Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport

Delta Airlines SEA-DFW

I added Dallas as a destination from Seattle with Delta Airlines. I'm sure Delta Airlines offers this flight.

UPDATE ... Nevermind it's a codeshare flight with Alaska Airlines.

Air Canada Access

When I went through Seatac, for some reason, even though I was flying Air Canada, I was routed through United Airlines to check my baggage. My AC Flight Boarding pass was printed on a United Background. Anyone know why this is or was? I flew in 2004.-Delta Spartan 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Air Canada doesn't have facilities there. Airlines often have their partners handle services at some airports to save money. Since SEA is a major airport for United, they probably handle Air Canada's ground services. I've experienced the same situation flying KLM from Rome (handled by Alitalia) Dbinder 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Air Canada is a Star Alliance partner with United. I believe United handles AC's ground operations at SEA. Aep 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Northwest KOA-SEA

I was looking at the current Northwest timetable and it shows a non-stop daily flight from KOA to SEA. But no service, non-stop or direct from SEA to KOA. Anyone know what is up? 24.113.22.73 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at [1] I see that NWA 094 from Kona (KOA) via Maui arrives at Seattle at 5.51a... Aep 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the Northwest Airlines timetable and here's the schedule I see. Flight 95 Minneapolis - Seattle - Maui. Flight 94 Maui - Kona - Seattle - Minneapolis. Both flights are on 757-300s, and the schedule is right for the same plane to make both flights.

If you are flying to Hawaii, I would suggest flying United or Hawaiian. A seat one inch wider does not sound like much, but it makes a huge difference in comfort on a 4+ hour flight.

Focus City

is SEA still a United Airlines focus city? KSEA 05:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, United focus cities are Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, Washington Dulles and JFK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieman899327 (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

uhhhh no....Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago-O'Hare, Denver, and Washington-Dulles are UA hubs and JFK is not even close to being a UA focus city (despite having 2 hub destinations). The only UA focus city is Tokyo-Narita. Bucs2004 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Default airport in Flight simulator 2004

KSEA was made the default Airport in flight simulator 2004. Nothing else to be said about that. Nitweet 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonstop Destinations, Passenger Aircraft Serving and other edits

I removed both the Nonstop Destinations and Passenger Aircraft Serving sections from the article. The destinations listed by each airline are non-stop so it’s redundant to have two sections listing the same information. The reason for removing Passenger Aircraft Serving section is that it has been discussed before that it would be too much work to keep up an accurate list of each aircraft each airline uses at each airport and such lists are currently not part of the standard airport layout from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Couple of other changes, US Airways no longer flies SEA-PIT at all, so I removed that listing. KSEA 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that I re-added SEA-PIT because it has been stated by US Airways that this is to be a seasonal service, and is in fact returning this summer. NW036 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Alaska SEA-CMH

Please don't add Columbus as a destination served by Alaska Airlines from Seattle. There is no press release announcing a new route and the route is not listed in the online schedule on Alaska's website. In addition, it is highly unlikely that Alaska would add a route on such short notice given that just today they announced two new routes from Portland that are not starting on September 7th, 2007. KSEA 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists destinations that aren't nonstop

If you notice that Northwest Airlines lists Mumbai as a nonstop destination from Seattle that is incorrect. If you try to book a nonstop flight anytime of the week or year you make a stop over in Tokyo so I think it is unnessessary to list destinations that include stop overs because they aren't nonstop services.

Same with Aeromexico, they don't have service to Guadalajara; you must make a stopover in Mexico City, this is why I am taking off Mumbai and Guadalajara as destinations.

Also Seattle doesn't go to numerous destinations in Europe or East Asia, in Europe all they go to is London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen; that isn't numerous destinations. In Asia they go to Tokyo, Seoul, and Taipei. Shanghai and Beijing haven't yet been accepted by the Chinese government so there for you can't count them as ligitement destinations until they are given the ok.

