From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Oneworld has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 13, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
September 2, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (Rated GA-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airline project.
WikiProject Vancouver (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is not specific to any one area of Vancouver.
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Reads like an ad[edit]

This article seems to me like an ad... Especially because of the "we"'s and "our"'s in the text it doesn't resemble the usual, neutral and high-quality Wikipedia-articles. HannsKoenig 14:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Can the oneworld benifits section of this article please be removed as it contravines wikipedia policy. Pustulio 00:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As someone else stated above, this article reads more like an ad for the company rather than an encyclopedia article. The section with the company's goals is really over the top. In this case, the goals of the company are irrelevant because they're generalized goals like, "We want to have really good service and run our business well." What business doesn't? Stating the goals doesn't give a benefit to the reader of the article. Kjkolb 14:26, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

There is still a lot that is wrong with this text in terms of encyclopedic neutrality. For example: "The alliance said farewell to its affiliate member..." And numerous places where "the Alliance welcomed ..." etc. --621PWC (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It IS an ad. The [redacted] at ONEworld are paying people to manipulate the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


I have been consistently reverting the changes made by IP address and related addresses. He/she has been moving Japan Airlines from "Possible Future Members" to "Future Members", despite the fact that their application has not actually been approved yet. While it is likely that they will indeed join, they are not technically a future member. I tried to explain this, but he/she refuses to respond to any comments and simply remakes the changes on a daily basis. Since this page is the only one edited by that IP address range, I believe they are doing it simply to create conflict. If someone else starts making the change as well and can give me a reason why, I won't revert it. This person has no interest in listening to reason, and so I will continue to revert his or her changes. Does anyone disagree with me? Dbinder 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me Dbinder. Once the invitation is issued/accepted then they become a "Future Member", until then anything could happen (remember SWISS anyone?). Technically I guess this makes Malev only a Possible Future Member, but since they have at least signed an MOU leading towards an invitation, it makes sense they stay where they are in the article. OzMikado 00:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Bold text in oneworld[edit]

Re. Wangi's recent edits to the article, I was under the impression from all official alliance documentation and promotional materials that the correct usage is oneworld, not oneworld. OzMikado 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right but Wikipedia has a manual of style and guidelines on the use of bold, italic etc. It looks a mess as oneworld, hinders those with sight problems and doesn't improve the article. The oneworld logo shows the text as it is rendered by oneworld. Thanks/wangi 09:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you point out where in the style guide it indicates that oneworld should not be placed in bold? I see that it says use bold-face judiciously, but I believe that conforming to the correct typeface for a word should qualify (likewise, titles should be capitalized, but oneworld is in all lowercase, as is called for by the company.) Dbinder 13:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd say WP:MOS#Formatting issues and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) cover this fairly well. Thanks/wangi 14:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. I hadn't looked at the trademarks page. Dbinder 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Potential Future Members[edit]

People seem to be indiscriminately adding carriers to this list simply because they codeshare with an existing member. A carrier should only be there if they are partnered with several members and/or have expressed an interest in joining. Dbinder 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential future members should all be considered. Turkish Airlines for example is reportedly looking for an alliance to help boost the nation's entry into the EU. TAM Brazilian airlines has a strong marketing program with American, etc..Reader wangi should just not erase because he personally does not agree with valid points provided by other editors. --XLR8TION 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Article on Mexicana's and TAM's strong candidacy to become the alliance's newest members: America, which is the largest carrier in the Americas requires codesharing with these airlines to expand it's markets in the Americas. Furthermore TAM passengers in many U.S. cities can go to the American counter at an airport for assistance. This indicates a desire on part of both airlines to consolidate services and intensify cooperation. --XLR8TION 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I left in every listing that had a reference, and removed those which did not. Please read WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Thanks/wangi 06:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate Members[edit]

I've listed the affiliate members of the alliance as I believe they add more to oneworld than a one-liner. Someone might find a better way of listing them or a less intrusive format, but it's a start. But BA's franchises add a considerable route network to the alliance, and American Eagle's domestic network is too large to ignore.

There also seems to be some confusion in the affiliate airlines articles, as some have been mentioned as "members" (American Eagle, for example) and have the oneworld template added. It would be helpful to have a common approach, whether a new line in the existing template or similar. For starters I'm creating a sub-category for affiliate members.

