This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV:Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Please note that a Memorandum of Understanding with Airbus is not an actual order it just means that further talks (and IAG board approval) need to take place before the actual order is placed. Suggest that this is not added to Fleet table until an actual order is signed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if it was an order, we don't know if it is for Iberia or BA. So it shouldn't be listed in any case. --JetBlast (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Just reverted this again. --JetBlast (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear from Airbus' press release that the agreement is intended for BA. They have 18 orders and 18 options, and it is stated that should Iberia's financial situation improve then some of the options may be converted for Iberia. Either way, this is still only a MoU so it should probably not yet be included.Eddyegghead (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Removed the A350 order again - editors keep using references from 22 April which as discussed is not a firm order, no Airbus or British Airways press release since and not on Airbus order list. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
To be honest i gave up reverting this. Nobody seemed to take notice. I wish we could protect a section in an article. --JetBlast (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this section is well overdue for an overhaul. I would propose changing the "Aircraft Operated" section "Retired Aircraft". I would then suggest removing any currently operated aircraft from that section and putting the information on the year it was introduced into the current fleet table. This way we also remove unnecessary repetition and make the article more concise, in line with Wikipedia guidelines. The current article effectively has the fleet table listed twice, and this seems pretty pointless. Thoughts on this? Eddyegghead (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd hate to suggest that phone calls in the middle of the night traced to B.A. employees were made, threatening customers who were about to take legal action ... oh wait, that DID happen! I'd hate to go on about predatory practices against Virgin ... oops, that happened too! Looking at the Ryanair page, obviously this is xenophobic tat rather than an online Encyclopedia. Or maybe it's that Ryanair have taken over some *ahem* failed airlines ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I am copy editing this article in response to a GOCE request made by User:Cloudbound. I have made prose changes for grammar and style, and I've rearranged the text a little bit. The following points are items I have questions about.
Is the "British Airways Group" the same as "British Airways"? Is it a former name of BA, or a government agency, or what? I can't tell from the article. The article says the boards of BOAC and BEA were combined "under" BAG in 1972, but BOAC and BEA were only dissolved in 1974. That's confusing to me, and I think it could be explained better. Also, the lead says BAG was established "to control the two nationalised airline corporations", but I'm not sure what that means. (It sounds as if they were out-of-control before.) I think a different word should be used to replace "control", but I'm not sure what's appropriate.
I cleaned up several captions, mostly for punctuation and consistent grammar. Notably I dramatically reduced the caption for the Concorde G-BOAD image. (It was five times longer than other captions.) If the record-setting Concorde flight is notable in this article, any detailed information should instead be given in the text.
I changed "Virgin's reputation in the City" to "Virgin's reputation in London". If London is not what was meant, feel free to overwrite my change with something accurate and specific.
The direct quotes "dirty tricks" and "unreservedly" need citations immediately following. The immediate source is the BBC "on this day" article, but that source uses quotation marks as well, and I'm not sure where their quotes come from. (This is likely to be an issue if this article is made a Featured Article Candidate.)
Consider dropping the final paragraph from the "History" section, since the most important material is covered in the "Branding" section, and the rest seems borderline-unencyclopedic.
I don't think "Overview" is the right name for the subsection of "Corporate affairs" that deals with an office location. But honestly, I'm not sure what the right name would be. In fact, it might be better to merge the tiny "Overview" section into "Operations", which also talks about BA's main base at Heathrow.
The "Industrial relations" section seems to stop abruptly in 2010 with suggestions of an immenant strike. So what happened? A concluding sentence would be nice, saying if there was a strike, whether tensions have since cooled, or whatever.
The "Destinations" section is too short to be its own section. Either more information can be added, or the information could be merged into "Operations". The "Partnerships and codeshare agreements" does not belong under "Destinations", and I personally don't think this list is appropriate in the article at all. Many of these partnerships were already mentioned in prose where appropriate.
The "Fleet" section discusses a 2007 purchase of 36 aircraft, usually it uses the past tense, but some parts use the future tense (e.g. "The Boeing 787s will replace fourteen of British Airways' Boeing 767 fleet"). Since the order was made in 2007, hasn't this already happened? If so the tense is incorrect... but new sources will need to be found to support claims of what actually happened.
In my opinion, the "Fleet" section goes into unnecessary detail about exactly what orders were placed when. The section should describe what aircraft are currently in use, with some mention of how previous purchases affected this, but it currently reads like a detailed history section. (E.g. "On 1 August 2008, BA announced orders for six Boeing 777-300ERs and options for four more as an interim measure to cover for delays over the deliveries of their 787-8/9s.") I did not proofread the second half of the "Fleet" section, since it is not clear to me how much of it should simply be removed.