Agreed. Safesler 08:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think NW lists SEA-BOM or SEA-ICN as "nonstops", but they are "direct" and may meet criteria for inclusion. The governing rules here are WP:Airports, not SEA's website. For AM, it is clear that MEX is a domestic hub and any continuation of the flight number shouldn't be listed. But for NW, those hubs (NRT, AMS) are not domestic. HkCaGu (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Discontinued Service

Is there a need for the discontinued service section? This is inconsistent through different airports and in my opinion really isn't necessary. If it's deemed useful I'll add it to other airports as well. NW036 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NW036...I also think that this section is unnecessary Sox23 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Agee, it is not necessary KSEA 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem if I removed it? Sox23 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask here since we already started discussing this, but several other airports (SAN and RDU for example) have a similar section on past airlines. Any thoughts? I just see it as another inconsistency that should be spread or removed depending on what people think. NW036 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NW036- you should probably bring this up at the discussion page for WP:Airports...I think this would be better posted there because users as a whole could see the topic in discussion rather than those just looking at the SEA talk page...in my opinion I think they should all be removed because they serve no purpose...Sox23 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NWA Focus City

The Northwest Airlines timetable lists SeaTac as an International Gateway, so i'm adding the sentence back but changing it from Focus City to International Gateway. KSEA 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

International gateway is fine...probably because NWA has service to Amsterdam, Mumbai, Seoul-Incheon, and Tokyo-Narita. An international gateway is not the same as a focus city so what is in the article now is fine. I like your solution. Sox23 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"US ended airline deregulation" -> regulation

"In 1978, the US ended airline deregulation." Shouldn't this be "regulation" instead of "deregulation"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustywilson (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Gate assignments

Is it necessary to list every gate assignment for every airline in every terminal? This seems a little excessive, not to mention subject to change. It assumes that every flight will park at the gate listed every day without interruption. LAX, PHL, JFK...none of these airports list the precise gates. I'm suggesting that they be removed. No offense to Beyondweird who listed them. Thedjb 00:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed them. There's no need, they're unencyclopedic and subject to frequent change. DB (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international flights

I've noticed that at a few US airports (specifically JFK, EWR, SEA and LAX) some airlines domestic and international destinations are seperated. This is not set up in the standard form as set forth in the ProjectWiki Airport guide. Plus, when it's being done, it's inconsistent even within the airport page - i.e. DL and UA destinations being seperated at LAX, but AA and NW remaining intact. So, stop doing it. Thanks. Andrewb729 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vladivostok Air

Recently I have saw Anchorage listed as a destination for Vladivostok Air. I have removed it from the destination list saying that the flight from Seattle to Anchorage is cabotage. Today, one user readded it as a destination saying that "makes a stop in Anchorage". Should Anchorage be deleted from the list since it is only tech stop for the flight? Bucs2004 04:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on if somebody can actually buy a ticket from SEA-ANC on Vladivostok Air, or even if Vladivostok Air has the right to sell tix (US DOT is very strict). The flights are intended to depart to Russia, but have to make a stop in ANC (presumably for fuel?) Personally, I think only the 3 Russian destinations-Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Vladivostok, and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk should be listed. Sox23 07:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• This service was supposed to commence summer 2007 (strictly from ANC to Vladivostok) but was canceled within 1 week of start date due to low booking numbers. It is my understanding, and I don't have a linkable source, that they have now opted to start the flight in SEA, with a stop in ANC for both pax and fuel with continuing, same plane, service to Vladivostok. Pax cannot book SEA-ANC, but they can book SEA-Vlad. and ANC-Vlad. Again, it's hard to say whether this will happen given the airline's last minute decision this summer to pull out. I wouldn't hold my breath.Thedjb 19:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hainan Airlines

In the destinations list, Hainan Airlines shows that it no longer is awaiting governmant approval, is this correct??? Sea-Tac 03:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have readded "pending government approval" to Hainan Airlines as I have found no source that approval was granted. Bucs2004 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hainan now received govt approval to fly SEA-PEK to begins June 9, 2008. Audude08 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The map is outdated