I don't know what sort of impact this will have on oneworld destinations, as officially these carriers' destinations are on the oneworld network, it's just the carriers themselves that are affiliate status. --Ayrshire--77 09:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While the carriers themselves are not members, it makes sense to put the oneworld template on their pages. The same has been done with Ted in Star Alliance and Song in SkyTeam. Also, all destinations served by the alliance should be in the alliance destinations page, even if only served by an affiliate/subsidiary. Dbinder 11:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Should Harmony Airways be added as a potential future member? Harmony already has established a co-operation between itself and Japan Airline, and if I remember correctly, with American Airlines as well. It also recieved designation for scheduled service to China. Spyco 09:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Membership Tiers[edit]

At current stage, the Premium status section shows only the tier levels of current member airlines. Should we include the expected tiers of furture airlines (eg. JAL Fly On Crystal = oneworld Ruby) and tiers from the former member airline (Canadian)? Spyco 09:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Under British Airways the Executive club and Premier are not listed as separate programs contrary to what it says on the British Airways wikipedia page. (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

oneworld or Oneworld[edit]

I thought that the word should be oneworld with small "o" and not with capital "O" since that's how the offical website does it. So how come the word is used with the capital version here? 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs a consistent style of writing. Many organizations wish that some decorative alteration be a part of their "official" name, but these cause problems when consistency is needed in writing style. The Wikipedia community has determined that where an official name begins with a lowercase letter and has no internal capitals, the first letter should be capitalized. This follows the same procedure as many other publishing organizations, including the Chicago Manual of Style. -- Renesis (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Members leaving the alliance[edit]

Where are the sources that state that Iberia is leaving the alliance? On the pages of Star Alliance and Iberia there's no evidence of the airline leaving the alliance, and even joining Star Alliance. There has to be a checklist of the sources. Also, when has an article expressed feelings? Is it valid to say saddly, X and Y are leaving? Einsteinboricua 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Qantas Subsidiary Jetstar[edit]

The oneworld page of affliate airlines does not include Jetstar in the affliate list for Qantas, so I've removed it. Likewise, I doubt that Jetstar Asia (majority owned by Qantas) is part of oneworld as well. --Novelty 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Jetstar Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Qantas, but has separate management. Jetstar Airways Australia does have some interlining with their parent (eg Jetstar flights booked via, earning Qantas FP points, and so forth).
Jetstar Asia and Jetstar Airways may be marketed as one brand, but both have separate management. Jetstar Airways Australia is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qantas, while.. Jetstar Asia is majority owned by Singapore company (Orange Star), Qantas only has a part-stake in Jetstar Asia. --Arnzy (talk contribs) 07:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


The oneworld's website stated that Dragonair is the 11th airline pending to join oneworld at this stage, following by 6 airlines in JAL group, Malév, Royal Jordanian, and LAN Ecuador/Argentina. It has the same status as LAN Ecuador/Argetina so should be treated the same. Ernestnywang 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragonair, as Lan Ecuador and Lan Argentina, will be affiliates. Lan Argentina and Lan Ecuador will be affiliates of Lan Chile, while Dragonair will be an affiliate of Cathay Pacific, since they belong to the same company. Einsteinboricua 13:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1worldfinsnew.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:1worldfinsnew.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 23:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I have removed OpenSkies from the list of oneworld members. So far, neither British Airways nor the alliance itself has given any indication that OpenSkies will join when service begins this summer. I have looked at BA's official press release as well as OpenSkies' web site and neither mention oneworld membership at all. Also, while reading through a forum discussion (replies 53 and 74), a forum member stated that OpenSkies will not join, and said his only source was one only accessible with a subscription. If anyone has concrete evidence OpenSkies will join oneworld (possibly as an affiliate), please post it back up on the main article and provide a source. MRasco 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First sentence of the article[edit]

I would like everyone's opinion on the first sentence of the article,

Oneworld (Oneworld Management Company Ltd) is the third largest airline alliance after Star Alliance and SkyTeam. 

