Jump to content

Talk:Continental Airlines: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Incident in Feb 07 2008: clarification of standard-setting discussion
Line 274: Line 274:


COMMENTS IN CAPS: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR EACH OF YOU TO REVIEW THE FAA'S "TERMS", WHICH PAINSTAKINGLY DELINEATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN "INCIDENT" AND AN "ACCIDENT". redstoneranger <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Redstoneranger|Redstoneranger]] ([[User talk:Redstoneranger|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Redstoneranger|contribs]]) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
COMMENTS IN CAPS: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR EACH OF YOU TO REVIEW THE FAA'S "TERMS", WHICH PAINSTAKINGLY DELINEATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN "INCIDENT" AND AN "ACCIDENT". redstoneranger <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Redstoneranger|Redstoneranger]] ([[User talk:Redstoneranger|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Redstoneranger|contribs]]) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Thank you for your comment, the CAPS are really not necessary. You clearly misunderstood what the discussion here was about. Many of us here are Pilots, Flight Instructors and Aviation Law specialists. We are very well aware of the FAA definitions, most of which stem from a DOT publication numbered 8020.11B CHG 1. We were simply discussing the value of adding each Incident into the CAL Wikipedia entry. Surely you would agree, that if we were to add each incident (per the FAA definition) we would add at least one each day, clogging the entry with useless information. We are trying to establish a guideline for which incidents to include and which not to. [[User:Keepitreal74|Keepitreal74]] ([[User talk:Keepitreal74|talk]]) 04:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


== "FIrst 16 hour flight" ==
== "FIrst 16 hour flight" ==

Revision as of 04:30, 27 July 2009

Propaganda

This article reads like propaganda. It caused the death of 113 in July 2000 and there is no mention of that here. Roguexviii (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is listed in the accidents and incidents section. Also please try to strive for NPOV. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenatator roguexviii appears to believe that one day in the life of a 75-year old company outweighs all else. This is absurd. CAL has admitted the problem with the DC-10 aircraft. Air France (and Concorde's manufacturer) would appear to also be culpable in designing an airplane that was so fragile that even the disintegration of its own tires were sufficient to destroy engines and airframe. Aircraft tires explode every day in commercial service. More durable design is the REAL issue here. As a former airport administrator, I should also comment that NO airport, not anywhere, can keep its runways so pristinely free of debris as seems to have been required by the Concorde. The incident WAS a tragedy, but Contintal's contribution to it seems to have been blown out of proportion. btw, If I were to edit the "Air France" article according to the same standard which commentator seems to desire, it would be far worse than anything that could be written about Continental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 19:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

Cut and pasted from the text. Are these NPOV?

Continental's growth during this period was about more than new aircraft types or additional route miles. Quality was the watchword in every detail of the carrier's operation; and in one anecdotal indication of Six's passion for premium customer service, every page of the airline's Customer Service Manual was inscribed with these words: "Nothing in this manual supersedes common sense." Bob Six relentlessly prowled the Continental system, as well as competitors' flights, to assure tight quality standards and to search for ideas that could be adopted to Continental's network.[4][3]
At Six's insistence, Continental (with Pan Am) was a launch airline for the Boeing 747 aircraft. Its upper-deck first class lounge won awards worldwide for the most refined cabin interior among all airlines, as did meal services developed by Continental's Cordon Bleu-trained executive chefs. Continentals B-747 services from Chicago and Denver to Los Angeles and Honolulu set the standard for service in the western U.S. When asked by one Denver customer service agent in 1974 why he flew Continental wherever he could, Hollywood legend Henry Fonda remarked, "This operation is class; strictly class!"[4][3]


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.10.226 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am the author of these passages. Admittedly, as a former officer and employee of CAL, I might be biased. Happily, though, I knew Mr. Six, saw him often, and worked (several levels under!) for him at the Los Angeles GO in the 1970s. The man was truly a phenomenon. I have worked in Washington and on Wall Street with many of the bigshots--few of them, even the most newsworthy, have the attention to detail, encyclopaedic memory, demanding persistence for perfection, and outright combative determination to beat the pants off of his competition...which he did.

