Talk:Newark Liberty International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (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 airport project.
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening comments[edit]

I removed "Continental Airlines Terminal" from the header of Terminal C. Nowhere is the terminal referred to as anything other than "Terminal C," including in Continental Airlines' own documentation, despite the fact all flights at the terminal are operated by Continental. Continental operates out of all 3 terminals.

Cleaned Edits of the person who decided to remove Continental's Intl destinations from this page. PRueda29

I don't think Newark started out as an international airport.

Removed statement about "most" local traffic mostly going through LaGuardia. Simply untrue. -- Decumanus 00:01, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have an updated diagram of the airport but only in PDF format. Does someone have a PDF > JPG or GIF, etc... converter? The current diagram doe snot show the modifcations to 4L/22R. Xavier2000 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this New York?[edit]

Many articles mentioning destinations from airports and destinations served by airlines, mention this airport but it is usually written that the planes go to Newark. For other cities in the world the main city it actually serves is written, even if it is a state/province border in between and also if there are more than one international airport. Examples are Washington DC and Kansas City. In lists including US States, like Star Alliance destinations, these destinations are listed in the state the airport is in, with the main city name even though the actual city is in another state. Should the destination city be called New York or Newark ? Besides I have been in inner city Newark, it is not a city worth a long distance journey. /BIL 17:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Newark isn't really worth a short-distance journey either. Unfortunately, however, it does exist, and that's where the airport is (actually I believe it's in Elizabeth, but that's even worse). Keeping it as Newark would be consistent with similar situations where two cities are near each other: Oakland and San Jose are listed as such, not as San Francisco. Likewise, Manchester NH is not listed as Boston although the airport is now considered an alternate Boston airport. The airlines do the same; some say Newark (New York area) or something similar, but none just say New York. Dbinder (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Or New York / Newark (which is how the airport itself styles it in the terminal. Regardless the airport is know as simply Newark around the world/wangi 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In list like Star Alliance destinations Newark airport is written as Newark (Newark Liberty International Airport). I have changed a few european airline lists to New York (Newark Liberty International Airport). They have no states mentioned anyway. In these lists Newark airport would be mentioned anyway. Newark is known as Newark, Kennedy is known as Kennedy, Dulles is known as Dulles, Heathrow is known as Heathrow etc, as usual when there are more than one airport for a city. Newark is not a city deserved to be compared with New York. Many airlines do write New York, especially overseas airlines. (For example Lufthansa serves "New York-JFK International" and "New York-Newark international", and Continental call it "New York/ Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR)") People reading the articles might believe that Kennedy is a much better option if going to New York Manhattan. /BIL 11:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And more than one person has changed them back. We will continue to do so. Newark Airport is in Newark. It serves New York but it is the airport of Newark. As I said before, Oakland Airport is not listed in San Francisco... If you feel that strongly about this, obtain a consensus before making the change. As of now, I don't see one, for at least 3 editors have reverted your changes. Dbinder (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to change this anymore since I see it was not accepted. Maybe we should change the article since it is written that it belongs to New York. For example "a total of approximately 100 million travelers using New York's airports." and "Newark Airport was the first major airport in the New York area", and "Newark ... challenging JFK's status as New York's international gateway". We could for example write "New York and Newark" instead of only "New York". What do you say ? /BIL 20:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? All of those sentences make sense as-is. The airport might well be in Newark, might be called Newark, but it's still a New York airport and in the New York "area"/wangi 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I going to stop making the statement that Newark serves New York, not even writing New York-Newark in Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, which apparantly has to be just Newark. The majority has decided. Note that I was not the one who just changed Newark to New York on Malaysia Airlines destinations, not logged in. Also this article sv:Arlanda has the