceased operations in 1935). Who can expand? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

United Airways (Bangladesh)

Hi guys, I proposed to have the abovementioned articled moved to United Airways, because it is by far the most commonly referred airline of that name. The other airlines of that name would be listed either like in Midwest Airlines by using the for other uses...see header or by creating United Airways (disambiguation) like it was done with USA. There is a discussion going on here. Any comments? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

go! Mokulele

Recently, Mesa Air Group and Republic Airways Holdings created a joint venture that combined their Hawaii-based operations, go! Airlines and Mokulele Airlines, into go! Mokulele. The resulting combined branding covers Mesa's CRJs and Mokulele's Cessna Grand Caravan. The Mokulele Airlines article was moved to go! Mokulele, which means the resulting article focuses on Mokulele, even though Mesa owns 75% of the joint venture. I suggest that the article be moved back to Mokulele Airlines, and a new article be started for the joint venture. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree the original history of Mokulele is likely to be lost as it is not relevant to the joint venture. I would suggest that the move is reverted and that the JV has its own article . MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no opposition to the move. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have moved it back and done some cleanup. I took the intro and redid it to have something at the go! Mokulele page. I'll leave it to someone else to write the real article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tabulated destination lists

Is there any guideline on this project which dictates that destination lists must follow the atrocious and ugly version as seen in most of the destination lists? When I expanded the Druk Air article, I replaced the ugly list with a formatted table, and an editor is insisting on replacing a formatted table with the atrocrious looking list, citing some guideline. Is there any reason that these ugly looking lists are preferabble over tables, except for a guideline, which of course is only a guideline (remembering that article content is decided upon by editors). Comment welcomed on this. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will also point out #5 of WP:FL - although the destinations lists are never going to become featured lists, there is really no reason that the lists should not follow some degree of manual of style that is expected of featured content. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer the list over what shows up as a really ugly table which takes up far to much room for only seven or so destinations. MilborneOne (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hainan Airlines

Hi guys. I am a bit confused: it states here http://finance.yahoo.com/news/First-Route-Between-Mainland-prnews-1146945836.html?x=0&.v=2 that Hainan Airlines has launched the flights between Honolulu and Beijing but Hainan's website has no record of the flight ever operating. Can anyone give me a flight number to have proof that this is a regularly scheduled flight or is it one of those special government flights? I know that they were granted service last month but said the flights will not begin until early 2010. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The headline is misleading. The first paragraph clearly states that Hainan Airlines will launch flights between Beijing and Honolulu, and nowhere does the article itself imply that flights have started. It actually doesn't give any start date. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks....it can't start that early. Snoozlepet (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Airlines flying into Enfidha - Zine El Abidine Ben Ali International Airport

Hi guys, there is a huge dest-list included at this new airport article. I doubt that all these flights are correct. Especially that Tunisair will have a second hub at Enfidha. Who can confirm or clean-up these contents? Thanks. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see Thomson Airways or Thomas Cook Airlines operating some of the destinations that it says they will. Zaps93 (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, if they are not announced or if they are not bookable then they need to be removed or put a sources tag (i went and see it was already done). For Tunisair having a hub there, i put a citation needed tag to it since it needs a source stating that the airport is a hub for the airline. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I could only find references for the Jetairfly service (from next April), changed article accordingly. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New/Discontinued Routes section at US Airways

There is a section for new/discontinued routes on the US Airways page i think should be removed since Wikipedia is not a travel guide/news source and i think it was agreed upojn to be removed. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed discontinued routes per duplication (it really should be listed on it's destination page) and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Tagged the rest of the questionable section. Will keep the article on watch and edit when I get the time. (My time is limited those days). Sb617 (contribs) 03:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That does not make sense. I don't see how showing discontinued routes amounts to creating a travel guide; only showing current route/destination information is more akin to a travel guide and press release. Showing the development of an airline over time is encyclopedic.Synchronism (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

