Template talk:Airlines of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Aviation / Airlines (Rated Template-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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the airline project.

MAXjet, Big Sky[edit]

Removed MAXjet, as it has now ceased operation. --Resplendent (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Big Sky, as it has ceased operations. --Resplendent (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

US Airways Shuttle[edit]

An IP editor (possibly Holding Company Guy) has added a section for defunct airlines within an airline. While he may be technically correct that US Airways Shuttle is no longer an airline within an airline but merely a marketing brand, I still feel it is misleading to list is there because US Airways Shuttle continues to exist. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont think that a list of airlines is a place for any of the airline within airline marketing names. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hawaiian, I left you a note back at US Airways Shuttle. US Airways Shuttle was folded back into US Airways prior to its merger with America West and the US Airways group. I referenced this with a link. I did however leave your AWE ICAO code up there because it seems to be an issue for now. I think we could possily get rid of the airline box now because it is no longer an airline within an airline and might pose some confusion to people thinking it is. (Holding Company Guy!) 166.129.56.135 (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.165.114 (talk)

I removed it from the defunct list, as it is still a still flying. It actually fits the definition of an airline within an airline better now than it used to. Before it was folded back into US Airways it was an airline in its own right, now it is just a brand of US Airways, just like Metrojet was, and the other airlines within airlines were. I also removed Delta Shuttle for the same reason. —Cliffb (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Scope Creep[edit]

An IP editor has been expanding the scope of this template to include defunct regional airline brands (e.g. America West Express) and defunct airline-within-an-ailrine operations (e.g. Ted). I'm in concurrence with MilborneOne's comment above that this really isn't the place for these sub brands, but I'm okay with living the currently active ones on the list (e.g. Delta Connection) since to the public they appear to be "airlines" and are useful to assist with navigation. In particular I'm concerned with the growth of the defunct section as there are lots of defunct airlines and airline brands in the US, so I really think it needs to be limited to the most notable ones. An argument could be made that since they are no longer US airlines at all that they don't belong ({{Airlines of the United Kingdom}} doesn't list any defunct airlines and simply provides a link to the category), but I don't really want to go there right now. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed some air cargo and charter lines from the Defunct section. One of them was Primaris Airlines, which apparently had a fleet size of ONE aircraft. --Itsfullofstars (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To BIG?[edit]

This template is too BIG especially if you compare it to the size of the stub article at AirStar Executive Airways. Perhaps it should be broken down into multiple templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why compare templates... Alan. I am sure the list of Airlines of Zimbawe would be much smaller than a list of Airlines of China for example. Comprehensive and accurate is the vast goal of Wiki for most of us. 166.187.47.69 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Midwest Airlines[edit]

Republic Airways Holdings has given up its operating certificate, therefore it is no longer an airline.

Why is it still included within this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.182.106 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

USA3000[edit]

With a fleet of five planes, and the fact that it does charter work, is it really a mainline carrier? I don't think so. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

5 airplanes.... yeah looks like 700 fleet airline major airline carriers get lumped in all the same.... did my part to try and correct this 174.5.11.131 166.187.47.69 (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal[edit]

I've just removed Isla Nena Air and Island Air Service as both just failed AFDs for non-notability. If they ever get notable enough to merit an article, I'm sure they can be added back. In the meantime: Isla Nena AFD, Island Air Service AFD. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)h

Direct Air[edit]

This is not an airline? They do not even have plans upon becoming an airline. Why include? Currently creditors are going after this business in relation to the failure of Pace Airlines which actually flew flights on behalf of Direct Air.

Aviation Advantage, d/b/a Southern Skyways d/b/a Myrtle Beach Direct Air, d/b/a Direct Air uses the aircraft of different Charter Airlines 166.187.106.55 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are Milborne and Hawaiian717 the same Editors???[edit]

This was brought up in the discussion earlier. I am starting to believe that may be the case..... with the reverted edits.

This box was needing some work when it popped up a few weeks ago but with my edits it became pretty clear, crisp and logical when it pop up ... I might add.

I personally think Part 135 and part 121 carriers needs to be added to different Air Taxi Section and Independent Commuter section..... though. That might however get too big to put it all in there. Personally I was hoping to see this vast improvement strand.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.187.47.69 (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not likely the same. However the type of edits you have been making have not been well received in the past so the reverts to English was not a surprise. Fell free to try and gain consensus for the changes you would like to see. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not MilborneOne. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey personally I learned NOT to waste any time on this stuff as it seems to be the tyranny of the few rather than the clarity and truth for the masses. Really seems like C H A N G E to me! Thanks Vegas. I do feel slightly ganged upon by bullies sometimes.