unwanted information (not written by me)./BIL 20:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If the editors of the Swedish Wikipedia want it listed as New York, then I'm certainly not going to try to stop them. If non-English speakers better recognize it as New York, then there is no problem with listing it as such. My comments have only applied to the English Wikipedia. I know for a fact that people here in the US, in Canada, and in the UK refer to it as Newark. I also haven't seen objections from South Africans, Australians, Singaporeans, etc., so it makes sense to keep it as it is on this one. Dbinder (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Though many are American, quite a lot of user of the English language Wikipedia are not, they come from all parts of the world, including non-english speaking countries, and do not have a good knowledge of New Jersey geography. New York is an extremly well known city, one of the few that most people have heard of (yes, a lot of people know quite little geography). It must be notet that like all other metropolitain areas in the world, Grater New York consists of numerous administrative areas, each of them with different names. Though quite important for locals to have a division between the areas, for other people, especially from other parts of the world, the metrolopitain area should be known under just one name. For New York and the surrounding areas it is simply New York. Thus for any airlines from say outside North America or Eastern USA, Newark is a destiation for New York, or the New York Metropolitain Area. For some flights though, and these would be locally for New Jersey, Newark represents a regional airport serving one part of the greater city. Why this naming issue is a problem for New York and not other cities with more than one airport is quirous. Remember also that though anyone with an interest of aviation is fully aware of the location of Newark, it is a tiny suburb not known to most people (except, of course, locals). This can become a major problem for non-aviationist who are looking for specific information. Remember, Wikipedia is both for experts and for beginners. The correct way to refer to Newark in Wikipedia is to be consistent to the naming New York-Newark (to make it clear that it is not JFK or LaGuardia etc and at the same time state the area the airport serves). This is how all other multi-airport cities are listed under destinations for airports. The area an airport serves is not nessesarilly the place it is located. Check out other airports and you'll see they are often located in other cities or states than the city they serve. Arsenikk 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that we start calling OAK as San Francisco-Oakland, BWI as Washington DC-Baltimore, and FLL as Miami-Ft. Lauderdale? That seems to be the logic you are following if you want EWR as New York-Newark. The reason why LGA and JFK are labeled as New York-La Guardia and New York-JFK respectively, is because both are within one city, NOT one metropolitan area, at least that's how I see it. Other thoughts anyone? Elektrik Blue 82 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I feel that whenever a metropolitan area (which can be quite big) is refered to, it should have the format you mention. As far as I can see this seems to be the system that is used throughout Wikipedia. Of course for regional services (definitivly not intercontinental ones) one can consider using the "local" name. Arsenikk 21:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't make things up. We use the common or official names. /wangi 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think "Newark, New Jersey" is the wrong city in that list, however "New York, New York" doesn't quite work either. The best way to describe what area the airport serves would be to simply put "New York and New Jersey". -NcSchu 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To continue to the metropolitan region argument, PBI would have to be Miami-West Palm Beach, T.F. Green would be Boston-Providence, and Wilmington would be Philadelphia-Wilmington. Two of those aren't even in the same state as the primary city (as is the case with Newark). It should stay as it is. Dbinder (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
On the Hong Kong International Airport article, "Newark" for Continental Airlines have been now written as "New York-Newark". I have changed it back to Newark and it has been readded again and I have changed it back to Newark. I think "Newark" is good enough. Eventhough the airport serves New York City, the airport is in Newark, NJ. If you type in EWR on Expedia, Travelocity, or Orbtiz; it will come up as just Newark. Bucs2004 15:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For your information: There is a (hot) debate on this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Flights to Newark --BIL (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Now this issue is being discussed again on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#How to list Continental flights to Newark?? In my opinion, discussions about naming an airport on WP should be made on its discussion page, but now the discussion is on that page. --BIL (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