A new runway is being built, and the runway names have been changed. The new diagram can be found at http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0713/00582AD.PDF. I don't know how to convert and upload it. Could someone else please do this? Thanks. 71.112.224.217 (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on whether or not to include BOM and ICN as destinations for NWA

Do we or do we not include them? Eventhough they stop at an NWA hub and use A332 aircraft on all four segments. Audude08 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

we should not include them becuase they are not non-stop flights. You have to disembark the planes (I have flown SEA-NRT-ICN before). All thats the same is the flight number. --Airwaysim (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again we should not simply say "it's not non-stop" and exclude direct flights. Disembark alone shouldn't make an exclusion criterion either. What about the genuine direct like Continental Micronesia's Island Hopper (Guam to Honolulu) on which half the plane (one side) is emptied for security check at every stop (5 stops, 6 segments)? The determining factor should be "is it genuine direct" as expressed in WP:Airport. In my view, however, because NRT and AMS are NWA hubs, the "direct" designation is not genuine, and plus the evidence that they often don't use the same plane, should be reason enough to exclude BOM and ICN despite same aircraft type.HkCaGu (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Southwest SEA-BNA service is not ending.

Southwest's BNA-SEA service will not end as planned for in late January. The flight will be flown after late January, as Southwest has decided to keep the flight. I dont think this required a sitation, so I changed it and made a discussion page.--67.168.190.193 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Delta has moved to S Gates + HKG Question

Delta has moved in with Northwest to the S gates.

Also, is Northwest airlines starting Hong Kong service? Someone has added it to the list....--216.186.52.115 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the airport's website for late 2/12 and early 2/13 flights. Except for one CVG flight, all DL metal are still operating from A. As for HKG, there is going to be a flight number reshuffle for NW's intra-Asia flights, and SEA-NRT will continue to HKG with the same type of aircraft. The current flight number continues to ICN with a different aircraft and thus cannot be listed. HkCaGu (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the DL flights should be moving to the S gates shortly, as NW and DL are consolidating operations. To HKG route - I think that it should not be included because it is not a direct flight. There are many domestic routes with the same flight numbers (I see this all the time with flights on UA in SEA. I was recently at the airport and it listed a direct flight to Jacksonville, which probably went through IAD/ORD/DEN to SEA). --76.22.21.99 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.21.99 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The HKG route will use the same type of aircraft, which is an Airbus A333 see WP:AIRPORTS and read direct flight. Cashier freak (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a non-stop direct flight. A non-stop direct flight is where you fly point A to point B directly. A stopover is typically when the range of the flight is too long, so a stop in made in city C. If no passengers are allowed to board onto that flight, then it is still considered a non-stop direct flight, but with a stopover. This is not the case in SEA-NRT-HKG. SEA-HKG may read in the itinerary, but you have to get off the airplane in NRT. For somepeople, that will be the final destination. Some people will continue onto HKG, while others will board the flight in NRT, simply to fly NRT-HKG. It isnt a direct flight.--76.22.21.99 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be arguing the definition of direct. The listing criteria are at WP:AIRPORT. HkCaGu (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please read the definition of a direct flight to see the flight is qualified to list. Cashier freak (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel it should not be included because when I read the destinations list, I interpret the destinations as being non-stop, not with a stopover. Now, if the stopover was only for fuel, and no passengers got off, then it could be included. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What you feel here at this page doesn't matter. If you have issues, bring it to the talk page of WP:AIRPORT. HkCaGu (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On direct flight it lists the definition of a direct flight as a flight with the same flight number, even if passengers have to change planes. This is not the case with the SEA-HKG flight. Check it out at nwa.com. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Check again. Starting late March, SEA-NRT-HKG will be one flight number. HkCaGu (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It also says the aircraft must be the same. SEA-NRT-HKG will same flight number (NW7) and same aircraft (A333). Cashier freak (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So - before MArch 21, the flight SEA-NRT-HKG will not be a "direct" flight, but a day later, that flight flown the exact same way, just with the same flight number will be a "direct" flight? Thats still doesnt make it SEA-HKG. That just means it still the same old SEA-NRT, NRT-HKG. --24.17.66.32 (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SEA-NRT-HKG is routed as NW 7 after March 29. Before that date, it will be routed as DTW-NRT-HKG as NW 11 but there is a aircraft change (from a 747 to 333) therefore the flight is not included as a destination on HKG/DTW pages. SEA-NRT and NRT-HKG are two completely different flight numbers. Cashier freak (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For those who do not understand the meaning of a direct flight. Here is the WP:AIRPORTS guideline:

List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city. Furthermore, these flights often involve plane changes, despite the direct designation. Including these flights dramatically increases the length of destination listings, artificially inflates the airline's presence at a location and requires constant updating, as these "timetable direct" destinations have little rhyme or reason and may change as often as every week or two. Cashier freak (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SEA-NRT is NW 7 and uses an A330. That won't change.

• Until 3/28 (NRT time), NW 7 continues NRT-ICN, but uses a B757, and therefore ICN is not listed as a destination.
• Beginning 3/29 (NRT time), NW 7 will change to NRT-HKG, which uses an A330-300.
• On 3/28, NW 7 SEA-NRT uses an A330-200, different type of plane from 3/29 NRT-HKG. Therefore HKG is not a SEA destination on that day.
• Beginning 3/29, NW 7 SEA-NRT uses an A330-300, same as NW 7 NRT-HKG. Therefore HKG will be a SEA destination. HkCaGu (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a policy, so stop pretending that it is. Frankly, I find this guideline compeletely useless and is an overly burdensome attempt at creating a low standard of excellence for airports. It should be disregarded, HkCaGu. Safesler 08:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All right then, you can put HKG on as a destination. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that help? Cashier freak (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From the list above, despite NRT not being a domestic hub, it is considered a hub for Northwest airlines and that is why the NRT-HKG is added onto SEA-NRT, so should that really be put on the list? Just like their might be a flight with the same planes and flight number of DCA-DTW-SEA on NW.....(Im not sure that you would apply that to an international hub)

Also, SAS does not end service to SEA in October, that article explicitly states that the service has no specific termination date, however it is planned to be between November 09 - April 2010. Unless the SAS website has been updated with the exact date, it should be changed to between Nov 2009 and April 2010. --24.17.66.32 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to this article from Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2008835921_websas10.html?syndication=rss) flights will end on July 31 now. Cashier freak (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

NW SEA-PEK

One IP has removed Beijing as a destination for Northwest Airlines. Clearly the flight is not shelved it is just postponed. Cashier freak (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

With all the uncertainty surrounding the "postponing" of USA-China routes, how can you say that "Clearly the flight is not shelved.?" All other NW/DL international flights are loaded in various GRS systems post 25 March 2010, yet no sign of PEK-SEA. I think it is more "conservative" to not show this as a destination from SEA until such time as a more concrete press release comes from NW, or these flights are actually listed on live scheduling displays. A postponement of a start date does not necessarily mean this flight will actually be launched. Why is it such a big deal to NOT show this as a destination until such time? Johnny aussie (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The date listed for the US-China routes are tentative which means it does not mean it will start on that date. The airline just requested to push the start date to that. It should remain with that date until that date come up. If it does not show in the res system, remove it. If the airline announces the route with the new start date, we can always change it. Charmedaddict (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

This seems pretty straightforward to me. PEK is not yet a destination but it is a planned one. Assuming that there is a citation for the 'planned' part, I suggest the following text: Beijing-Capital [scheduled start date: March 25, 2010]<citation>. We cannot look into the future and see that it will 'begin' on that date but we can look at the present and see that there is a scheduled start date for the flight. The only quibble I have is about the reference [2] which states that NWA is looking to push the start date back and has applied for a waiver. A reference that asserts that 25 March 2010 IS the scheduled start date would be much better. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds like a good, idea DL/NW will probably give the official date of start later this year, especially if the economy starts to look better. --76.121.4.204 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

