From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Qantas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
November 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          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 Companies (Rated B-class)
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Australia / Queensland / Sydney (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Qantas is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
Note icon
Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Grounding re 2011 Qantas trade union disputes[edit]

The section on industrial action here seems to be rather biased in favour of Qantas management.

[1] Qantas is painted as an airline with declining profits which is only kept "afloat" (should be "aloft") by a few routes. This neglects the fact that prior to the grounding, Qantas' profits had steadily improved since the GFC. Qantas' profits are projected to go down in 2011/12, but by almost exactly the same amount as their grounding has cost the airline and even so it is still operating at a profit. [2] The workers' wishes seem to be painted as unreasonable by notes about their 'demands' and the addition of talk about bonuses and perks. One could more easily, simply and accurately note that workers at current levels stand to see a decline in real wages and don't see this as acceptable (wage rises and CPI are both given in the article anyhow). [3] Concerns over losing the Australian character of the airline - and particularly Australian jobs being outsourced - were also at the heart of the dispute, but this isn't mentioned even in this short section.

The extreme nature of Qantas' grounding, allegations that it had been pre-prepared and was implemented cynically and the immediate context (the Qantas AGM, Joyce's bonus) could easily be included in this section as well, although since there is a whole page on the IR dispute, this probably isn't necessary. In any case, making the selection of facts presented in this section more neutral is needed.

 Mxmlitvinov (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We currently have this event mentioned in 2 places on the page. Under "Company affairs and identity" at Qantas#Labour row grounding and under "Airline incidents" at Qantas#2011 industrial unrest and grounding of fleet. Just FYI. The 2nd mention was AFAIK put in after the other, but is a better update IMHO. 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) 19:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read page 5259 of hansard federal parliment of australia records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbeare (talkcontribs) 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Qantas Frequent Flyer section[edit]

I noticed that the frequent flyer section really reads like a travel guide or advertisement and it goes into too much detail about the benefits of certain levels of the program. I suggest we delete the table and just summarize the stuff that was in it. In my opinion the whole section should be viewable without having to scroll up and down the page. —Compdude123 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Acronym vs. initialism[edit]

There has been a recent discrepancy among many editors as to whether QANTAS is an acronym or an initialism. As per Wiktionary, an initialism is “A term formed from the initial letter or letters of several words or parts of words, but which is itself pronounced letter by letter”, while an acronym is “An abbreviation formed by (usually initial) letters taken from a word or series of words, that is itself pronounced as a word, such as RAM, radar, or scuba; sometimes contrasted with initialism”. That said, QANTAS is clearly an acronym. I therefore apologise for my reverts.--Jetstreamer (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What does QANTAS stand for?[edit]

QANTAS' new meaning stands for:

Queens And Nomads Together Australia Survives — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the talk page guidelines. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject or for posting snarky comments like you just did. Rather it is for discussing improvements to the article. —Compdude123 03:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

History of QANTAS[edit]

I have merged the history of qantas article with the main article as the history section required expansion and a separate article had all the details needed for the main article. Printpost (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

All of that info was split off this article twenty months ago because this article was getting too big, so I have reverted the edit. YSSYguy (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The history section in this article still requires expansion. Take United Airlines#History and British Airways#History as guides; both of these articles have history sub-articles. —Compdude123 19:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unaccompanied child policy[edit]

An addition has been made under this heading describing the recently highlighted policy of moving men away from unaccompanied children as Reverse discrimination. Firstly, it's simply not reverse discrimination. It's just discrimination, if anything. (Or maybe just plain dumb.) Secondly, under a heading like that we should be describing the whole policy on unaccompanied children (how the airline manages them overall, etc), not just a recent drama. I have removed the entry. Happy to see something better worded and titled included in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First, removing the entire paragraph just because you disagree with one adjective ("reverse") in it is not constructive and may be interpreted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Banning men from seats next to unaccompanied children on flights is a case of reverse discrimination because
a. this is a gender issue (undisputable) and since men have been traditionally the dominant sex (undisputable fact) and reverse discrimination is defined as "against members of a dominant or majority group" (see lead), discriminating these male passengers is reverse discrimination, not just discrimination.
b. the term has also been used explicitly in one of the cited articles "I hate to say this but it is a sign of that reverse discrimination that occasionally exists out there," he said.
PS: Just saw that there is actually already a section concerning the matter: Sex discrimination controversy. I will add contents there, did not see it before. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove the entire paragraph just because I disagreed with one adjective. One of the most frustrating problems I find in conversation on Wikipedia is when I make two distinct points in a post, and someone replies as if I had made only one. That you argue in that manner suggests that we have a real comprehension problem here. And I still say that it's not a case of reverse discrimination. That one writer wrongly says so doesn't make it so. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Care to address my argumentation above? You also undid the entire edit at reverse discrimination. I will reinstate the material one more time. If you keep on reverting, I am going to ANI over it. It is difficult to see that your reverts are done in good faith. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You're clearly in no mood to discuss right now. Maybe later. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, calm down. I don't see why this has to be a big deal. Take a break. Personally I think that even having a section on sex discrimination controversy is just like focusing on a minor disagreement. Don't turn this article into another Ryanair, where every little controversy is covered down to the finest detail. —Compdude123 19:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

787 cancellation?[edit]