On both this page and the Edmonton airport page it says that there's a Northwest flight from Newark to Edmonton, yet I find no mention of that flight anywhere else on the internet. Can somebody please clarify this? Metstotop333 06:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a flight from EWR to YEG, but it's with a stop at Minneapolis-St. Paul (as can be expected with NWA's hub/spoke system). And you may also need a plane change. In fact, I checked the NWA website for yesterday's status for flight 1019, the flight from Newark to Edmonton, and the Edmonton flight left Minneapolis before the flight from Newark arrived. And there is no direct flight from Edmonton to Newark. Tinlinkin 10:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Metstotop333 03:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Continental second or third carrier to serve mainland China nonstop?"[edit]

Is Continental the 3rd or 2nd US carrier to serve mainland China nonstop? Northwest DOES NOT seve mainland China nonstop, most Northwest flights to mainland China make a stop in Japan. Northwest in fact did operated nonstop flights between non-stop flights to mainland China nonstop but suspended it due to high fuel costs. Just wanted to be clear.Bucs2004 20:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international flights[edit]

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, ORD and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated, but AA and NW remaining intact at LAX. Also, people don't/shouldn't break it down for the airlines' regional ops, because 1) it looks awful, and 2) it just doesn't make much sense. So, stop doing it. Thanks Andrewb729 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrewb729, i agree with you. There is no need to seperate domestic/intl flights that operate with in the same terminal. Some airports (like ORD, IAD, PEK, and SLC) still have domestic/intl flights seperated. You didn't change it on those articles. Bucs2004 18:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

taxi fares from Newark to Manhattan are out of date[edit]

last month i took a taxi from newark airport to lower manhattan (5th Ave & 18th st) and it was $60 plus tip and tolls, not the $40 the article says˜˜˜˜

Hotel information within the airport[edit]

I note the article says, "Newark Liberty International Airport covers 2,027 acres...." As such, the "airport" is more than just the terminals - it's everything within the confines. Ergo, perhaps a section on hotels within the airport? There are two hotels within EWR airport I know of. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bundas (talkcontribs) 01:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not, though we would have to verify that the hotels (I'm assuming one of them is the Marriott) are really on Airport property. However I don't think we should make the section particularly large or major as the article should really focus on the actual airport itself. NcSchu(Talk) 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all counts. Not trying to push the hotel industry, but if it is on the airport property, we probably ought to include it. Also, people are increasingly turning to Wikipedia as a clearinghouse for no-nonsense, accurate info so I think it's a public service, if anything, to include it. Bundas 14:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion potential?[edit]

With all of the talk about NYC airport congestion and limiting flights at JFK, I am curious if there has ever been any talk of adding another runway at EWR, specifically on the other side of the turnpike in the industrial port space, with a plane bridge over the turnpike (which I assume would need to be "sunk" in that section). If it was added, is there room for enough gate space to utilize it? I'm sure it would be very expensive, but NYC doesn't seem to have much choice if they want supply to keep up with growing demand. It seems like a more realistic option than expansion at either LGA or JFK. If anybody has any knowledge of analyses or even just discussion of such plans, can they add them to the article? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, no. And by the way, Original Research doesn't belong on wikipedia pages. Why? Well first of all to bury the turnpike as you suggest would be an unbelieveably expensive project, not to mention a logistical nightmare. The turnpike is very well travelled and I doubt the road could be kept open while a tunnel was being built underneath it. Secondly, the airport couldn't just buy up the land on the other side of the turnpike. You have businesses like Ikea that are in the way and then you have Port Newark. Which brings me to the third, and perhaps most important point: Port Newark. Port Newark is one of the busiest and most profitable sea ports in the entire world, I'm sure they'd be more interested in expanding their own land before giving part of it to the airport. So would I like to see it? Yes, Newark Airport is the airport I use most often and needs help with congestion. But will I ever see it? Probably not. Also, I didn't mention problems with having three parallel runways in an already screwed up New York air space and limited terminal space that would probably require a new terminal D to be built. Newark Airport is in a bad situation, it is landlocked on all four sides and has basically reached the limit of any expansion. I wouldn't be surprised if in twenty or so years you see EWR closed down completely and a new airport built nearby from scratch. NcSchu(Talk) 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not looking for original research on the article page - just references to any official studies or analysis (or news articles) that have been done. I agree it would be a mammoth project. But other cities have trenched freeways under runways (Atlanta recently) - usually in 1/3 sections so the other 2/3 of the freeway stays open. And, in this case, it won't be under a runway - just an airplane bridge. Houston also just trenched more of 59 near downtown while keeping the freeway open during all of construction. Eminent domain takes care of the Ikea and the Port. I think the Port might be able to keep most of the wharfs and just have to move some warehouses. Eminent domain could also be used to give them space to move those warehouses. An Ikea is not that big a deal to move - we just did it in Houston. I think the net economic value of the additional passengers should more than compensate for any issues displacing port operations to other locations. The big questions are airspace and terminal gates. I think if A and B were transformed to be like Continental's terminal C, that would add a lot of gates. Don't know about airspace. 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Another thought: if I'm looking at my Google satellite map right, there actual be enough room for a pair of runways on the other side of the turnpike, which would be a serious capacity addition for all of NYC/NJ. 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are only news articles dating from various points in time stating that Newark can't expand. There's nothing to reveal any official studies done by the PANY/NJ about expanding the number of runways. It would be pointless to add details to something that has never been considered feasible. Right now it's only speculation. NcSchu(Talk) 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I should also add that I did a google search for the terms "Newark Airport 'fourth runway'" and only came up with 94 relevant topics, out of which only about a dozen pertained to Newark Airport expansion attempts, and zero talked about the possibility of realistically adding a fourth runway. In addition I found one article dating from 2004 in which a Newark Airport spokesman states outright that "there is no room for a fourth because of surrounding highways, waterways and communities." Also, in regard to expanding the terminals, it would really only be possible with Terminal A because B is locked in on both sides. NcSchu(Talk) 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