I have flown over 6 million miles, much of it domestic, and involving every certificated air carrier operating in this country since 1968. I traveled in first class and coach (frequently) on all of them during the period in question (1960s-1970s). During this period, I personally interviewed (on this subject): Henry Fonda, John Wayne, Bing Crosby, Ronald Reagan (pre-Predsidency), Lucille Ball, James Brown, Ray Charles, James Stewart, Gregory Peck (that covers Hollywood)--they all "substantially" preferred flying Continental, to put it mildly. This list doesn't take account of competing airline executives (too numerous to mention), many of whom were buddies of mine for years. I wish I had a dollar for every time they (grudgingly) admitted Continental's merits.

I should also point out that I wrote the paragraphs admitting the carnage and fallout resulting from the Texas Air acquisition, first bankruptcy, imposed work rules, and subsequent (lengthy) period of employee morale problems. Although not working for Continental at the time, I still had literally hundreds of friends who were yet working, and they gave me an earful. Should I document every conversation?

The important thing, it seems to me, is the ACCURATELY capture a sense of the times, and what was actually happening: here is what was actually happening in the 1960s and 1970s: Continental was impossible to beat.

Should I, perhaps, phrase it that way? Not arbitrarily, redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents and Accidents

Hello, this is my first time to try to add a comment so I'm not sure how to do it but I was reading the Incidents and Accidents page on Continental Airlines and I believe their may be a crash that was left out. Some time before the 1980s I think their was a 727-200 that crashed on takeoff in Denver due to windshear. Someone may wish to research this and add it to the page. I have heard about this and seen a picture of the crash on the internet. Not to be confused with the DC-9-10 crash in Denver due to ice on the wings. That was a later crash. Thanks.

RESPONSE IN CAPS: YOU ARE REFERRING TO CONTINENTAL 426, 15 AUG 1975. THE AIRCRAFT WAS BOUND FROM DENVER TO WICHITA (FULL ITIN: SEA-PDX-DEN-ICT-TUL-IAH-MSY) WHEN, JUST AS THE ACFT WAS LEAVING THE RUNWAY, A DOWNBURST CELL (WIND SHEAR) FORCED THE AIRCRAFT TO THE GROUND. I HAVE REMEDIED THE PROBLEM BY INCLUDING THE DETAILS OF THIS ACCIDENT IN THE APPROPRIATE TABLE, WITH FULL ANALYSIS OF FAULT AND RESULTING ACTIONS. HOPE THIS HELPS! redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either some serious incidents should be listed or the tail strike should be removed. As with every major airline, they've had serious incidents including the first terrorist attack on an aircraft and whatnot, so listing the most mundane incident possible is pretty misleading.

Some years ago a flight went down in a snowstorm in Colorado. The past few years have been quiet.

On May 2, 2006, a Continental Express Embraer Regional jet had to make an emergency landing at George Bush intercontinental after it blew 2 tires after takeoff. The pilot managed to make a safe landing, with not even a spark flying.

I added the May 2nd Incident. Even though it is minor, it still is an incident. Once a determination if minor incidents should be included or not, this can be removed at that time. I personally believe they should as it still is encyclopedic. Spryde 11:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have reverted the deletion of the minor incidents and also the mention of Continental's involvement in the Concorde crash in Paris; as long as the info is accurate and sourced I don't see what the problem is. Let's argue about it here if necessary rather than get into edit-warring please! Guinnog 14:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Concorde crash and two other incidents. I believe we should only include crashes. Every airline has numerous tyre blow-outs, near-misses and other happenings that are not crashes. I do not believe these are encyclopedic, I think they look like padding and lower the quality of the article. Just my opinion, I certainly won't rerevert! - Adrian Pingstone 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arpingstone. If we listed every single minor incident it would take a huge amount of space. An airline like Continental, which has been around for over 70 years, has had quite a few minor mishaps. The list should just be crashes and other major events. Dbinder 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal of "minor" incidents, but the Concorde incident was far from minor, granted it was not Continental equipment that was "damaged", but if i am not mistaken, were they not cited as a cause of the crash, and did not legation come against them in regards to the crash. If proper sourced i see not reason not to include the information, to not include it is to whitewash their involvement in the incident. These would be like not disregarding the involvement of other airlines in other incidents due to the fact the the other airlines did not loose life or equipment --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This "Note that as of 2004, Continental Express is no longer majority owned by Continental Airlines, but only a code-share partner, so it may be inappropriate to list this incident here." was in the section incidents and accidents. It sounds like it belongs in the talk page. I think the embraer incident should be left there since the company does business for Continental. It is basically a Continental flight.