Heads up: Qantas says it will cancel its firm order for 35 Boeing 787-9 aircraft, representing an $US8.5 billion ($A8.12 billion) reduction in capital expenditure at list prices. [1] --Pete (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Qantas Ambassador[edit]

I was just wondering whether this article should list the current ambassadors or at least mention that John Travolta is a Qantas ambassador, as he appears in their inflight safety video, I don't believe we need create a whole new section for it, as that would be preposterous, however perhaps adding that to the main introductory paragraph? Suggestions anyone? I can confirm this is true through the Qantas website as it talks about his 'love affair' after discovering Qantas at a young age. Please can we raise this for discussion? Thanks. John.dinsdale (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think including the matter in the introduction adds to the article, and this is not that important to be in the lead section. Maybe elsewhere.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking, but unless we make a section for 'Key People' there is not much point in creating a whole new section for a few Qantas ambassadors. What do you think? John.dinsdale (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

New Slogan[edit]

There is a new slogan as stated on Should we change it? ABXInferno —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a new slogan, the slogan is still The Spirit of Australians. This is just a campaign phrase, that is being used in television commercials and print. I live in Australia, and I know for fact that Qantas still employs The Spirit of Australians on their aircraft livery, logo and documents. This is simply a new campaign.John.dinsdale (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Awards Section[edit]

This section contains a pretty much useless list. Any thoughts about removing it please? --JetBlast (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this section seems quite pointless. Also, the information is (not surprisingly) well out of date. Delete! - Carbonix (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree too.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


I have reverted LibStar's removal of the logo. It has been here a long long time, he needs to discuss why it shouldn't be here any longer. His personal assessment that it adds "little value" is insufficient. Fry1989 eh? 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopaedia, the main corporate logo is fine and those of subsidiaries like jetstar but how exactly does the frequent flyer logo help a reader? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
These logos are standard practice for our articles about major airlines. I've reinserted both. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes as said, the logos are standard practice on dozens of airline articles. Clearly we like to illustrate things when we can. If the logo was free content and on Commons, I would be less worried, but when the result of removing the logo is that it will be deleted as an orphan, I feel we need a higher standard of reasoning for it's removal. Right now, there is no sufficient reason. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess that we could put the logos and the pictures of Qantas airliners on other articles. Solve the orphan problem nicely. Kinda entertaining to watch the reactions. --19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Archived references not used in the article[edit]

--Jetstreamer Talk 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I still call Qantas Airways Limited... QANTAS! :P[edit]

Should we put in the intro that it's common name is QANTAS? What about the fact that it's pretty much always stylized as QANTAS? Also, should the name above the infobox be just "QANTAS" on it own? (Ok, I was bored, so what ya gonna do about it hmm!? lol) AnimatedZebra (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything to support that Qantas in capitals is a common name as appose to standard English with just the Q as a capital? --JetBlast (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
On the Qantas website almost all uses of the name outside headings are written as Qantas. Its annual report uses Qantas after the title pages. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It still doesn't support it as being the common name. --JetBlast (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
What? What do you want to see? I've just done a search on my city's two major newspapers, The Age and the Herald Sun. Both seem to use Qantas exclusively, not QANTAS. Is that enough? HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry i misread your last comment i agree with you --JetBlast (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have tweaked the intro to show the article name Qantas first and the official name in brackets as has been done on other airline articles. Might make it clearer for some of our readers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No reference to John Travolta or his 707[edit]

As brand ambassador, or as operator of the last Qantas 707 in service, why is there no reference to this? --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably with regard to the 90-odd year history of the airline it is not that notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Second oldest in the world[edit]

In the intro it says it's the second oldest in the world and links to List of airlines by foundation date. However in the list, I can find two operating airlines, KLM and Avianca, which were established earlier than Qantas, making Qantas the third oldest operating airline.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The link to the article is not important; that page should have its own references backing its content. Just as with any other claim, the fact that Qantas is the second oldest airline worldwide should be properly referenced. I'll mark the statement as unsourced if no supporting sources are present.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing more to say. The claim in this article is impeccably sourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 21:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
An airline founded earlier than Qantas was merged with another airline in 1940. The new airline resulting from this merger was called Avianca. Airbus and Boeing have a habit of saying "Avianca, the second-oldest airline in the world, has ordered some of our planes" when they are blowing their trumpets, so the claim for Avianca being the second-oldest is verified as well. YSSYguy (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I would not consider any company's marketing PR as a reliable source of encyclopedic information. --Dmol (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The Qantas' stuff is not part of any marketing press release; it has been published in a third-party reliable source.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

734 fleet[edit]

Looking at the CASA reference, it shows eight 734s registered to Qantas - as per our table. --Pete (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Many news reports have indicated that the entire fleet has been retired from service. Bilbobagginsflyer (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Bilbobagginsflyer: WP:VERIFY says that an inline citation to a reliable source should be provided for each change.I see no references provided by you, just removal of content.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Qantas documents[edit]

In case this video is discussed in a source, I have it archived WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

B767 phasing out[edit]

According to The Daily Mail (and many other news websites), the B767 will be retired by 27 December 2014, earlier than previously announced. Can someone change this on the wiki page, since the page is semi-protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done • I've cited an industry-related source instead of the provided above.--Jetstreamer Talk 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)