COEX flights[edit]

I made a small footnote to the Terminal C section to note that by June 2008 all Continental Express flights will be moved to Terminal A. This is according to Continental's website. Because there don't seem to be specific flights moving to Terminal A on specific days, and that the note on CO's website says that the departure/arrival terminals will vary until June, I thought the only logical way to go about this would be to insert a note, like I have done, and then in June move all the flights to Terminal A. NcSchu(Talk) 12:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I feel that EWR should have a cargo list...If others don't want it then I will leave it at that.

Many major and minor airports have a at a cargo destination list...Some that come to the top of my mind: MIA, DFW, RDU

This is my list that I have confirmed:

  • ABX Air (Wilmington (OH))
  • Air Transport International (Toledo)
  • FedEx Express (Albany, Anchorage, Boston, Chicago-O’Hare, Columbus (OH), Detroit, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Worth-Alliance, Frankfurt, Indianapolis, London-Stansted, Los Angeles, Memphis, Montréal, Miami, New York-JFK, Oakland, Paris-Charles DeGaulle, Philadelphia, Portland (ME), San Jose (CA), Syracuse (NY), Tampa, Toronto-Pearson, Washington-Dulles)
    • FedEx Feeder operated by Mountain Air Cargo (Baltimore/Washington)
    • FedEx Feeder operated by Wiggins Airways (Albany (NY), Baltimore/Washington, Bridgeport (CT), Elmira (NY), Harrisburg (PA), Hartford/Springfield, Islip, Rochester (NY), Plattsburgh (PA), Providence)
  • UPS Airlines (Anchorage, Chicago/Rockford, Cologne/Bonn, Dallas/Fort Worth, Hartford/Springfield, Louisville, Philadelphia)

If you feel this is "original" work work then that is O.K. but, all of these flights happen on a nightly and daily (Some are weekend only flights) basis on a publicly available website:

Spikydan1 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned here, cargo routes are not necessarily stable. Many smaller carriers will have different schedules every week, and the traditional "scheduled" versus "chartered" concept isn't as clear as passenger services. While they might fly different routes every week, if the airlines are committed to serve an airport, they can be listed, but listing destinations isn't that useful. HkCaGu (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have quite a few issues with the source. It's a very short term period to examine. Unless one was to look at a whole year's worth of data every year, one wouldn't get a clear and concise picture of what the operations are. A week is not stable so there could be seasonal changes and various other operational changes throughout the year that aren't reflected by your 'confirmation'. I don't have any objection to a list of cargo carriers, but because I feel as though cargo destinations are a lot less stable than passenger airline destinations (which can be verified by numerous reliable sources in a much clearer manner than a flight tracker) and that they aren't publicly published, I object to having a list of destinations. NcSchu(Talk) 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DL to Mumbai?[edit]

Why is Delta listing as serving Mumbai when it has a stop in Amsterdam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FL787 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--FL787 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--Nevermind I realized direct flights are acceptable. EWR-MSP on mainline continental ends after August 30th and does not appear to return so I am adding the end date--

--FL787 (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For EWR-MSP on CO mainline, flights appear to return May 23. So, I am denotating the flight as "seasonal". (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
For DL BOM, it is "NW" coded but the flight is operated by Delta using a 767 on both legs. See WP:AIRPORTS for more details. (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Terminal A rename??[edit]

Since when did Terminal A was renamed after Conan O'Brien? Also, another thing that don't make sense is that Newark mayor Booker has banned O'Brien from using Newark Airport after he made an insulting joke about the airport. So how can a terminal be renamed after a person that the city's mayor banned from using the airport? Snoozlepet (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As a joke on The Tonight Show, the mayor Elizabeth renamed the terminal after Conan O'Brien because most of the terminal is in his city. This renaming should only be considered as joke and is in no way encyclopedic. Spikydan1 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the correct statement is that the Mayor of Elizabeth said that since Terminal A is in Elizabeth he would rename it for Conan's arrival at the terminal. No indication that this was meant to be anything more then an honorary action. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

