Talk:Korean Air

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airline project.
WikiProject Korea (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


"Taehan Hanggong" is the correct McCune-Reischauer spelling: "ngk" gets assimilated to "ngg" in that system. -Sewing - talk 23:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

article seperation[edit]

The current article is too long because of the Incidents and accidents list. I think that there should be made a separate article for it to clean up the lengthyness of the article.

What is the Wikipedia rule on article length and how does one determine when there is too much information in an encyclopedia? Those with short attention spans will have a different opinion than those who can digest more significant quantities of information.
The issue wasn’t actually the lengthyness (sic) of the article – the issue was that some of the information presented rubbed some of the contributors the wrong way. Those with a vested interest in the airline, or Hanjin Shipping, or those who are simply fans of the airline (or maybe those who struggle with inordinate amounts of 恨), can’t stand to have inconvenient and embarrassing issues included on this page. It is especially irritating to them when the WikiRules are followed and the facts are documented and footnoted. Stating that this airline’s Incidents and Accidents section was substantially longer than that of other airlines and therefore required reduction missed the painfully obvious point that the reason the list was so substantially (and painfully) long was that this airline has a flight safety record somewhat different than virtually all other airlines on the planet. It is, as they say, a unique situation. Airlines are not fungible. They have unique histories. Some of those histories are skewed heavily towards a substantial number of incidents and accidents; such as the history of this particular airline. However, in this politically correct environment we are not allowed to dwell on facts if those facts, documented as they may be, make somebody feel sad or gloomy. Only perky, chirpy, pithy, and concise information belongs on Wikipedia and that way we can all remain blissfully happy and ignorant of those mean, hard, cold, angry facts. Facts are inconvenient. Inconvenient is bad...especially for those with short attention spans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
The above mention carries some weight in truth. There was a time when Korean Air was removed from SkyTeam because of their safety record (after the Guam crash in the 90s I believe) and I think most people in Korea can find consensus that Asiana by record is certainly the safer Korean carrier. However to dismiss the whole effort to reduce the length of an article as self-invested bias is a little harsh considering nowadays so many articles on wikipedia seem to be undergoing length reductions or putting in regulations for length. This is a legitimate discussion on the quality of the article, but the above user has taken it personally upon him/herself to become personally vested in the issue as well. Ironic considering that is not what they are nomially advocating. It is definitely true Korean Air has a longer list of accidents than other legacy carriers and a few specific examples come to mind such as the flight 902 which was shot down by soviet interceptors on a flight from Anchorage bound for Seoul or the most recent fatal crash in Guam about ten years ago. These incidents have their own pages and what is suggested is brief descriptions of the nature of the accidents under the section but reduce to length and post links to the full pages with more information. However by no means I do not think the original proposal to reduce the length of the section was biased in a way that was self-serving. If anything, the above user has taken a simple question and turned it into an highly irrelevant post in which he/she rants on about what he doesn't like about the airline by using highly cynical and sarcastic language. Also the fact that this user refers to the contributors of this article "... or those who are simply fans of the airline (or maybe those who struggle with inordinate amounts of ), can’t stand to have inconvenient and embarrassing issues included on this page. It is especially irritating to them ..." brings up a couple of interesting speculations. By refering to "them" indicates that he/she chooses to consider himself outside of "them" as a personal identity. And by using "can't stand" "embarrassing issues" indicates that he himself considers issue a matter of personal pride. The Chinese character which I think means something like "hate" is used in the posting as well. This all leads me to believe that for the above user the issue is somehow nationalistic in nature or he considers it that way, when the article nor the original inquiry for length reduction has nothing to suggest that this is a nationalistic issue. By doing so the above user has failed to heed his own supposed advice to keep the professionality of the article free of personal vendettas. I really do have to question where he is coming from... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
That character is Han and in Korea it is translated in various ways, but a native English speaker would probably translate the Korean interpretation to be "unrequited resentment" rather than hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

loads of crashes missed[edit]

Guam 1997 when 200 people were killed

also 3 crashes in 1999.