In the Delta section, there are a bunch of people (editors) who want to rid of all traces of DL Connection accidents but (possibly unintentionally?) add information about DL service when it's really DL Connection service. We, in the CO wikipedia article, appear to be more open and include CO Express accidents as people who buy CO tickets get ticketed on those flights (they don't call JetExpress or Gulfstream Int'l for reservations). Perhaps we could separate the accidents into 2 subsections for clarity. We wouldn't be hiding information by deleting the CO Express accidents. TL500 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)TL500[reply]

Continental Express incidents should go on the Continental Express page, with a link from the mainline incidents section. New service on CO Exp. should also be on the Exp page, again with a link from the mainline page. DB (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy

The article gives short shrift to what actually happened in the first bankruptcy. Continental became a "low cost" carrier in that bankruptcy by ditching all its union contracts in court and imposing low costs. This was, at the time, a radical strategy. Many union employees were replaced with non-union employees. Nor was the airline liquidated during the first bankrupty. Debts were discharged and union contracts abrogated. The airline, far from being liquidated, continued to operate. The rebranding that occured during the first bankruptcy was to ditch the regional "Texas International" moniker for Texas-area flights and to adopt the classier "Continental" name for both.

This strategy was a failure too. Continental in the form that Lorenzo created went bankrupt in 1990 since it was not profitable. Gordon Bethune created the profitable Continental by NOT being a low cost, no frills, airline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.219.4.187 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Merger

The article is missing the startup of New York Air, which Lorenzo started as part of his rivalry with People Express. It was later folded into Continental.

Focus Cities

Please see the recent question on WikiProject Airlines about airline focus cities. Dbinder 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to cite the "previous discussion" that says we shouldn't abbreviate airport names? - Sekicho 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The British Airways talk page has it, and I've seen it discussed elsewhere. I don't really care one way or the other, but it should be consistent. Also, some airports did have to be abbreviated almost to the point of illegibility, such as Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood. Dbinder 17:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents Club Article

This should be merged into the Continental Airlines article. It isn't noteworthy enough to merit its own article. Every major carrier has airport lounges, but they don't have their own articles. The only reason the Admirals Club (AA) has one is because it was the first. Dbinder 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section - Continental

TfD nomination of Template:OTA

Template:OTA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Continental Service to Moscow.

Does any one know when Continental will begin service to Moscow. It currently says Spring 06. But does anyone know a more exact date?

No idea. It's not even in the published schedules yet. Have they received government approval for the route? Dbinder 23:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they got government approval yet. It just says on the DME page Spring 2006

Continental Houston-Delhi/Tel-Aviv?

Is there a chance that Continental Airlines will begin service to either New Delhi or Tel-Aviv from Houston?

Doubt it, i cant see their being a large demand for flights to Tel-Aviv from the south west that would not cut into their service that flies from newark. Might be more of a demand for New Delhi, but i cant see that anytime soon, they would br more likely to fly it out of newark then houston, puls their is coverge form the partners on the route, and i dont know if they would be able to get authorization for the flight, considering that NW also goes to New Delhi via AMS. Also i dont know if they would have the equipment to do it, both i would guess need the 777, and for New Delhi you would more then likely make a stopover in europe, i woudl guess either CDG or AMS, though i duoubt AMS being that is a NW base. Thats just my thoughts. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ONE PASS

Hey, the onepass link links to the continental article. Yet, the article itself has very little info on it. Is there an error on the link? I have no idea on how to fix that. Brusegadi 12:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Verifiablility is not a guideline - it is POLICY. I have reverted all edits made to the History section today after 10:03, December 26, 2006. Most of this material was added by two anon users, possibly the same person. In addition, you must cite the source in the text, usually as a footnote; Placing the source under the References heading is not enough.