I am glad BilCat also brought up Milborne and Hawaiian may be the same editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.187.47.69 (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you think that they are the same, read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and follow the directions there to request an investigation, if you think a case can be made. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got that BilCat thinks MilborneOne and I are the same person. The accusation was made by 166.187.47.69. If you think we're the same, go ahead an request an investigation. The suggestion I see from him that multiple apparent editors are really the same person was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines and was directed towards the numerous anonymous IP editors. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Vegas... like I said I have invested about 3 hours more time into this than what I care to do... Thankfully I been able to do washing and clean the house up in between..... being bullied. Thankfully I am not a vulnerable student... S U I C I D E is not pretty. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.187.47.69 (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That does little to convince anyone that your edits are worth keeping. It's almost as uselss as an unmodified apology form letter. Btw, you misunderstood me - Vegas and Milborne are the same person. ;) - BilCat (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bil: Rather than get into wikipolitics I simply choose to continue W O R K on the project to make the aviation section of wiki more user friendly and well rounded for all, by finding ways of tieing loose ends together.


166.187.240.236 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please userfy this monstrosity? It's huge, and the IP isn't even trying to make a case for it here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Done to 166.187.240.236/Template:Airlines of the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


166.187.240.236 (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry folks but I cannot live on WIKI like some folks! Can only dedicate so much a day to it. Like a fine wine some things improve with age!

Note: I moved the template from 166.187.240.236/Template:Airlines of the United States to User:166.187.240.236/Template:Airlines of the United States. --JaGatalk 16:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GoMokulele[edit]

Does anyone happend to know the FAA DOT operating certificate number of these two airlines, or would we need to provide both to add to the info box?

Really cannot see it being justified on the list... have tried numerous times to correct error in WIKI but keep getting re-edited....by full time users of wiki like grupo - Milborne, - 717Hawaiian, - Vegaswikean.... finally looks like we were able to get Direct Air delisted, at least 32.177.31.50 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I decided to look at the editing history and low and behold I noticed whose baby go! Mokulele is... perhaps that is why it is unjustifiably still on the list of Airlines.32.177.31.50 (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cartel

If consensus is to remove Direct Air from the list, then I would say that it is reasonable to also remove go! Mokulele. If we do that, then we need to add Mokulele Airlines. go! Mokulele is essentially joint branding and marketing for the operations in Hawaii of two separately owned, separately certificated airlines: Mesa Airlines (formerly dba in Hawaii as go!) and Mokulele Airlines. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


A go!mokulele joint venture travel advertising marketing brand is NOT an airline exactly as Direct Air is NOT an airline. BOTH need removal. Wiki has some standard at to what it is NOT etc... personally though I do not care that much for eventually we will have some sort of place to place marketing schemes confused as airlines like MetroJet, Ted, go!, and go! Mokulele and such. corporate transparency, is important to some of these companies, and some like to distort. Either way, if we have correct places to put the distorted or undistorted then headway will be made in terms of accuracy which I am sure is a goal of wiki32.177.248.172 (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this rant is. You're agreeing with yourself above, and because you refuse to register an account and use a variety of dynamic IP addresses, you could possibly be accused of using sockpuppets to create the appearance of consensus. You've been pushing this same agenda of exposing airline marketing brands for years now. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

NO AGENDA HERE, just get tired of explaning United Express is NOT an airline when asked. I might suggest returning to a drama free zone, as whoever happened to create the Wiki article go! Mokulele must feel slightly hoodwinked my Mesa Air Group and Mesa Airlines.

I forget, WIKI considers those registered as better than those not "registered." Excuse me for bleeting like a sheep on that particular "rant." 32.177.248.172 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Guess I should have looked at editing history sooner in my wiki carreer! May have been insightful!

I started the articles go! and Mokulele Airlines, and help sort out how to handle go! Mokulele when the joint venture was announced. I'm fully aware that go! is a dba of Mesa Airlines operating under Mesa's certificate, and I've heard Mesa's "Air Shuttle" callsign being used by go! flights in Hawaii on the radio (I was on a United Airlines jet offering Channel 9 at the time). I want to clarify that I'm not opposed to removing go! Mokulele from this template, but I want to be sure that there is consensus for the change to remove it and Direct Air, not just the persistent work of a single editor trying to remove them. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes or two of the same registered betters users mimicking a third for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.177.248.172 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mesa Air Group Mesa Airlines division "go!"[edit]

Mesa Air Group and Mesa Airlines have decided to rename the internal business division of Mesa Airlines back to "go!" per published reports. Since go! is not an airline this needs to be addressed....... I however am not a registered user so I cannot remove go! Mokule from the list... maybe someone can remove this internal branding that is not an airline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.156.109 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Thus I have removed go! Mokulele to its appropriate place on this template. That others are welcome to improve upon so we may differentiate between certificated airlines and simple airline brand divisions and pseudo airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.156.109 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)‎

I see you're still on your WP:SOAPBOX... -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Corporate Flight Management[edit]

Corporate Flight Management has begun operating the Essential Air Service flights from MDW to Manistee, Michigan under the marketing carrier "Public Charters". They previously operated flights for Branson AirExpress. Does this make them a commuter carrier or are they still a charter carrier? Regardless they should be on the template for offering regular passenger service. -Drdisque (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)