There was another KAL-Soviet incident in April 1978 (from Anchorage to Paris)- a Korean 707 jetliner strayed over Soviet airspace near the border with Finland and was shot at - it made an emergency landing on a frozen lake and most of the passengers survived and were removed by Soviet authorities. The plane, presumably, fell through rotting spring ice and is now at the bottom of the lake along with the luggage and two passengers killed in the landing. That incident was before the better-known KAL 007 incident in 1983. GBC 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Two Korean 747s, one passenger and one freight, landed in Whitehorse, Yukon in Operation Yellow Ribbon on 9/11/2001; the passenger jet was tailed by US fighters on suspicion that it had been hijacked, but the indication was incorrect. GBC 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The incident and accident list has, over the months, been heavily bowdlerized. Why? Stating that there are too many accident citations and then appointing oneself the authority capable of determining which stays and which is cut is rather suspect… and has the distinct aroma of POV. Previously there were more than 20 events listed (with source information) and now there are fewer than ten. Why? With citations clearly written in a neutral tone (see for yourself in the history section) and sources provided for the citations, why select certain citations to chop out and allow others to remain? How does the chopper decide which event is worthy of remaining – is it death count? There is an incredible amount of drivel and swill strewn throughout this “encyclopedia” so it is amazing when someone opts to zero in on items that have been entered according to the Wikirules and remove them, when they could go get their fix by removing some of the abundant drivel and swill. There is allusion to the substantial list of accidents somehow being a slight against the airline. If someone took that stance then appointed themselves the editor worthy of righting the perceived wrong, then that editor is guilty of revisionism. A fact is a fact and no matter how painful it might be, hiding a citation so others can’t see it doesn’t alter history and doesn’t mean the accident will simply go away. Someone obviously put some effort in to compiling the information within the parameters of the rules and presented documented facts. It appears that others didn’t like those facts being shown to the general public and hid them. Too bad – rather than getting meatier and more significant, this page has been clumsily bowdlerized to the point of marginal significance.

"Korean Hangul"[edit]

What the heck is "Korean" Hangul? Why does it need "Korean" as an adjective? Are there any other sorts of hangul out there? Nigerian Hangul? Spanish Hangul? Estonian Hangul? -- 03:39, 11 January 2006

Hangul means 'Korean Dialect in Korean'. Because Korean consist of both types: Hanji (which is Chinese characters based) and Hangul (Korean characters), so that just clears out which characters are being used. ( Seong0980 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) )

Actually, Hangul does not mean “Korean dialect” in Korean. It is the Korean name for the writing system. In Korean, dialect is 방언. Hangul is to Korean what Cyrillic is to Russian. One can say that (in South Korea) written Korean consists of two scripts; Hangul, and Chinese. You actually aren’t “clearing out” which characters are being used… you are making things dramatically more opaque. Hangul does not require “Korean” as an adjective. There are no other Hanguls, so why attempt to specify which one it is as if we might be confused among all the Hanguls out there?

Incidents and accidents[edit]

There appears to be a concerted effort to remove all trace of the incidents and accidents from the article. One day such a deletion may get missed so for the record, the list is in the editing history here. Please put it back if you ever notice it missing. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's some interesting information about their safety problems in the 1990's at Bobbozzo (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Put accidents in a separate article[edit]

The accident list totally dominates this article (which doesn't happen in any other airline article I've looked at). So can some clever person please make a separate article for them? Otherwise it will be necessary to massively cut down the length of those reports to restore balance to the article - Adrian Pingstone 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I say trim it and only include major accidents. Dbinder (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What is the definition of a “major” accident? Are you suggesting to also change the title to “Major” Incidents and “Major” Accidents?
I noticed Korean Air's accidents list is long and "distinguish" and thus there is a seperate page for it, but the major accidents should be mentioned as a part of teh airline's history. In my humble opinion, "major" should be the ones that involve casualties. p.s. deliberate covering up of facts just worsen the airline's reputation. En51cm 06:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole exercise of “cutting down to restore balance” and moving the incidents and accidents to a different location smacks very much of point of view. It appears that something is being hidden or covered up.
Agreed – the sordid year-long exercise of pulling the information on accidents out of this page and sending it off to be hidden on a different page needs to be reversed. That information does not belong on a separate page; it belongs here. I propose a vote to reinstate the information here and override the ham-fisted revisionists. All in favor? 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote to reinstate incidents and accidents to this page[edit]

yes -- it belongs here. The pattern used on other airline pages is to include that information on the main page, not a stand alone page. The fact that Korean Air has a significantly higher number of deadly crash statistics to report is not a reason to hide that information on a different page. 16:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC) This article is clearly being wikispammed by KAL PR legions, as the text is all virtually copied from various press releases and promotional websites. This is why the Wiki model is doomed to imperfection and manipulation by the determined (and those well paid to do it). 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it has been turned into an advert for the airlines and has been sanitized. I call shinanigans. 06:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

YES - like other airline pages, the crash history belongs here on this main page -- not hidden away. Keep the entire list of KAL crashes right here where it belongs! Those folks who have a problem with the number of crashes need to take that up with the management of KAL rather than attempt to erase the airline's dubious history on this page. 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

STRONG YES -- it belongs on this page and not hidden away203.150.206.82 05:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

YES by all means stop sucking up to the PR man at Korean Air and allow the facts to be seen. 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

STRONG NO I don't have a vested interest in Korean Air; however, the list detracts from the article text and previous editors have stated that this is for formatting purposes. If it wasn't as lengthy, then there would be no problem placing it. Placing the list back into the main article detracts from the flow of the article itself.