I believe the sentence is a bit incorrect and misleading in some respect. My reasons are: (a) Oneworld is third largest based on what - Airports coverage, Countries coverage, Annual Passengers, Annual RPK or Fleet Size? (b) With airlines joining and leaving, both in Oneworld and the other 2 alliances, if it becomes the 2nd largest, we have to update the article to say it is the 2nd largest, and when it goes back to be the 3rd largest, then we have to update the article again. I think it should be up to the readers to determine which position it is at (eg. the largest based on Annual RPK) by looking at all 3 articles concerned, instead of us pre-judging it on the reader's behalf. I think the sentence should read:

Oneworld (Oneworld Management Company Ltd) is one of the three largest airline alliance, together with Star Alliance and Sky Team.

or something similar. Feedback welcome.Aviator006 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oneworld/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


  1. The lead of the article is too long. The lead has been reduced to four paragraphs as a summary of the article, no new info introduced in the lead. Aviator006 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Citations are not supposed to be in the lead. As the lead is now a pure summary, no citations included. All citations are in the body of the article. Aviator006 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. There is uncited information throughout the article. Citations added to all information included in the article. Aviator006 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. The article structure looks sloppy, with much of it being lists and tables. Usage of lists and tables rationalised, with history converted from a list to paragraphs and sections; and only those necessary used tables or lists. Aviator006 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. There are too many photos that clutter the article. Photos usage reduced, only 6 pictures now in article. Aviator006 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, the photo gallery section is not appropriate for the article. Agreed, gallery removed. Aviator006 (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Due to these major issues, I will have to fail the article. Once they are fixed, the article may be renominated. Dough4872 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Major overhaul completed and replaced with the main page, renominate for GA-status. Aviator006 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some things to look at before GA again[edit]

Asked by User:Aviator006 to take a look at the article, I made a brief review with the following comments:

  • First sentence, not sure it should be "and", perhaps "with its"?
Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is it "Oneworld" or "oneworld"? The slogan seems to imply oneworld.
It should be "Oneworld" as per WP:Manual of Style (trademarks). However, I only used "oneworld" in the infobox and 'Management' section as it is a quote. Aviator006 (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strange ref issue at the end of the first para - [8]: 12 ?
This refers to a specific page within a cited source as per Template:Reference Pages, but have since removed the usage of it. Aviator006 (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "as a Managing Partner" - not clear what this exactly means.
Definition explained in the new 'Management' section. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • More ref weirdness with that [8]7: [9] and the [8] 1: things.
As per Template:Reference Pages, but have since removed the usage of it. Aviator006 (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Four paragraphs max I should think for the lead. The expansion paragraph is probably not needed in the lead.
The lead now contains four paragraphs, with information cleaned up to be a summary of the article with no new information introduced, hence, no citations now needed in the lead. Aviator006 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Infobox - "Annual RPK (G)" what is that?
Definition explained in the new 'Performance' sub-section under 'Management' section. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The 10th anniversary section should come after the history section.
Section incorporated under 'History' section, as it is part of its history. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The aircraft with new livery section is quite trivial really. Airlines change their livery all the time and it's really not that important.
Agree and removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Customer service intiatives section should come after the history section.
Section incorporated into 'Benefits and services' section. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid in-line URL linking like you have for "Oneworld Travel Library" - make it a reference.
Removed arrow icon and included in 'External links' section. Aviator006 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Remove spaces between text and references.
Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid over-capitalising text, so "Non-Member Affiliates" becomes "Non-member affiliates" etc.
Corrected as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Images should have alt-text per WP:ALT.
Alt-text added as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Premium status section could be merged with the Customer service initiatives, it's all the same kind of thing. And you really don't need the logos, nor all the detailed information. A brief summary is required that mentions the levels and the pertinent differences, not a sales brochure.
Agreed and grouped both and 'Co-locations' under 'Benefits and services' section. I have converted the first list (benefits) into part of the first paragraph of each status. I kept the list of membership tiers as not all member airlines' article have a loyalty programme section to discuss th3 equivalent tiers. Aviator006 (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Co-location section could easily be a nice table.
Converted into a sortable table within the 'Benefits and services' section. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Aircraft livery gallery is really not needed. You link to all the relevant airlines in the article. Unless it's a specific Oneworld logo, then it isn't directly useful in this article.
Agree and removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man: All updates have been incorporated, including changing the history list into paragraph sections. They are currently in my Sandbox User:Aviator006/Sandbox, can I invite for your final input before I replace the article with it and go for GA status again? Aviator006 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
TRM: Are you able to have a look at this soon? Cos I would like to move it into the main page. Cheers! Aviator006 (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the rewrite although the section headings could be a touch more encyclopedic for my liking. Otherwise, very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks TRM. Article up for reassessment for GA-status. Aviator006 (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oneworld/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I have a few small issues with this article. There are some prose problems, which I will fix myself.

There is a comment about OneWorld being the only alliance containing an Asian Middle Eastern airline. I disagree with this because of Turkish Airlines. Yes, Turkey is also in Europe, but it has operations on its Asian side as well.

