Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

Airline of Foo navigation box

Just been asked a question by User:Laurentiu Popa about the use of airline of foo boxes on the page of an airline belonging to an unrecognized state (Kosovo, Nagorno Karabakh or Northern Cyprus), should it have a box to the claimant country (Serbia, Azerbaijan and Cyprus)? Also, in the page of the airlines of those claimant countries there should be a box of the unrecognized states? any opinions ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No to #1, because the 'claimant state' has nothing to do with these airlines; they're operating in the unrecognized state. How many airlines do these unrecognised states have? 1, maybe 2? We don't need a navbox to link between 2 articles, so that solves #2 nicely. — Lfdder (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've sent all 3 of these navboxes to TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 October 6. — Lfdder (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jetlite title needs change

Over a year after merger the title still remains as Jetlite, the airline is now JetKonnect, website and all, kindly update the article title accordingly, thanks. 139.190.138.225 (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done although not really a merger the company is still legally Jet Lite. MilborneOne (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Need true definitive definition of an airline hub

There seems to be recurring discrepancies with what constitutes an airline hub and what disqualifies as an airline hub. Can editors of this WikiProject provide clear cut definitions of a true airline hub? Thank you.--71.135.163.123 (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"A Hub and Spoke network is a route network where an airline will not only plan on transporting passengers between two points, but also to connect passengers between two distant cities via its hub." So if the hub is A and the passenger goes from B to C via A then A is a hub, pretty clear really. MilborneOne (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a key words here are "plan on". We have to be careful with this definition and not miss that, otherwise someone could say that any airport where a connection is possible should be considered a hub. A creative passenger can build connections in oddball places that nobody would consider a hub. Something like San Francisco to Denver via Orange County on United; just because that's possible doesn't mean we would list Orange County as a United hub. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A key point may be A Hub and Spoke network as you mentioned. If the airline uses this model, then then their hubs can be identified as hubs. Does Southwest have hubs at McCarren or Midway? No. And they probably operate more flights from those two airports than many hubs for other airlines. But they don't have a hub and spoke network. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the above responses. How should we deal with airlines that violate the objective definition of a hub? Airlines are increasingly doing this for marketing hype (hub exaggeration) or PR purposes (hub minimization). Airlines that engage in this practice make hub claims not grounded in reality. Thanks. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable reliable published sources that state such practices are happening, and for the reasons you've posited? To this point all you've presented are what appear to be baseless suppositions. If it's really the issue you're claiming it is, show us the sources. I honestly don't know if it's a real issue or not, as I don't read airline industry sources. I do read FlightGolobal's website regularly, and while they do deal with airline issues, I don't recall them ever mentioning this one in the last few years. - BilCat (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

They can claim it as a hub and we can quote them as doing so, but we should make it clear in the infobox with a note that the industry does not regard it as a hub. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed for years at Talk:Delta Air Lines, particuly in regards to Delta's listing of CDG as a hub, and more recently LAX not being listed as a hub by Delta. I don't watch any other airline articles on a regular basis, so I can't say if this questioning of an airline's listing of its hubs is unique to the Delta article or not. The general consensus reached on the Delta talk page was that there is no single accepted industry-wide definition of what is or isn't a hub, nor is there a list of these hubs by industry sources. Given that, the general practice on the Delta article, and perhaps on other airline articles too, has been to just list the hubs or focus cities as designated by the airlines themselves in their published sources, without any comment one way or another on the validity of the airline's choices. Yet for some users, primarily IPs, this has never been satisfactory, to the point of accusing Delta of being dishonest, but of course without ever citing any reliable published sources to back up such claims. So, are there reliable published sources that are accepted industry-wide as authoritative on what is or is not a hub, preferably cwith lists of those hubs? If not, I don't see how we make notes in articles that an airline's choices of hubs or focus cities in articles are not recognized by the industry. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right BilCat we cant really make statements that they are not considered hubs unless a reliable source says so. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you only watch Delta? Don't you need to watch other airlines in order to make an objective call about Delta? Here are some related sources:

• • • • • [1]
        • [2]
        • [3]
        • [4]
        • [5], which was mentioned before. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Will any of those sources actually accuse Delta or another airline of being dishonest in their choice of what to call a hub when I read them? If they do, and it's notable, then it should be covered in the main text somewhere, especially if it lead to sanctions or charges by a government for wrong doing. But I don't expect to find anything but confirmation that there is no objective standard for what is or is not a hub. - BilCat (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, those sources don't actually accuse Delta or another airline of being dishonest in their choice of what to call a hub. Yes, some of the sources do call LAX a Delta hub, but none accuse Delta of dishonesty or wrong-doing in not labeling it a hub. Again, it just proves their is no objective standard. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You didn't respond to why you only follow delta articles. If you follow only delta, doesn't that introduce subjectivity? --71.135.163.123 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And you still haven't actually produced reliable sources that prove your assertions that any airline chooses hubs or focus cities based on marketing hype or PR purposes, or that "Airlines that engage in this practice make hub claims not grounded in reality", much less engage in illegality by doing so. And that's far more relevant to the discussion than what articles I watchlist at what point in time. I never said I hadn't read the other articles, nor watched them from time to time. My only point was that "I can't say if this questioning of an airline's listing of its hubs is unique to the Delta article or not." That's all. - BilCat (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • The following articles refuse to name CDG and AMS as a hub, or they call them a partner hub:
                  • Center for Aviation
                  • TheStreet.com

This could be understood to mean Delta decided to introduce fake hubs. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's time to to drop the stick. The horse died long ago. - BilCat (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of a dead horse, I'd rather hear from the horse's mouth, and I insist on speaking to an honest horse, such as Mr. Ed. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The obvious and clear answer to the original question is "no". Airlines have different definitions of hubs (or completely lack a consistent definition of hub). Delta calls some cities (but not LAX or SEA, which both now walk and talk like hubs) hubs, while American calls their hubs "cornerstone cities" (except when they call them hubs, and American generally talks about the "cornerstone city" of New York while some insist that JFK but not LGA is an AA hub), and Southwest claims they don't have hubs at all (even though they have airports like MDW in which they have enormous schedules with capacity well beyond local demand and banks of inbound and outbound flights). The US Department of Transportation has another definition altogether. "Hub" means different things in different contexts. Simply taking an airline's public statements is marginally-at-best consistent with Wikipedia policy, since the airline's statements are not a third party source.

The periodic attempts by some users here to impose a consistent definition that somehow applies to all airlines so that we can put cut-and-dried lists of hubs in airline articles and lists of airlines with hubs in airport articles is unsourcable and counter-productive. I think that listing the largest airlines at a given airport (by destinations, passengers carried, number of pigeons employed, whatever -- just pick one and be clear about it) and the airports a given airline serves most is much easier for readers to understand and for editors to source. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the US Department of Transportation's altogether-different definition of a hub? How does is matter, regulationally or legally? Also, while an airline's statements are not a third party source, they are allowable, as long as it's simply to report what the entity itself says. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The US DOT defines a hub as an airport above a defined percentage of passengers US per year; it reports statistics for large, medium, and small "hubs". It's clearly not what we want to use here, but is just another example of the ambiguity of the term.

If we want to come up with a uniform definition of "hub" across Wikipedia, it would need to be verifiable. Because the airlines each use different definitions, citing what they say about themselves would not achieve that goal. (My main point was that that goal is unachievable.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Some airlines also use the term "base" (as Virgin Atlantic, Spirit Airlines, Aer Lingus) and some editors are treating that the same thing as a hub. A base or operating base for the airline may mean that an airline may base a couple of aircraft at that airport and will use that airline on certain routes. I am not sure if we can make those as hubs. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As usual, I feel that the following gentle reminder is needed:

That said, it seems that it is impossible to actually come up with a satisfactory definition of what a "hub" is. If an airline wants to claim that a certain airport is or is not a hub, then that's their perogative. Some airlines deliberately operate a hub-and-spoke model (this is common in the US, but less so elsewhere), while others have de facto hubs (e.g. Southwest at Midway, Virgin at Heathrow, etc.). Then there is the issue of "focus cities", and I'm sure there is no satisfactory definition of that term either. --RFBailey (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A whole banner is gentle?? And since we're advocating listing only what airlines call their hubs and focus cities, how is that not globally applicable? If non-US airlines don't list hubs, we won't be listing any, and if they do, then we will. Simple. - BilCat (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While I take the point, it's mainly (though not exclusively) for US airlines and airports that this is an issue. By passengers carried (probably a more relevant number than passenger-kms carried for this discussion), the four largest airlines in the world are US airlines. Also, there are relatively few non-US airlines for which there's much ambiguity what's a hub and what's not (since most non-US airlines have service heavily concentrated in one or two airports), whereas there's some ambiguity about at least one hub for most if not all of the major US airlines. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of LAX a stealth hub

I realize from BilCat that this topic may be tired, but I want to state that I am going to keep a lookout for media sources that point out DL's LAX problem/dilemma. DL has dumped their LAX hub at least two or three times, starting with the post-Western Airlines years. They are now experimenting with LAX, but it is operating in hush-hush stealth mode. They do not want announce LAX is a hub, even though it performs that function. This is because they are afraid of the negative publicity that could come about from dethroning their LAX hub later henceforth, since that would be perceived as a shrinking footprint. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh gosh, is this issue really such a big deal? Obviously, there is not the global definition of the word "airline hub". Therefore, the first choice would be to have a look what the airline says. Then, in case there is some kind of a discrepancy (for example, if reliable sources have a different opinion on what airports the airline's hubs are located at), one has to acknowledge that there is not "that one answer everyone is happy with." So, for the sake of a Wikipedia article, explanatory work would be needed (maybe in a whole section, at least by a footnote or something similar). Take the Lufthansa website as an example, where you can find the claim that their hubs would be in "Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf, Zurich and Vienna". As the last two are in fact Swiss/Austrian Airlines hubs, they are nevertheless omitted from the infobox at the Wikipedia article (though, come to think of it, this removal is nowhere explained. It really should!). It all comes down to WP:V, as opposed to WP:OR. My two cents.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An airline hub is an airport theough wich an airline operates connecting flights.Sum Christianus (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So MDW and LAS are hubs for Southwest in your mind? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Input needed: What makes an airline a "flag carrier"?

Please comment on this discussion, concerning the definition of a flag carrier. In short, the problem I found is that de facto, Wikipedia calls an airline a "flag carrier" if it has been identified as such by reliable sources, without specifying what makes it one. Thus, the definition of a flag carrier (an airline that "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations") is turned into an empty phrase.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've partly responded at your concern at Talk:Lufthansa. The other discussions we engaged in here got stalled, as neither besides you and me commented further. Hope this won't happen in this case.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

⇒ flag carrier ⇒ "an airline that is or was owned by a government, often with the name of the country in its name", like "British Airways", for example. (Definition of flag carrier noun from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)[6] --IIIraute (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats a pretty strange definition of flag carrier, one I doubt that would be recognised by anybody related to aviation. A flag carrier is a carrier that has been nominated by the government with preferential rights on certain or all routes as regard air service agreements between different countries. Most used to be owned by government but it was not the case of all and certainly not all had the name of the country in it. In reality with the wider ranging air service and open sky agreements between countries it doesnt really mean much these days. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It sure is an odd definition; if it was actually true, then American Airlines would be considered the flag carrier of the United States, since it's "American" Airlines. However that's really not the case, because the US doesn't have flag carriers. —Compdude¹²³ 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of an earlier discussion we had when an editor claimed Virgin Atlantic was a flag carrier because it used a union flag painted on its aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

...oh, really❔👉 United States Flag Carrier: "One of a class of air carriers holding a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the DOT, approved by the President, authorizing scheduled operations over specified routes between the United States (and/or its territories) and one or more foreign countries"🗽[7], and "often" = "frequently; in many cases"❕ (≠ "always")‼ --IIIraute (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again: The problem is that (at least concerning the deregulated airline market in Europe and North America) the term flag carrier is an anachronism. As the BBC puts it:

"Flag carriers were a product of the immediate post-war world when governments around the globe saw the emergence of air travel as a means to wave the flag for their respective countries. Airlines, which were typically owned by their governments, were not so much businesses as prized trophies - each a self-conscious statement that their country had a place on the global stage."