DL/NW's operating certificates

I found a statement on both Delta and Northwest's wiki pages saying that NW's operating certficiate will merge with DL's on December 31, 2009. I have tagged that statement with [citation needed] since I have found no sources stating that certificates will merge on that date. If anyone can find a source stating that both carriers' certficate will combine on December 31, then feel free to add. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most sources, such as this one, state "...to obtain a single operating certificate by the end of this year." Sounds like someone is interpreting "end of this year" in an extremely literal sense. AFAIK, the FAA will issue the combined certificate when its ready, whenever that is - it could be In Dec, in Jan, or even later. I searched what I could on Google, and found no specific dates. Go a head and change it to "the end of this year." - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Also remember that when the two airlines do combine that the NW page needs to be kept as a history of that airline. Only needs an appropriate link across to Delta but the page should be preserved as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Milb1 on that. Also, I've removed the wording from the article, and replaced it with one based on the ref. - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's concentrate our attention on some Russian airlines

Hi guys, I want to inform you that there are many articles on Russian Airlines that are in a very poor state. Most of them have not seen any larger update for years, which means that they are totally outdated, especially in terms of fleet and destinations. I have grouped those articles that need a helping hand most urgently:

1) The articles of the following airlines nearly exclusively rely on the official airline websites as source. Unfortunately, these website cannot be loaded anymore, they are down! This leaves the whole articles unreferenced and it is doubtful whether the airlines are still active at all.

2) The following airlines have single-source articles. Most of them exclusively rely on an issue of Flight International dating back to 2007.

3) There is a start-up airlines called Avianova. The Wikipedia article states that it might never come into being. Who has any news or references?

Who of you fancies going on this adventure and doing something good for Wikipedia? We cannot always only look at the well-known airlines, but must also keep the articles of airlines no-one has heard of so far on the current. This is what Wikipedia is for: Telling the guys out there something they don't know already. Unfortunately, this will be my last edit here at Wikipedia for a longer Wikibreak-period, so I can't do anything more than noticing you about what IMHO has to be done and hope that someone of you feels like doing it. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Termminated destinations

All - there seem to be a few editors (mostly IPs) who seem to have started this trend of list country/city names in use at the time a destination was served by an airline. Leading to entries like "British Mandate of Palestine" as the country for Tel Aviv. My feel is that we just use current names and keep things uncomplicated. Any opinions? Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminated routes/destinations

Should we list out terminated route insist of terminated destinations? I found out there are problems for those airlines which serve Point-to-Point but not Hub-to-Spoke. Which mean for those airline has more than 1 base. Ideas are welcome~ Thanks Maninter (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminated routes seems like something that rather quickly would become unmaintainable. Both hub and spoke and point to point carriers may shift routes over time while maintaining service to a particular destination. We don't maintain current routes on airline articles either, however the airport articles can be used to determine them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How to list the "DL operated by NW" flights?

I know that over the past year, Delta and Northwest have begun swapping routes on many international flights. For the "NW" code flights flown on DL planes, the destinations are listed as "Delta Air Lines". But there has been some arguement on how to list the "DL" coded flights flown on NWA planes (especially at Athens International Airport). People continue to assume that both DL/NW's oeprating certificates will be combined by the end of this year. Some DL flights on NW planes are to begin in May/June 2010 and people assume that NW will be gone by then. Since we do not know when exactly the certificates are to be merged (maybe January/February or later), should we continue to list these flights as "Northwest Airlines" or shuld we now begin to list them as "Delta operated by Northwest"? Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because the government make people jusmp through multiple hoops, do we have to do so to? Is tehre an easeir way to do this? mMust everything on Wikipeida be difficult? - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has gotten a bit further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports, so I suggest that all comments be made there rather than having them split across two separate pages. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Page Rename

I suggest on renaming Northwest Airlink destinations page to Delta Connection destinations since "Northwest Airlink" name is no longer used on its flights and all flights are now operated under the Delta Connection banner. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we drop the page entirely, instead listing the destinations under the destinations page for each operating carrier, like we do for the individual pre-merger Delta Connection carriers (Comair destinations, SkyWest Airlines destinations, Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations, etc)? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea. Compass Airlines already has its own destinations but Mesaba Airlines and Pinnacle Airlines both have destinations lists link to Northwest Airlink destinations. That page needs to be removed anyways since "Northwest Airlink" is a not a airline but a brand/service. Snoozlepet (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Partially done. I have just created Delta Connection destinations (like United Express destinations), which puts together all dest-lists of the respective regional airlines. Still, someone has to go through the Northwest Airlink destinations and split them into the respective airlines (Mesaba Airlines and Pinnacle Airlines). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
completed. Merry Christmas. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines

Can someone take a look at the Southwest article. A whole section was added to that page stating that CVG is to become a Southwest "hub". I think that section should be removed since no formal announcement was made of any kind stating this rumour and second Southwest do not operate use the term "Hub". Snoozlepet (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Flier

The airline was "suppose" to begin service January 8 but Flightaware show the airline hasn't started oeprations yet. In my opinion, we either should remove the airline entirely until it do begin operations or change the start date to a later date. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Insiders had pretty much that their starting date has been pushed back a few days due to regulatory issues. As it's a forum thread, I would wait to see if that's the case or not Sb617 (contribs) 01:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Interflug Flight DM-SEA

Obviously, this article features the wrong page name, as DM-SEA was the aircraft involved, not the flight number. Any ideas how to solve it? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be moved to Interflug Flight nnn, but since the flight number isn't in the article, someone would have to find it before the article can be moved. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In the German Wikipedia, the page name is Königs Wusterhausen Air Disaster. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps 1972 Interflug Ilyushin Il-62 accident. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Airbus A380 routes

Please note that List of Airbus A380 routes is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Airbus A380 routes. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

SkyKing Turks and Caicos Airways vs Air Turks and Caicos

Hi guys, obviously Air Turks and Caicos merged with SkyKing in 2006. Here on Wikipedia, there are still the abovementioned two articles, each of them claiming to deal with the now merged airline. Also, destination lists often feature double entries. Who of you can sort this mess out? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

edit: The official website is still Air Turks and Caicos, whilst the [www.skyking.tc SkyKing] homepage is down. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Airline Names

An IP has some issues with the names used for certain airlines, and won't bring it up for discussion, preferring to make changes to the Warsaw Airport article only. Since I've tried explaining the process several times here with no real luck, I figured its best I start the topic. IP's point is:

"You do not seem to follow any pattern at all. If you decide to use the English versions of the official names without the legal status (e.g. Norwegian Air Shuttle), then, apart from CSA, Swiss and Norwegian, you should change:
1. Aeroflot into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines
2. KLM into KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
3. Turkish Airlines into THY - Turkish Airlines
4. Scandinavian Airlines System into Scandinavian Airlines (the first no longer exists)
5. Danube Wings into VIP Wings
6. Lufthansa Regional into Lufthansa (the first one is tantamount to Austrian arrows)"

More on the IP's talk page. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, when listing the airlines operating from airports, you should follow some pattern, either the official name of the carrier (translated into English if the carrier does so in official documents) without legal status (e.g. Condor Flugdienst, THY-Turkish Airlines), or the name identical to the brand the airline is marketing under (Condor, Turkish Airlines). As the first is not always commonly recognized by people not interested in aviation, I suggest the pattern:

[marketing name] e.g. Turkish Airlines or [marketing name] operated by [marketing name of the wet-lessor or operating carrier] e.g. Iceland Express operated by Astraeus

Listing by wikipedia airline-name entries is useless since there they do not follow any rule.

to Jasepl: So far there is no pattern in listing at all, so my changes at Warsaw Airport may not be considered as "inconsistent" as there is no point of reference.

89.76.213.134 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Should use the name of the related airline article - if that is wrong then that should be discussed at the related airline article. Also refer to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Astraeus Airlines

An IP from the airline has made changes to the Astraeus Airlines article and keeps reverting my reversions! I have warned them about WP:COI and suggested that they may be blocked if they make anymore undiscussed changes to the article. I have to go offline for a bit so would appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on the article. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Destination articles

There’s a major discrepancy in what we include in such articles from airline to airline. Using two examples:

  • Lufthansa destinations – includes all destinations served by LH, including those served by the Lufthansa Regional carriers and franchisee-only destinations
  • Delta Air Lines destinations – includes only those destinations that are flown by mainline Delta; no Delta Connection only destinations included.