In addition, unless you have any productive contributions--it's not very courteous, nor is it polite to accuse contributors of "sucking up to the PR man" and give contributors the benefit of the doubt. After all, this is why Wiki exists. If you have issues, then you should create your own sn here rather than making anonymous comments from your IP addresses, if you have something to say. Undoubtedly, all of you have consciously (and for some of you, unconsciously) created adverts and inserted your own biases in editing the subjects of articles that you like (and similarly, made nasty comments and edits for other articles and causes that you don't like), but in essence that is what Wiki by nature does for each user. Please refrain from making such broad assumptions with no proof. Azntokki 01:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

It is always amusing to see contributors who go along with the identification request on Wiipedia explain how it is discourteous or disingenuous to not play the game and use the four tildes. I have never seen any of those contributors explain the difference in degree of anonymity among not bothering to sign (and thus leaving an IP address tucked away in the records) or signing with nothing but an IP address (thus doing little more than not signing) , or signing with a pseudonym that is registered in the Wikistsyem. Ultimately… how does it make any difference if someone plays the game and signs with their pseudonym or doesn’t sign at all? If it is such an important issue then why does the Wiki system allow for participation without confirmed real identification? Why demand identification while hiding behind a pseudonym? This is all stridently hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also amusing to see anonymous contributors accuse others of being hypocritical, without addressing what is the real issue is at all--whether the section should be included or not. Azntokki 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Azntokki

Already done. I believe in voting only once. See above where it states: YES by all means stop sucking up to the PR man at Korean Air and allow the facts to be seen. 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC). I believe that like other airline pages Korean Air needs to have the bad news presented right here on this page. The Korean Air PR man and fans of the airline have gone to great lengths and it shows -- little or no negative information on this page. Note that the Wikipolice have placed a new tattoo on this page -- this page now reads like an advertisement. I'm not one to say "told you so" so I won't. Let me accuse you of being hypocritical in hiding behind a play-time-pretend name, and also let me point out very clearly that I am in favor (as previously stated) of reversing the whitewashing and bringing each and every crash back to this page where readers can see the information. I trust that is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Wikipedia is no place for you to "accuse" anyone of hypocrisy, let alone of wanting to present your point of view under the guise of saying "I told you so." I trust that also is clear. Azntokki 04:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Azntokki missed the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No Korean Airlines' "distinguished" service record deserves a page of its own, not only becuase the airline is unique in its service record but also because the list just completely dominates the article otherwise. To the users who say "stop sucking up to the PR man at Korean Airlines", I completely agree with your viewpoint, but for reasons stated above, I am voting no. If the neutrality becomes an issue, then why can't summary paragraph about Korean Airlines' safety record be added with a link to the complete and comprehensive list? WasAPasserBy 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

STRONG YES! pages for other airlines do it and it is useful for them, so why should Korean Air be treated differently. One of the interesting (and tragic) things about this airline is the incredible passenger kill ratio. No matter what one's opinion of the airline, the numbers don't lie. If one views the history of this page it is clear that at one time the accidents were presented as they are presented on other pages. However, at some point someone decided to mask that information by forcing readers to follow a link to find it. Other pages don't follow that pattern, so why this one? The hodge podge nature of Wikipedia is no excuse -- that information needs to be here. (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Very Strong Yes … By looking at the history of this entry it is clear that at one time the incidents and accidents were listed here just like they are on most other airline pages. One of the sloppy things about Wikipedia is the lack of uniform layout for like topics. If all the other airlines display incidents and accidents, then why were they removed here? They need to be restored to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
YES-- Korean Airlines' "distinguished" crash record deserves to be exposed... not hidden. —Preceding unsigYned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
YES!! this page should be like other airline pages and include that information. I don't understand why it is OK to show it on those pages but it must be burried behind a link here. Why? There is no logical reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
YES. I came to this page looking for information on a specific crash (the one in which my Aunt and Uncle died) and am shocked to see it has been removed. Why did someone remove it? I find this insulting to their memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Strong YES! obviously it belongs on the page like other airline pages. I looked atthe history and see no place where there was avote to remove it -- somebody just decided to hide it one day and it has been hidden since then. Bring it back where it belongs. (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NO!Facts like that hurt the image of Korea and insult Korea people. Korea Air is best airline and only minor infraction accident happen. Do not include to embarrass Korea people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