In my opinion, this article relies too heavily on tabloids such as the Daily Mail. Often, the same facts could be supported by more reliable sources. If you plan on nominating the article at FAC, this should be dealt with first.
I don't believe any of the material in "Seating policies" is notable in an article on British Airways. I have not copy-edited this brief section, since I would recommend instead that it be removed.
I don't know whether it's more correct to say "narrowbody" or "narrow-body", but only one spelling should be used.
A list format is not appropriate for the "Incidents and accidents" section. Instead, I would recommend a new article be created called something like "List of accidents and incidents involving British Airways", and that article should be included as a "main article" hatnote for the section. Then an introductory sentence or paragraph should be written for the section, and brief descriptions of the more important incidents should be converted to prose. I have not copy-edited this section because it is unclear how this will be handled.
I have now finished proofreading this article. I will keep this page on my watchlist, and I am available for any questions or comments you may have. – Quadell(talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to work through the article. I'll start working on it based on your suggestions. Cloudbound (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - list format is established practice for accidents and incidents sections of aircraft, airline and airport articles. No need to alter this here. Insufficient amount of Wikinotable accidents to justify a stand-alone list. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. Since the list is an appropriate format, I have proofread that section as well, and have two further questions as a result, below. – Quadell(talk) 15:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The text says "Flight 9, a Boeing 747-200, G-BDXH, City of Edinburgh flew...", but I'm not sure what that means. (I'm not as familiar with aircraft as many of this page's editors.) It seems like it could be reworded or split into two sentences, but I'm not sure how, since I don't know how G-BDXH or City of Edinburgh fit into the sentence.
The section on the 737 fleet needs amending from 19 to 16 aircraft in service. Three aircraft G-DOCH, G-DOCU and G-DOCV have been withdrawn from service and are currently being scrapped in Victorville California. BA still have these machines registered but they are permanently withdrawn from use.
Many other sources are available 19:53 28 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats OK if they are scrapped they will be deleted soon from the CAA register and we can adjust the numbers, sites like jethros are not really reliable. This is an encyclopedia not an enthusiasts website so we can wait for a reliable reference. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
With respect Jethro's is the most reliable and accurate source of information anywhere for all UK airfleets, and is widely regarded as such by industry professionals. If Wiki is not prepared to allow adjustments which are fact, and not merely "enthusiasts" information then I shall give up my new found hobby of helping Wiki out. Would a picture of G-DOCU in bits convince you? 22:08 28 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Jethro's is a self-published site created by an enthusiast so not really reliable in wikipedia terms. Sorry to say images are not reliable sources for wikipedia either. Your contributions are welcome but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an enthusiasts site so it doesnt have to be updated every day as long as the information we have is reliably referenced. Aircraft that have been reported as withdrawn and in-storage have actually been returned to service in the past. G-DOCU is owned by BA and not leased so it just might take them a while to catch up with the paperwork. That said if we had a reliable source that it was withdrawn and was not going to return then that could be added as a note in the fleet section. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
And is your rule is if the aircraft is still registered on the CAA website it is part of the current fleet, then why are the Concorde aircraft not listed as part of the current fleet as they have not been deregistered? 22:19 28 November 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure where you have been looking or why you think they are still registered, certainly the CAA thinks it cancelled them, but just for your information:
G-BOAA De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAB De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAC De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAD De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAE De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAF De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use
G-BOAG De-registered 4 May 2004 as Permanently withdrawn from use MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Should it be added to the article? It is in the article "Accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family". I think it should be added to this article.Maodi xn (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The consensus at the time was that this was not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I see this has been added but cant see it as particularly notable, aircraft do hit things all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The wing was damaged, but unless the aircraft is written off (I don't believe that has been established yet), then I'd agree it's not notable. It does happen relatively regularly and isn't usually mentioned due to WP:AIRCRASH. SempreVolando (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
BA Holidays is redirected to this page. But there is no mention on-page of BA Holidays. BA Holidays is is represented on the http://www.britishairways.com/ site. This appears to be an omission (either BA Holidays is a subsidiary, or a product, either way it deserves a mention). BA Holidays is one of the largest resellers of Hotels4u.com accommodation. FreeFlow99 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
British Airways Holidays is a subsidary of British Airways that deals in package holidays it is one of many subsidaries that dont get mentioned but it not notable to the core activities to get a mention here. If it is really notable in the package holiday world then it could have an article in its own right then but I cant find anything that shows it is particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)