United emergency landing[edit]

I erased this incident/accident when it was first entered, and though that was probably a bit too fast I still don't see why it's relevant for the article. In my opinion incidents and accidents are only relevant for an AIRPORT article if they actually have a significant impact/effect on the airport that's more than a news headline. This incident is really only contained to the airline and and the aircraft type since the only effect on the airport was that it shut down a runway. I think some of the other incidents noted in this article fail inclusion for similar reasons but one of the reasons I'm bringing this particular one up is that there is generally a problem with Wikipedia that when incidents hit the news they hit articles that are related by only a string almost right afterward regardless of their relevance. Do any others have an opinion? NcSchu(Talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same way..There always seems to be a race to be the first one to add anything that happens. If someone was looking at this page or any other airport or airline page, it would appear that air travel has become very dangerous in the last 2 or 3 years. There proably needs to be clear cut rules for inclusion of incidents for airports, airlines, aircraft, etc. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An airliner that sustains substantial damage in an accident is worthy of mention. In this case, on the airport and aircraft type articles and in the 2010 in aviation article. It's not mentioned under the airline article because that article has a non-standard way of covering accidents and incidents. Rumour on Pprune is that the aircraft may be declared a write-off, in which case the accident would pass the threshold of notability. When this is confirmed by a RS, we can revisit the notability of the AfD nominated article on the accident. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this is an issue to bring up with WP:AIRPORTS or WP:AVIATION but it just seems to me like incidents are relevant for certain articles only. Even if the aircraft is written off that still has no impact on the airport and doesn't seem to be a very historical crash for it either. NcSchu(Talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What Terminal Will United Operate In[edit]

Will United move to Terminal C or Stay At Terminal A? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Only time will tell but my guess is that they will move to C. Spikydan1 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

United airlines flight 634[edit]

The article United airlines flight 634 redirects to here. I am just wondering why please? It doesn't seem significant, maybe we should get rid of it? --JetBlast (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hub size[edit]

In terms of daily ASMs United hub sizes go 1) EWR 2) IAH 3) SFO 4) ORD (talk)

Do you have a source for this? This source [1] states that IAH will the largest hub for the combined airline. I don't where you got this but how can ORD be smaller than SFO? ORD was once the largest hub for United and IAH was the largest hub for Continental. It may be the largest hub operation in the New York area but not the largest hub for United overall. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
oops, never mind then. The hubs are ranked in terms of avalaible seat miles, which sense now. I was talking about flights. However, we just need to mention that EWR is the third largest hub for UA since all the hubs are mentioned in terms of flights. Snoozlepet (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty lame that it goes by flights, in reality flights don't mean anything, it comes down to the ASMs, in which case it goes EWR,IAH,SFO,ORD,IAD,LAX,DEN,NRT,CLE,GUM. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

United to Terminal C??[edit]

When will United move to Terminal C with CO? They should move by now cause United flights to Brussels, St. Maarten, and Zurich departs from Terminal C and UA flights to ORD, SFO, IAD, and DEN still depart from Terminal A. Snoozlepet (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific[edit]

Please do not add Cathay Pacific until an exact and firm is announced by CX itself. Can't find no press releases on CX's website announcing service to EWR (although the NYC airport page has EWR but there is no actual date). An actual date is needed per WP:AIRPORTS page content. Snoozlepet (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