They will probably announce it later this year. PEK is now listed as a destination for NWA and it has "[begins March 25, 2010 (tentative)]". Tentative is put in parenthesis after the start date as this is the tentative date they are looking to launch the flights. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NW does list PEK as a destination. This is because it IS a destination. There is a daily NRT-PEK flight. Per the NW booking engine, all SEA-PEK flights are listed as a connection via NRT. (this is through April 3, 2010).60.241.90.225 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i know that but we're talking about here is the planned nonstop service from Seattle to Beijing. DL/NW will announce it with a set start date later this year but we have to see how the US economy is. Charmedaddict (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't count. However, I agree with leaving a tentative designation because of the unique situation here. Pending further information, this may have to change. I say we let it stand until the end of the summer. If they have not stated further information by say, Labor Day, it should be removed entirely. In any case, PEK is not a destintation presently served by NW from Seattle. Safesler 08:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

Full protected for three days - please discuss issues on the talk page and if necessary seek out dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

HKG (again)

IPs continue to remove Hong Kong as a destination for Northwest Airlines. There is no plane by looking at NWA.com and an A330 is used on both legs of the route. I know this has been well discussed in the "DL has move to S Gates + HKG Question" thread but need to discuss this once more to avoid any edit wars. Charmedaddict (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add in [via Tokyo Narita]? If not, really think that information is missleading.--76.121.4.204 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be disputed here. It should be at WP:AIRPORT, which also has prescribed not to use "via". It would be a real mess if each airport determines what a destination is. HkCaGu (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added it to the dispute tag along with SEA-PEK since IPs will continue to remove them. Charmedaddict (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

According SEA's website, HKG is not an international route served from their. http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/flights/nonstopinternational.shtml --76.121.4.204 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The governing rules are at WP:AIRPORTS not the airport's website. If you have a problem, please bring it up there. Charmedaddict (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot possibly follow each airport's website on judging what is and isn't a destination, because they are not consistent from one airport to another. Some airports list only nonstop, some airports list plane-change directs, and some airports list nothing! Airport websites simply aren't good enough for Wikipedia in terms of destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