If I accidently removed a genuinely-sourced addition, I am sorry. I felt this way was simpler than going through the whole section line-by-line. I have also added an {unreferenced} tag to the History section. THere are a number of sources listed in the reference section, from which I assume much of the existing article is taken. If you have one of these sources and wcan work to add cites, it would be greatly appreciated.

One more thing: There seems to be an understanding that if a company puts something in a press release, it does not have to be cited. To my knowledge, that is not so on Wikipedia. If I am wrong, please show me the relevant section in Wiki. - BillCJ 00:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new references and citations look good. Thanks for the hard work. - BillCJ 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OnePass flags

What do you think of this idea? I took the idea from the Qantas page... it looks nice, but what are the downsides to adding such flags?--Golich17 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations

The destinations list claimed the Continental serves for destinations in Japan than any other American airlines, in clear contradition to nwa's hub operations at Narita, as well as flying to KIX and Nagoya. I am not sure about Mexico and the UK (though that might also be wrong as well...doesn't Delta have the most trans atlantic routes of any airline?) SiberioS 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should Continental Micronesia be considered part of mainline destinations? If so, then that WOULD make them the US airline with the most Japan destinations. Should that distinction be made clearer? SiberioS 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say CO Mike would be included, and I think the claim about the UK is true (Mexico might be as well). Either way, though, there needs to be a source for that. DB (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Micronesia has been absorbed by Continental. TL500 18:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)TL500[reply]

REMARKS IN CAPS: CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA IS A WHOLLY-CONTROLLED SUBSIDIARY OF CONTINENTAL; THEREFOR, IN THE VIEW OF THE D.O.T. AND F.A.A., THEY ARE "IDENTICAL". IT IS TECHNICALLY *NOT* INCORRECT TO ADD ALL CO DEPARTURE POINTS FROM JAPAN WHEN COMPARING THESE TO OTHER AIRLINES. redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from List of trivia associated with Continental Airlines

Please merge any relevant content from List of trivia associated with Continental Airlines per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trivia associated with Continental Airlines. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 05:06Z

Boeing 777-200ER order update

I just wanted to give all editers a heads up. Continental has a press release stating that the remaining order of the Boeing 777 aircraft will be delivered within the next 45 days. Therefore, on April 26, 2007, Continental Airlines will have no orders for the 777 aircraft.--Golich17 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link of some sort to said press release would be most useful. --BetaCentauri 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President's club

"Unlike lounges run by some of its larger competitors, the Presidents Club features an open bar..."

"Although the size of the network, 27 clubs, is small compared to larger airlines, members have full reciprocal privileges at over 40 additional locations including lounges operated by SkyTeam partners Delta Air Lines and Aeromexico along with the WorldClubs operated by Northwest Airlines..."

"The most unique lounge is a beautiful former dance club located at Washington D.C.'s National Airport. The Presidents Club, along with the Northwest WorldClubs and Qantas Club, offer lifetime memberships, something that currently costs non-elite members $4,690..."


"Continental Airlines President Club members are allowed to use partner clubs, which offer more clubs in more locations. For partner club information see club location information at continental.com..."

I'm not sure most people would think of this as encyclopaedic and it certainly doesn't sound NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.99.93.134 (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

slogan makes article look like an ad???

Shouldn't the slogan, "work hard, fly right" be moved elsewhere in the article? The first paragraph is an important summary. It would be as if the Obama article had the sentence, "Vote for Obama 2008!" in the introductory paragraph.

GUM hub or focus city?

Is Guam a focus city or a hub of Continental? One user has changed Guam from a hub to a fcus city. Bucs2004 04:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GUM hub or focus city?