Please can we stop with the edit war and come to a decision on here? There is lots of reverting going on and breaking wikipedia rules. --JetBlast (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim said himself that there is no source... with no source the information is not to be added. Kairportflier (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
That is correct but you shouldn't keep reverting due to the 3 revert rule. --JetBlast (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, what do we do now, he won't stop even though I told him this? Kairportflier (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Report it to an admin on the edit war page. for more info see this page Wikipedia:Editwar --JetBlast (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Done and Done. Thanks! Kairportflier (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Tim said himself that there is no source"
Show us where I said there is no source for what I wrote. (The source is good, of course.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the sentence Kairportflier wants to delete from the article: "The March 1939 Official Aviation Guide shows 61 weekday airline departures on five airlines, the most for any United States airport, but by August 1940 the passenger airlines had all left Newark for La Guardia, which opened in late 1939."
He wants a link as a source; AFAIK the 1939 OAG isn't online. But it exists, as do 1940 OAGs showing no airlines at Newark. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
WHERE IS THE SOURCE? AND what is the importance of putting this.... there is none. Kairportflier (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Kairportflier, a "source" does not have to be available "on line" to exist or to be legitimate. The May, 1939 OAG cited does indeed exist, it is a reliable and verifiable source, and it contains all the information for which it is being cited as the source. The importance of this information (daily departures) is that it shows the level of traffic that had built up at Newark by May, 1939, which all left when LaGuardia was opened in December, 1939. This is certainly historically significant and encyclopedic material. While it may not be of particular interest to you personally, that does not mean it is of no interest to anybody else. It is. I have to support Tim Zukas on this one. Centpacrr (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
So instead of giving numbers people don't care about or understand just say that. Kairportflier (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I must admit, sir, that I truly don't understand what your issue is here. Perhaps you do not understand the significance of this information, but it is quite clear from the context in which it appears exactly why it is included. You seem therefore to thus be complaining about the inclusion of fourteen words solely because you apparently do not understand their import. For "clarity", however, I have now altered the first clause of the sentence to read "By May, 1939 passenger air carrier operations at the airport had grown to 66 daily weekday airline departures by five airlines, ..." so there is no question as to what the sentence means. (The details of the flight information is contained in a note, not in the body of the article, so they are not included in the word count.)
Looking back at your edit summaries, however, the reason you gave for deleting the other editor's original language was not that you thought the information was irrelevant, not interesting, or unencyclopedic, but instead you claimed that it was "not valid" because "we don't do the OAG thing on wikipedia". What, please, is your basis for that contention? Is it perhaps that you do not know what the OAG is? In case you don't, it is, in fact, the "bible" of passenger airline schedule, fare, and route information for US and many other carriers and has been for almost eight decades. The OAG (originally Official Aviation Guide then Official Airline Guide) is, in short, the most reliable, verifiable and valid source for the information cited from it in the article. With respect then, sir, your claim that "we don't do the OAG thing on wikipedia" because it is "not valid" is just not correct. Reference publications and original source documents such as the OAG are actually exactly the kind of "thing" cited by WP editors as the most reliable, verifiable, and "valid" type of source, not the least. Centpacrr (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with what you added I just don't like how the user listed the airlines and numbers as it was not needed. The nice sentence you created though is fine. Kairportflier (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Without a citation, all the offline sources in the world are useless, because we need to know how to access them. There's a good reason that {{uw-unsor4}} redirects to a vandalism warning. Zukas deserved a vandalism block, and he would have gotten one now if I'd not looked at his contributions and noticed that his last edits involved discussion instead of repeated addition of uncited material. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
With respect, the claim that only sources that can be found "on line" are sufficiently reliable and verifiable for use on WP and that any and "all offline sources in the world are useless" is just patently ridiculous. The internet is hardly the repository of all encyclopedically useful information, and in fact the web is also the source of a great deal of misinformation as access to "publishing" on the net is virtually universal and thus by definition editorially unvetted. Surprising as it may seem, there actually were encyclopedias created and published before both the internet and Wikipedia that were perfectly able to be reliably and verifiably sourced without ever depending on the internet for anything. WP editors who don't "know how to access" sources that are not on line should probably just consider finding another hobby. Centpacrr (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
@Centpacrr he said they are without a Citation, because one wouldn't know where to find them. He didnt say they are all useless. --JetBlast (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The material that was removed had a complete and detailed citation (The Official Aviation Guide (Timetables - Fares - Routes; General Information of the Airways; Air Mail - Passengers - Air Express). The Official Aviation Guide Company, Inc. Chicago, ILL. (Issued monthly). May, 1939 and August, 1940), it just wasn't an "on line" citation because the particular publications (the May, 1939 and November, 1940 issues of the The Official Aviation Guide) do not happen to currently be posted anywhere on the internet. The published source does, however, very much exist. Centpacrr (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Due to an edit war over the end date of Southwest Airlines flights, I have fully protected the article from editing. Please discuss the date and the sources here, rather then engaging in an edit war. Thanks. Yunshui  07:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012[edit]

VIrgin America Terminal A 2601:9:5880:5A:2963:BE3F:CA96:CDCB (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It's not clear where you'd like this link inserted. It doesn't seem to belong in external links, and I'm not clear on what content it would support if it were converted to an inline citation. (Note: link is to a pdf of the minutes of a recent Port Authority board meeting. The pages are stamped "pending gubernatorial approval".) Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)