This is referring to where the airline is based, not its operations or where it flies to. Turkish Airlines is based in Europe's Middle East. No updates has been made. Aviator006 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because it is based upon the European side of Istanbul does not mean it is not a Middle Eastern airline. No one ever talks about a 'European Middle East'. This statement in the article is far too specific and distorts the relevant information. It's like me saying that 'Oneworld is the only alliance containing an airline based in Hong Kong'. True, but irelevant. Please modify this statement.Zeus1234 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The mention of Asia's Middle East is from their official documents, but if you feel so strongly about it, I am happy to modify it. :) Aviator006 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the principal problem with this article is that it is too long. In the manual of style it states that an article should be from 30 - 50 kb [1] Even if we remove all the references from consideration of the article size, I still believe it would be over 50 kb. The article needs to be shortened. Areas to do this in include the lead, which is quite long, and the history section which is also very long.

The readable prose as described in WP:SIZE#Notes for the article is 25kb (see my sandbox User:Aviator006/Sandbox), this is below the recommended limit. This included some sentences in the Lead and History removed. Aviator006 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what the 'Co-location' table is for. What is a co-location?

Co-location description added. Aviator006 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I also do not think that the section about the Finnair bus is needed. It's not really relevant.

Agreed, removed as suggested. Aviator006 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend you get the article down to below 70 kb from its current length of 76 kb.

Readable prose is 25kb, within recommended limit as described in WP:SIZE#Notes. Aviator006 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you did not count the tables, I would recommend that you modify the last two tables of the article, the co-location and award tables (which IMO, are not that important) to make them hidden tables. Meaning that a user must click on the table to make it appear. This will make the article more readable. Zeus1234 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
As requested, Co-location and Awards tables now hidden. Aviator006 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will put the article on hold for now and wait for improvements.Zeus1234 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

All comments reviewed and updated in the article accordingly. Aviator006 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Additional requests by reviewer completed. Aviator006 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

China Eastern - Potential Future Member[edit]

I cannot find any English article online to support the removal of this carrier from the list. The citation quoted (in Dutch) in the SkyTeam article does not indicate that China Eastern has accepted a formal invitation to join, according to the translation of the new article in Google Translate. Can anyone confirm whether China Eastern is joining SkyTeam (with citation)?? Aviator006 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Article published today re China Eastern Airlines will make final alliance decision before Chinese New Year on 14 February 2010. Hence, the airline should remain in the Oneworld article until official press release. [2] Aviator006 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


There's also a publisher with the same name. Peter jackson (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: 2 publishers: Oneworld Classics & Oneworld Publications. They seem to be quite separate. Peter jackson (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Add disambiguation link on the page to redirect to Oneworld Publications. Aviator006 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see from that article that the 2 are connected. Peter jackson (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

" Undid revision.... this version is GA-class approved "[edit]

So we can't improve it and make the listings more logical at all? Benner9 (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course we can improve it and make it better, but your change has created inconsistencies between the formatting of 'including' and 'operated by', which I don't believe it is logical. I have made a similar change, to include the 'including' part and without the arrows. Aviator006 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see the "included by"bit. Can I recommend your future reverts give actual detail. Cheers, Benner9 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trademark formatting[edit]

I noticed my edit concerning the unusual formatting of the trademark was removed since the logo is already on the page. I think the article text needs to mention it, since just because a logo uses a particular style doesn't always mean that the company always uses it that way (particularly the bold formatting of "one") - but where they do, it should be mentioned that it's not just the logo. Right now, it's not mentioned at all in the article, reflecting the POV that such things don't matter. It's one thing to follow the style guide for most of the article; it's another not to mention it at all. PaulGS (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I get your point now, yes there is a difference. I will undo my undo. Aviator006 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mexicana is defunct[edit]