I really feel we should have it one way or the other and not a random mix… Thoughts? By the way, this seems to be more of a North America v/s Europe/Asia divide! Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind the mix; it's better to match the package to the contents. I don't really see too much need. The formatting of the lists is consistent enough to not be distracting. That said I prefer the Lufthansa standard. Applying the Delta standard to the Lufthansa article would be more difficult and prompts further questions, like where to put franchisee flights, Houston would look odd in in a list of predominantly regional destinations of KLM Cityhopper. The Lufthansa standard also has the advantage of being more easily implemented and maintained (not to mention being more reader-accessible) because we are not creating mostly duplicative lists of the mainline destinations. I think that some would argue Delta Connection destinations is a notable list topic by itselfSynchronism (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to list affiliate/regional-only destinations with the mainline carrier, then we should have some sort of notation which destinations are served only by an affiliate so we can still portray an accurate scope of the airline's service; that is, where the planes fly where the brand appears. It's probably sufficient to have, for example, and asterisk for Delta Connection destinations, without the need to go into specific details about which Delta Connection carrier serves a particular destination (the regional carrier's destination list along with the lists of carriers on the airport articles handle this already). -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Codeshare Destinations

Hi guys, I noticed that the articles on Emirates and Olympic Air (and there may be more) list not only codeshare partners, but also destinations. AFAIK this is against current consensus? And even if it were not, it should surely included into the destination articles? Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the destinations part since they can fly anywhere by codeshare and just leave the codeshare airline alone. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aer Lingus Regional

Join the AfD discussion on Aer Lingus Regional. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please enlighten me about when an airline is an airline? I have the impression that Aer Lingus Regional is not, therefore not deserving an article of its own, but I cannot see any difference to Lufthansa Italia. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
An airline has to have an operating licence and be a legal entity, Lufthansa Italia is a separate legal company. Aer Lingus Regional appears to be just a brand. MilborneOne (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Seat configurations of the Airbus A380

Yet another AfD discussion, discuss here. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

An editor has been making a number of contributions to aircraft accident articles (his contributions here). They are absolutely atrocious. YSSYguy (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Codeshares

Does anyone think we need to list out every single codeshared route for airlines? Or is it enough to list out the airlines with which Airline Xyz has codeshare agreements? Some articles have got a bit out of hand in this regard (eg: Brussels Airlines where the codeshare section is larger than the rest of the article! Jasepl (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content states Code share destinations should not be listed for the secondary carrier.. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Biman Bangladesh Airlines for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated El Al for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mountain West Airlines-Idaho

I'm fairly certain this is not a notable airline, but I'd like a second opinion before doing anything with the article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the airline flew 30 years ago, there is what I think are enough online sources to meet WP:RS and WP:N. No telling what is available in offline sources. So, it probably should to be kept. A good cleanup and rewrite to meet the wiki standards and adding more information from the available resources would also help. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your time. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I should have added that there appears to be 5 other US airlines that have shared the name. If this article stays, then we probably need to consider replacing the redirect for one of these with a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hub listing in airline infobox

I noticed that some users have made a new change to the hub listing to the airlines from listing the airport itself to the city that markets the hub. But should we list them by "city, state" or does it need to be disambigi=uated. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hubs are at airports, not cities. I'd revert to listing the airport. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
By literal definitions, hubs should be airports while focus cities should be cities. However, put them together and this doesn't make sense. The overwhelming consensus in the past was airports (for both fields), however, I think the city name should be mentioned (no wikilink) if it is not obvious in the airport's name, e.g. "Narita International Airport (Tokyo)". HkCaGu (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Delta Air Lines

The New Georgia Encyclopedia ("NGE") has authorized Wikipedia to import and/or merge eleven articles, which I have copied to project space; one of these is Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)/New Georgia Encyclopedia/Delta Air Lines (which is primarily directed at the history of the company).