The article gives examples of airline tails that clearly depict(ed) national flags or symbols, like Alitalia, Swissair, Air Canada or British Airways and btw also identifies Pan Am and TWA as "flag carriers" (it's not hard to find further sources calling Pan Am "US flag carrier", take for example The New York Times. This follows the above definition, because those airlines had preferential rights or privileges. By now, many of them have been privatized and turned into "real businesses". Still, they are referred to as "flag carriers" because of their history. Thus, a contemporary use of that term is "former state-owned airline with a dominant role in the (international) air traffic of its country"; and I could even come up with sources calling Lufthansa "the former flag carrier of the Federal Republic of Germany" [8]. Obviously, calling a privatized airline a "(contemporary) flag carrier" is a mere perception rather than a statement backed by facts, which is why I proposed to have flag carrier renamed something like state-owned airline (a well-defined term).--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: state-owned airline and de facto flag carrier

I like FoxyOrange's proposal, with one tweak. I think there should be state-owned airline and de facto flag carrier. For example, UA and AA took over the de facto role of PA and TWA. This is similar to TAM and Gol taking over the de facto role of Varig. --71.135.163.123 (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide at least a source saying that United Airlines or American Airlines serve as flag carriers for the United States.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I stand corrected: UA, AA and DL

ghosts of pan am chasing the legacy of america's flag carrier

--71.135.163.123 (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned nowhere in the article provided that AA, UA or DL are considered flag carriers. Actually, the only place where the term "flag carrier" appears is in the title. It is you or anyone else who is interpreting the flag carrier status of the current airlines, which is original research. Thus, the content cannot be included in any article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Air Serbia destinations article

There was an article by this name but it now redirects to Air Serbia main article, can the destinations one be reactivated so the destination list can be added there? 175.110.230.50 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just replace the redirect at the top of the page, you may have to start again the older article only had three badly formed entries. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please use the correct destination format. We switched to a new, better, format a year and a half ago. Read all about it here. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 17:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Jet2.com

Just to note that Jet2.com has been semi-protected to encourage talk page discussion due a disagreement about the fleet list, I have reverted the addition before protecting the article so just seeking a sanity check. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Aurora (airline)

I've just created the article for this new Aeroflot subsidiary. Enjoy!--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines Group Inc.

Anyone want to tackle the creation of American Airlines Group as the successor to AMR Corporation and US Airways Group? One thought that I have would be to rename American Airlines-US Airways merger to American Airlines Group and make the current article the history section with a new lead. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

More information needed about the Spantax incident at Cologne/Bonn in 1978

Dear all, this image has caught my interest, as well as the story behind it. On 4 April 1978, a Convair 990 Coronado of Spanish holiday airline Spantax belly-landed at Cologne/Bonn Airport because "the pilot had forgotten about lowering the landing gear." The sources I could find during a quick online search (both in German, [9] [10]) indicate that there was a fire to the right wing and that the plane was "destroyed", but for some reason the occurence is not listed at the (otherwise quite comprehensive) Aviation Safety Network. Does anyone have more information that would help determining whether this indeed was a hull-loss accident, meeting the WP:AIRCRASH guideline?

And now for something completely different: Some time ago, I initiated a discussion at Pan Am Flight 110 (whether this article name is well chosen), which unfortunately lacks any participants. So, feel free to also add your thoughts and comments there; they will be greatly appreciated.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• CV990 EC-CNG had 139 passengers and nine crew onboard when the pilot experienced asymemetrical flaps on approach to Cologne, He decided to land with flaps up and reduced power and turned off the gear warning horn. At this point No. 3 reverser latch unlock warning light came on. With all this going on they forgot the landing gear and the aircraft belly landed and slid for 1500m on the engine pods and rear fuselage. All four engines caught fire but it was soon put out by the emergency services (within 10 seconds! they just happened to be close to the final resting place) All onboard evacuated OK down the slides within a minute. Damage to the aircraft was "substantial" but not destroyed, it continued in service and was withdrawn from Spantax use and stored in 1982. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)