This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV:Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
Why do we have fleet info here? Shouldn't it be on the "United Airlines" page?
I was wondering why there was fleet info on this page since it is for a holding company. I think it would make more sense if it was on the page United Airlines. United Continental Holdings is NOT an airline--it is a holding company--so it should not have fleet info. Do you think I should move the fleet table to United airlines page or not?
Well, at the moment, United and Continental are still separate airlines, operated by a single holding company. Thus the fleet info is for the airplanes owned by both Continental and United, and putting it on the United page would be misleading. Once the merger is completed, the planes on this list will all be United planes, but that's not the case yet. --Jfruh (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean. And after looking at the pages for other airline holding companies, I notice that those have fleet info as well. So I guess having fleet info here isn't anything out of the ordinary. --Compdude123 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I know UA and Continental got their single operating certificate the other day, but is it really correct to wipe Continental completely from this article at this point? In practice, the Continental and United brands are still being operated separately, with separate check-in counters in many airports, some flights still branded "Continental", etc. In some ways, it's the opposite of the various *Express airlines, which have a unified front-end with the mainline airline but are operationally distinct at the back end; here, there are still two front ends to what's a single airline behind the scenes, something like Delta's Song or United's Ted? Anyway, my point is that perhaps we shouldn't wipe Continental's name from this article just yet. --Jfruh (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see evidence of "wiping Continental completely from this article". The only thing I see is Continental not being in the subsidiary list. It appears from http://www.united.com/page/article/1,,53833,00.html that COA branding at major airlines has been switched over prior to the adoption of the single oc. As of the activation of the single OC (see ref. 6), the FAA only recognizes United aircraft designations and flight numbers. So effectively, COA does not operate an airline anymore (it no longer has a valid OC for the use of Continental flights or aircraft; i.e. CO, COA, and callsign Continental are no longer valid for use in US airspace). The *Express airlines are just codesharing and marketing agreements with various regional operators who operate the aircraft under their own OC (PSA, CJC et al). Cowbert (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After the discussion has been open for a while now it seems that the way to go is to remove it. Also worth noting the section has not been sourced for 2 years + --JetBlast (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, regardless of Wiki policy, I feel it should stay. Disregarding the fact that United Continental Holdings is not an airline, it's an airline holding company who's main and ONLY subsidiary is an, you guessed it, airline. For the time being, all the livery information should stay as United is still in the process of re-painted exUA and exCO aircraft into the merger livery. Once completed, the fleet section of the atricle should look something like LATAM's fleet section. Once again, just my opinion. We will wait for more opinions on this. - DONALDderosa (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Should be removed and summarised, this article is about the holding company not the airline. Also all that livery stuff is not relevant (not even for the main article) to an encyclopedia. All we need is a one line statement about the fleet per IAG. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It is pretty much the same info as is on United Airlines#Fleet, all the more reason for deletion. The livery info is completely pointless. So get rid of it. —Compdude123 18:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I propose that UAL Corporation be merged into this article. Nothing in either of the pages suggests that they are/were separate companies; rather, they both seem to agree that after UAL acquired Continental, it was simply renamed and rebranded as United Continental. I would think this can be compared to the transition of Federated Department Stores into Macy's, Inc.; the latter is not a separate company, since it is simply a renaming of the first. Both UAL and UCH have fairly small pages, so merging them wouldn't create an excessively large article. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, they are not the same company. --JetBlast (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Why have you made the changes without a consensus? I have reverted your changes until something is decided here. --JetBlast (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I jumped the gun on that one. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
So is it only a renaming then? If so, then I would support a merger with some details on what the differences after the new name (and brand) was adopted. Dreambeaver(talk) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)