Mexicana airlines has ceased all operations and declared bankruptcy. These changes are reflected on Mexican's page; they should be here as well. Azrich(talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I read from the official press release from Grupo Mexicana, the airline suspended (not terminated) all flights and technically bankrupt. However, if you read on, it states: "Today’s decision is a painful one for the 8,000-strong Grupo Mexicana family, but we will continue seeking out ways of securing the company’s long-term financial viability, so our passengers can once again enjoy the quality services they are accustomed to. We hope to be back in the air soon and would like to thank everyone involved in this process for their support and understanding." Furthermore, there is no official announcement by Oneworld about the withdrawal of MX as a member. Until such time that an official announcement is made and a reliable source can be provided, your changes are considered unsourced and have been reverted. Aviator006 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a press release from OneWorld. The Wikipedia page on Mexicana says that it was an airline. Using the past tense as it is defunct. We should be consistent with that page.Azrich (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said, unless you can provide verifiable citation that the airline is no longer a Oneworld member, either an official press release from Oneworld or Mexicana. Additionally, an airline suspended its operations and its membership to an alliance are completely two separate issue. Aviator006 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As a Mexican Resident it's pretty obvious that the company is never going to come back. I personally think they should remove Mexicana as a member. Oavcech9 12 September 2010

Hi there Oavcech9, thank you for your thought in this matter. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot rely on hearsay or personal opinions, we need citations from reliable and verifiable sources, e.g. official press release or news report. Aviator006 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to MX's status in the alliance, all users be aware that until such time that either Mexicana or Oneworld officially announces MX's membership withdrawal (with citation), all unsourced information or modification to the article to the contrary will be removed. For information about MX's operations, please see Grupo Mexicana website for the latest information. Aviator006 (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Members on all continents?[edit]

" It is the only alliance that has members based in every continent."

Well, actually Star Alliance has members based in all the continents too, if one doesn't count Australia as a separate continent from Oceania (many in Europe, Asia, North America, TAM in South America, Egyptair & South African in Africa and Air New Zealand in Oceania). Furthermore Comair is "only" an affiliate member. Ypsilon from Finland (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ypsilon, I agree that after TAM has joined Star Alliance this year, Oneworld is not the only alliance with members from every continent, hence, the quoted sentence above has been removed from the article. However, I disagree with your reference to 'Comair is "only" an affiliate member', as you mentioned it is an affiliate member, so it is a member of the alliance nevertheless. Aviator006 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


I removed the aircraft images of Air Berlin/Kingfisher/S7 with the comment seems a bit daft to have more images of aircraft from proposed members then actual members - my removal has been reverted. We dont have aircraft images from all the actual members so do we need these, any comments. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No comments after 4 weeks so I have removed the images. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

JL & MX bankruptcy[edit]

I have reverted some updates in regards to JL & MX bankruptcy as I believe that the bankruptcy information is notable in their respective articles, however, unless they are impacting their membership to the alliance, I do not believe it is notable in the alliance article. Aviator006 (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible future members table[edit]

Although this section is referenced it is mainly speculative and to show it as a table could be misleading, it really should be in prose with the reason why it is considered to be a possible member and not just press speculation. Suggest that the airlines are listed and taken out of the table format. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft in Oneworld livery[edit]

Doesnt appear to be very encyclopedic better suited to a hobby website, suggest it is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please drop some lines regarding this here.--Jetstreamer (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue of American Airlines and protect the article[edit]

The latest news showed the American Airlines and US Airways would merge together. There is no any news showed which alliance would be chosen currently (American Airlines belongs to Oneworld and US Airways chooses Star Alliance). So this article should be waited for significant editing and protected until the information show which alliance will be chosen for the new airlines. --TJYZY — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJYZY (talkcontribs) 02:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-member affiliates[edit]

We use a lot of valuable table space listing "Non-member affiliates" they dont appear to be mentioned on the official Oneworld website so it appears to be a made-up classification, suggest as they have nothing to do with Oneworld they are removed from the Full members and their member and non-member affiliates table and elsewhere in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In the table do we really need to list non-member affiliates? Surely if they are not listed on here the reader will know they are not a member. Surely the article is about membership of Oneworld, not who isn't a member. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


I have added sponsor airlines of every member airline, but was reverted. Could anybody tell me what is the inappropriation of adding sponsors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groverlynn (talkcontribs) 20:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Because it is a list of members so the sponsor is not really notable and doesnt add any value to the table (in fact it can be confusing because it appears to show a relationship that doesnt really exist). MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what User:MilborneOne said --JetBlast (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:MilborneOne on this point. It doesn't add anything of value to the table. Esrever (klaT) 23:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

US Airways[edit]

To avoid confusion, Oneworld officially announced that US Airways is joining the alliance on March 31, 2014 ( The airline, however, is not joining as a full member but rather a member affiliate of AA until both airlines are fully integrated. (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont see why this would be any more confusing than the section right above which lists former affiliates that have left the alliance separately from former airlines that that have left the alliance Clumsyone (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)