I changed that. continental airlines doesn't have many flights from Guam. It's subsidary, Continental Micronesia, has a hub there. A good compromise would be to list GUM as a focus city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.65.188 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But Continental lists GUM as one of their hubs, and custom is generally to defer to an airline's own characterization of hubs/focus cities. Plus Air Mike is a wholly owned subsidiary that operates using CO jets, so I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction. Besides, with respect to Continental's network in particular, any airport with a significant number flights to non-hub cities is fairly remarkable. Jtl9000 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continental's press releases routinely list Guam as a hub. Should that count? HkCaGu 06:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus cities?

"With a relatively small number of focus cities" Would somebody please list some focus cities?

Looking at their route map (http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/travel/routes/co-us_200705.pdf) it looks like Boston, Tampa, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami. Jtl9000 08:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Boston, but I do know that Tampa, West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami are all hubs for Gulfstream, which carries passengers for Continental Connection within Florida and to the Bahamas. The route map simply shows Gulfstream's routes as well. MRasco 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston is a CommutAir hub.

De-hubbing Denver

Are we sure that it was CO management under Bethune that dehubbed Denver? From my recollection of From Worst to First, he discussed dehubbing GSO once he came onboard (something that should probably be added to the article) and moving maintenance facilities from LAX, but I think DEN might already have been wound down by then. I'm not certain about this though. Can someone with access to the book verify? Jtl9000 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPONSE IN CAPS: THE DENVER HUB REDUCTION WAS A DECISION OF THE GORDON BETHUNE MANAGEMENT; BETHUNE ASSUMED PRESIDENCY IN OCTOBER 1994. CONTINENTAL ELECTED TO CUT COSTS DEEPLY, AND ONE SURE FIRE WAY TO DO THIS WAS TO PULL OUT OF THE (THEN) BRAND NEW DENVER INTL AIRPORT WITH ITS GREATER LANDING FEES, AND CONCENTRATE ON HOUSTON AND NEWARK (AND, LATER, CLEVELAND, WITH LOW COST LANDINGS). AS A FORMER OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, I BELIEVE THAT THE GSO HUB WAS TOO TRANSITORY, TOO SMALL, AND TOO PROMPTLY GIVEN THE BOOT TO MERIT INCLUSION WITH DENVER WHICH, AS IS NOTED, WAS LITERALLY THE HEART OF THE SYSTEM FROM 1937 TO 1994...I HOPE THIS ISN'T TOO BLUNT, BUT, THEY'RE NOT ONLY NOT IN THE SAME LEAGUE; THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME SOLAR SYSTEM. BEST RGDS, redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico or Nevada?

In the early history section:

Continental Airlines began service in 1934 as Varney Speed Lines, named after one of its initial owners, Walter T. Varney operating out of El Paso, Texas and extending through Las Vegas, Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico to Pueblo, Colorado.

Context would imply that this is Las Vegas, New Mexico, but with no state directly following the city name it would appear (or could easily be mistaken for) to be the much-better known Nevada city. I rewrote this a bit, but I'm not certain which Las Vegas this is. Please clarify.Rockhopper10r 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE IN CAPS: THE INTIAL ROUTE TRANSITTED LAS VEGAS **NEW MEXICO**, WHICH LIES DIRECTLY BETWEEN SANTA FE, NM AND PUEBLO, CO. CONTINENTAL WOULD NOT SERVE LAS VEGAS, NV UNTIL 1978. redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section?