However, if it is listed, don't you think the airport knows exactly were each airline flies directly, non-stop, etc?--76.121.4.204 (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And the fact that this website seems to think that it has the authority to claim as truth things that the organizations about which it speaks says is not is why Wikipedia will never be a truly authoritative & relied upon source in any K-12 school, University, or Corporation. There should be a disclaimer or citation if you are really going to do this. Many cities have flights like this and they aren't listed so to say that you're following some over-encompassing, universally adopted rules here is sorta..well..CRAP. Qzd800 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone must understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not. Destinations are not listed just because destinations have to be listed. Everything has a purpose. Projects and consensus processes determine what is encyclopedic and what is not. Basically, listings of terminals, gates, destinations and infobox entries exist to paint a picture of the airport, not to be a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Gates are listed if they are exclusively "owned" and not shared. Destinations are listed to show the size and services of the airport, and therefore airport operators have no authority to define a "destination". HkCaGu (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What happens if Nw/DL decides to start up a SEA-HKG route? Does the one that is written exist or is a start date put on again?--76.121.4.204 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If they do, no changes necessary. HkCaGu (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea...Your WP:Airport rules don't give any kind of answer to this question, they are very vague and not concrete which makes everyone have to have an interpretation war every time, and they are NOT universally followed. I live here and NOBODY considers this be NW route from SEA. It's just another connection we can make in Tokyo. The people arguing to take this off could not be more on the money with what they're saying. Iquseruniv (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They do. If a flight number goes from point A to B to C, and B is not a domestic hub, and A-B and B-C use the same plane, then C is a destination from A. Formerly, the SEA-NRT flight number continues as NRT-ICN, but NRT-ICN uses a B757 which obviously can't cross the ocean loaded. Therefore, Seoul was not listed, but Hong Kong (A330 all the way) now is. HkCaGu (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're relying on the fact that it is the same 330. Which is uncertain first of all. And second of all, this is just a way to beef up the number of destinations by small airports. The fact of the matter is it is misleading. Non-stop flights ONLY! 67.183.173.75 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Go talk at the project level, not here. Although I've argued (unsuccessfully) against listing anything that goes through a hub (and that includes NW NRT), not just a domestic hub, I cannot stand this narrow-mindedness of "nonstop only". For places with few flights, "direct" multi-stop flights actually mean destinations for travelers. HkCaGu (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can whine all you want, but you're simply trying to be altruistic (sorry for lack of a better word at the moment). That doesn't justify this. A destination is the next stop where people can get off--if they choose to--not when the route number necessary is ends. This isn't a highway.67.183.173.75 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense, but SEA is a large airport, with substantial service to Asian airports.... so multi-stop doesnt really actually mean a "real" destination. I am just concerned that NW/DL will add the actualy direct, non-stop SEA-HKG, which would be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.4.204 (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP guy here on this one. If somebody who lives in Seattle doesn't view this sorry attempt to pretend something is non-stop when it isn't as a city served from Seattle then it's not. And there is a plane change required so don't even to stay on the freaking plane. This is like calling all of the cities you can connect to through ATL non-stop from whatever spoke you're coming from and that is just a huge load of BS. Qzd800 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to largely agree. And SineBot makes an additionally compelling reason. Frankly, that's why only the next airport ACTUALLY served should be considered a destination, as in, "Hey, the plane just stopped and we're parked at the gate and we can get off".67.183.173.75 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I concure. Safesler 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do people who support the elimination of Hong Kong as a destination need to start a topic on the discussion page of WP: AIRPORTS, to see if in this case, an acception to the "direct" flight rule could be made?--98.225.48.221 (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this in order to resolve this issue since HkCaGu keeps citing an un-official policy. Safesler 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are no doubt so narrow-minded that you've resorted to personal attack. You people only think nonstops are destinations, and some editors elsewhere in the world will think all destinations even with plane changes should be listed, no question asked. If you ever leave your little closet, you'll see how WP:AIRPORT participants have been bombarded and verbally abused by both sides. Wikipedia is bigger than that. We need consistency and that's why there are Wikiprojects. I've been trying to remove the word "domestic" to remove all NW through-NRT connections, but I haven't succeeded. Stop shooting the messengers! HkCaGu (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at least removing "domestic" would be an improvement over what the Wikiproject's goals are, but it still is too broad in my view. I don't think that's a narrow-minded position. I think it's one that's actually born out of honesty and simplicity instead of an overburdensome and asinined attempt to make an airport seem as if there are more destinations served directly from that location. That sort of reasoning should arguably be broadened to say, "why not add every freaking destination in the world where someone can make a connection regardless of its route number. Who cares if the direct flight goes to Portland next, they can get on a separate flight and go to Cambodia or catch a heliflight to Wikipedia's server headquarters." I think the wikiproject's goal is still too broad. But I do want to at least commend you for your work on removing one additional burden for Wikipedians. Safesler 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys. Chill the fuck out. Seriously. Go smoke some hash or some shit. Enjoy life. Die happy. Peace.--121.91.72.170 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

HKG -> PEK?

The HKG add on is now ending and a PEK is being added? I think that is very confusing, considering NW/DL has plans to start a nonstop route next year.... I didnt bring this up to pick a battle, but it does have a start date for March 30 (?) 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.48.221 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe its getting confused with the Hainan airlines flight which is adding (and I think on the same type equip too). As a PNW resident who has traveled to hkg, I am at least glad someone is showing that "route" as ending because around here we ALL know there isn't a direct from sea-hkg. NWA does publish it on one flt num. however i think. 67.204.145.88 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)