Our goal is to get the NGE articles in top shape and merge or move them into mainspace as quickly as possible. If this turns out well (as I am confident it will), the NGE will likely permit us to import their remaining body of over 2,200 well-researched and well-written articles - including several more articles on airlines with connections to Georgia - which could pioneer a trend for other private owners of encyclopedic content to release their materials into our corpus. I would deeply appreciate any help that we can muster in accomplishing this. Please note that the original NGE article (linked in the required attribution section of the above article in project space) has images, but NGE is unable to convey those to us at this time, as they are individually licensed by NGE. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

May have a problem extracting information into the current articles (or even as separate article), although it has a further reading section none of the content has citations or is referenced so wouldnt normally be acceptable to wikipedia! MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's self sourcing. Or, to be more exact, since this is an exact (authorized) copy of the article in the New Georgia Encyclopedia, everything in the article can be cited to the New Georgia Encyclopedia, which is a peer-reviewed publication. bd2412 T 16:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a standard NGE citation template could be provided if content is moved into wiki articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
We've put together a template, now in use at the end of the draft in project space. Did you have something different in mind? bd2412 T 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably cant be used for inline citations as I suspect we would need to cut and past any interesting bits into History of Delta Air Lines. The attribution template is ok for a single source article. Sorry not an expert on ref/citations you may need other opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite web}}</ref>. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we could use that. Also, if we use the <ref name="foo"> function, there's no reason why there can't be two dozen references pointing to a single footnote. bd2412 T 22:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do the Lufthansa executives work out of?

I noticed that this page on Lufthansa's website says that the headquarters are in Cologne: http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/service/imprint.html While this one describes the headquarters as being in Frankfurt: http://presse.lufthansa.com/fileadmin/downloads/en/policy-brief/07_2009/Lufthansa-PolicyBrief-July-2009-Sustainability.pdf

Lufthansa has facilities in both cities. The question is, where are the executives based out of? I understand that the Investor Relations and Media Relations departments are out of Frankfurt. I believe that the finance department is in Cologne. In which facility does the executive leadership of Lufthansa work out of? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic of China/Republic of China

I think now is the time to come up with a consensus on whether or not PRC and ROC must be written out in full in airlne destinations articles. Regards! Snoozlepet (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on long-time discussions and the MOS and whatever else, China is not acceptable for PRC, but Taiwan is acceptable for ROC. Practically, Taiwan is ROC except for those Taiwanese airlines who serve Kinmen and Matsu. HkCaGu (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I recall from the many discussions, that it must be spelled out in full. Could someone please explain that to this vandal who seems to be employing some bizarro logic to not write it out in full. FYI, it's the same IP that Snoozlepet mentioned above, editing under another address this time. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I would go for ROC being spelled out in full however with Taiwan in parenthesis, it means the same thing anyways. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, full and correct name as in the article title should awlays be used, thats why I suggest Western Asia be used as per its wikipedia article title, instead of the fomrer Southwest Asia which redirects to Western Asia.116.71.51.79 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Regarding this image http://www.flickr.com/photos/philamike/4369098691/

Is this the Japan Airlines Narita Operation Center (JALways HQ?) - If so, then I can ask the author of the image to relicense it. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fleet information

Hopefully this is the right place to post this, since the dedicated fleet sub page states that it should be used for analysis of how fleet data is displayed and what would be a good common display format going forward would be while this is more of a content issue. Anyway, there is currently a problem sourcing the Athens Airways fleet. A variety of sources are providing contradictory information regarding it's current fleet, including it's official website. A discussion on it has been started on the articles talk page. Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Greekboy (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just an update, this is the old problem of using fan boy/enthusiast sites against reliable references. The editors on that page have found an old discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet which doesnt reflect the latest guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content. I think we have already discussed in the absence of reliable references that the fan data is better than nothing but it shouldnt trump reliable references. Also pointed out that we dont need fleet data to be updated every day it is not what an encyclopedia is about and having a fleet that is a few weeks or months old is not a big problem. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedbird House

Is this image on Flickr that of the Speedbird House? http://www.flickr.com/photos/15218213@N06/2787638135

If so I am going to ask this person if he would like to relicense it. It would be good for the BOAC and British Airways articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines/Archive_4&oldid=1190229256"