I am surprised that this article does not have a "citicism" section dealing, in some form, with info regarding delays, scheduling, customer service etc. Shouldn't this info be included? There are certainly plenty of stories in the newsmedia regarding this, so finding reliable sources would not be a problem.... Regards, Nsk92 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only concern I have about these types of sections is that they are usually very unbalanced and biased. Many "criticisms" are merely biased opinions and don't represent legitimate information that should be included. NcSchu(Talk) 12:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, those criticisms would probably be not about continental airlines in general but about airlines in genenral. There is really nothing out of the ordinary. So, including any of the would violate WP:WEIGHT given the scope of treatment. Brusegadi 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, these arguments are not convincing. First, it is possible to write the "Criticism" section responsibly, referring to reliable sources, etc. For example, look at the articles for Oracle Corporation, Google, Microsoft, Wikipedia, etc. In my opinion, for a notable company or arganization, "criticism" or "contraversies" or something like that, should be a necessary part of any well-balanced and truly NPOV article. The fact that wikipedia entries for most major airlines do not have such section is, in my opinion, a red flag. The argument about criticism being directed more at the entire industry than at the particular airline has more merit. However, for a big airline like Continental, I am certain that there are enough critical news-stories related specifically to Continental or citing facts and data specific to Continental. One just needs to do some google-searching to find this info. It may also be possible and/or advisable to create a separate wikipedia entry related to the public debate and criticism of the airline industry (like Criticism of Google) and link to it.
In my opinion, the fact that the page has no info related to the criticism of the customer survice, delays, etc, is in and of itself an evidence of bias and lack of balance in how the article is written. The Congress is debating passing a law regarding "the passanger's bill of rights", at least in part because of the Continental's performance, and yet one would have no inkling about this by reading this page. That's not right. Regards,Nsk92 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but I've never heard anything about Continental causing the creation of a Passenger Bill of Rights. As far as I know that was more encouraged by jetBlue's actions. If you're talking about that incident with the overflowing toilet, it's noted in detail in the incidents and accidents section. However as I indicated in my original comment, I'm not against the idea of a section, I'm merely suggesting that such a section should be manageable and not go overboard. It should only address topics that are real criticisms of the airline, not one person's agenda against the company. NcSchu(Talk) 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notice that all you say is 'it should be easy to locate sources...' If it is so easy, find sources that meet WP:RES and establish the WP:WEIGHT of the info. After that, there should be no problem. Concerning Microsoft, Google and the such; notice that they are not parallel to continental. Microsoft is considered a monopoly by many (I recall the government tried to split it a couple years ago because of its size.) The same thing happens with google; they have made many innovations in their markets and they are huge. Companies like google and microsoft (Bill Gates, the big man of microsoft, has been the richest man in the US in the past) are bounded to attract criticism on an individual basis because they are out of the ordinary. Continental is just another airliner and besides the incidents and accidents; there is really no reason to have a 'criticism' section. As stated above, such a section might belong in jet blue. The difference being that jet blue attempts to do something 'out side of the ordinary' by providing tickets below market prices. That may be bound to attract criticism on the individual basis. Brusegadi 22:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick comments. Regarding the Passanger Bill of Rights, JetBlue was not the only airline that gave impetus to this issue. A quick google search produces a few newsarticles related to Continental as well, e.g.: "Sewage-spewing plane disgusts passengers" and "Passenger rights bill taking wing". I am sure that there is more if one looks. I am not suggesting providing a forum for individual gripes and diatribes about bad airline experiences. However, something needs to be mentioned, if Congress is conducting hearings and some state legislatures are taking independent action. Perhaps a separate wikipedia entry needs to be created for this info as it relates to all airlines? I am not sure. Regarding reliable sources and due/undue weight. There are plenty of of news stories from established news-sources (the two links above are two quick examples, there certainly are more convincing ones). There are also materials from the congressional committee hearings, DOT reports etc. All of these qualify as reliable sources. Regarding the issue of undue weight, the article for Continental is quite long, and including a small section dealing with criticism will not create any undue weight problems. Moreover, for balance, in such a section it is possible to include some references related to the airline's rebuttal of the criticism.