YES Facts are facts. It doesn't embarass the Korean people. It may be embarrasing to the airline. If Korean Air is "the best airline," then they would be honest about it and improve their record, which they have done. But that doesn't mean that it should be hidden, and why people have an interest to defend a company is beyond me. If people take this to insult Korean people, they really have issues. Also, if we look at China Airlines, they have a worse safety record, yet their history is clearly seen. It doesn't detract people to ridicule Chinese/Taiwanese people.
Yes. Korean Air is now a fairly safe airline and has a record to show it. The reason they have this recently safe record is due directly to the horribly dangerous record they had for the past 30 years up until the Stansted crash. When they finally did something about it they had to do it in a big way to survive. That is the story and it is a good story. It has a happy end (i.e. the company survived and so did the customers)Why hide the story? It is important to the airline and shows how KAL got to where they are. Silly and childish to hide the info. (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont think it needs a vote (particularly one that takes two years!) accidents and incidents are all detailed in the sub-article Korean Air incidents and accidents it only needs a summary in this article. This is standard practice in aviation articles when any particular section becomes to large for the parent article. Not just accidents and incidents it could be fleet, or history just based on the size of the section. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

YES bring the information back and even if it takes two years, a vote is a vote. Stop attempting to force your will. Allow the participants to decide. The ethos of wikipedia is participation -- not obeying dictators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vote WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fleet source[edit]

Can we please get a clear source for the fleet information? As things stand, it is impossible to know whether changes to that section by anonymous users are vandalism or simply corrections. -- Visviva 06:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Retired Fleet[edit]

Someone listed "Station wagon". This should be removed.

Reads like an advert[edit]

Please discuss!

Why are there 9 (!!) pictures of aeroplanes?[edit]

There are 9 more or less good pictures of planes with Korean Air logo. 1 or 2 would be sufficient. Reilinger (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

haha, and from these pictures you could get the impression KAL is mainly flying to Japan. Nikolaus (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed a few images that were similar. MilborneOne (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Retired Fleet[edit]

Someone listed "Station wagon". This should be removed. (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


Stuff that will be archived: WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Korean Air A380[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Six Continents" club[edit]

The article includes the following passage:

Korean Air, along with British Airways, Delta Air Lines, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Qantas, Qatar Airways, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways and United Airlines, is one of few airlines that fly to all six inhabited continents.

I think this is a misleading statement. This list creates an impression that these airlines somehow offer the most extensive network of destinations, and/or the widest global reach, and/or the most mature offering of long haul flights, which is utter rubbish for a range of reasons:

  • It seems misleading to create this listing when many airlines offer extensive services to "all continents" through alliances and code-sharing arrangements.
  • Airlines with a hub in the southern Asia-Pacific area or in the Middle East can "make the list" much more easily: an airline based in Sydney or Singapore can easily make revenue 747 or A340 flights across the Pacific to, say, Los Angeles and Rio de Janeiro, while Johannesburg is in reach of even an A330; all you need to complete the list is a single transcontinental route, say, to London or Amsterdam. Conversely, from the point of view of a European airline even with a very large-scale long haul operation, the incentive to start a transcontinental route to Sydney or Auckland is much lower.
  • The Middle-Easterners have it even easier; from Abu Dhabi you can reach all six continents with an A330-300 without breaking ETOPS!
  • By the way, even the definitions of the "continents" vary (see that page); Air France appear to be excluded despite their Paris-Nouméa flight, which most of us would full well count as serving "Australia (continent)".
  • An economic consideration, namely that operations between (say) Europe and South America are much more profitable if the aircraft is based, crewed, and maintained out of South America rather than Europe, due to the lower cost of labour, etc., so that European airlines would be more likely to take equity in an alliance partner down there and let them operate a codeshare flight, rather than invest in operations the other way around.

For all of these reasons, I strongly recommend deleting the incriminated passage from all applicable pages.

Since the issue touches several pages, I won't go ahead until I get a bit of feedback. I will post brief discussion items on the other pages with a link back here, to keep the conversation in one (albeit arbitrary!) place. HAdG (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If your "incriminated passage" (whatever that is) is on more than one article it may be better to raise this at the airline project WT:AIRLINES. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


I was a passenger of Flight 035 last Feb. 5. I reported to the airline that I lost my jewelry box that I was carrying in my bag. I notice it when I was in the airplane coming from Incheon International Airport going to Atlanta Maynard Jackson International Airport. I talked to you before leaving for Miami. Here are the list of the items I lost.

1 pearl necklace with diamonds with a matching earrings bought in Ultra Diamonds - $3,200.00 - it was a gift given by my daughter last Christmas. 1 set of birth stone - August ( necklace, earrings and a ring)worth $400.00 2 gold bracelets ( 1 was $350.00 and the other one was $400.00) 1 pearl earring with sterling - $130.00

I hope these items can be found and be return to me.

MRS. LETICIA A. RIATE 12345 SW 261 TERRACE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33032 CELL NO. 786-208-3042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)