The counter-argument I found most convincing so far is that most criticism of airlines refers to all of them, and not just one individual airline. As I said, I am not quite sure what is most appropriate thing to do here. I am inclined to think that the entry for each of the major airlines should have some portion dealing with criticism. An alternative is to have a single entry concerning the criticism of the entire industry, the passanger bill of rights idea, etc. But something certainly needs to be done. It is not acceptable to have a fairly substantial part of the public and policy debate regarding the airline companies unrepresented here. Regards, Nsk92 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms you mention seem to be applicable to all airlines. The incidents they mention (specific instances) are to generate examples. I feel that that may very well belong in the general article on airlines and not on each specific company. The incidents and accidents suffices. If you could find something very specific to a company, then creation of a criticism article can be argumented. Suppose X airline did not pay their workers 'enough'; then that may merit such a section. Brusegadi 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Lite

There's no mention of the attempt to "straddle" Southwest's model with their shortlived Continental Lite product. I think it deserves more than a blurb in the sentence about American West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.175.213 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!! You can edit the article too! Find a source and add it. Its simple. Regards, Brusegadi 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Continental Airlines BusinessFirst logo.png

Image:Continental Airlines BusinessFirst logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Continental Airlines Presidents Club logo.png

Image:Continental Airlines Presidents Club logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando (MCO) as a focus city

I propose adding Orlando as a focus city because Continental operates five non-hub flights in/out of MCO. If I hear no objection I will add it.--Inetpup (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five doesn't sound like a lot to me compared to CO's route network, I dunno. NcSchu(Talk) 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those five flights are operated by Gulfstream International Airlines, which flies flights for Continental Connection within Florida (as is the case here) and to the Bahamas. That would make MCO a hub/focus city for Gulfstream and not Continental. Besides, making Orlando a Continental focus city would mandate the same for Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and other Florida cities that have larger Gulfstream operations. I do not think Orlando ought to be listed as a focus city here. MRasco 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Heathrow Flights

User:76.21.16.147 keeps on removing "pending government approval" to the Heathrow flights. I was wondering that if Continental received approval or have acquired the LHR slots yet? There website press release says that the routes are "pending government approval and pending slot acquistion" to begin on March 29, 2008. He removed them again today but i have reverted his edits. I did not find any sources saying that CO received approval or that the slots were acquired. Bucs2004 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on the User's talk page after I first reverted his/her edits, I have not heard of approval being granted. I'm sure CO will release a new press release when approval is acquired. NcSchu(Talk) 04:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have already posted on his/her talk page about this. Let me know if he continues to remove it. Bucs2004 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's confirmed. They overpaid by paying an outrageous U$D 209 million for only 4 pairs of landing slots. [1] A related article is also interesting: [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetpup (talk • contribs) 08:56, March 10, 2008

Did Continental Airlines or Continental Micronesia fly to Fiji?

I know Continental something went to Australia and Fiji: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-4804460.html

Was this CO mainline or CO Mike? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess, though only a guess, is that it was CO Mike. I don't recall CO mainline ever going to anywhere like that. NcSchu(Talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been able to find photos of CO mainline 747s in Melbourne up until '95, but nothing in Fiji, though it seems a bit more likely that it was mainline. NcSchu(Talk) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh, sorry, but I found some old route maps on [Airchive.com] that seems to show both CO Mainline and CO Mike flights to Fiji at different points, hope this is helpful. NcSchu(Talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE IN CAPS: FIJI WAS SERVED BY DC-10 AIRCRAFT ON THE **MAINLINE** OPERATION BETWEEN HONOLULU AND AUSTRALIA. AIR MIKE HAS NEVER SERVED FIJI. redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incident in Feb 07 2008

i was in the flight 547 on February 7 2008. I was going to Houston and during take-off the landing gear stopped spinning so we had to make on kinda of a emergency landing in Houston the firefighters came and ground personal came also after landing i have a video to prove it so can i post my incident on this article (23:17, 19 February 2008 unsigned (Thecoolman95))

If every emergency landing has to be included, every major U.S. airline would have a 2-page list. HkCaGu (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for "Thecoolman95": will you please post the video on YouTube and reply back with a link? Also, if there were injuries, then your 'incident' might merit including here! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetpup (talk • contribs) 08:48, March 10, 2008

The Link is http://youtube.com/watch?v=OJdpmBD3R7E and there were no injures on board —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecoolman95 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it's notable enough to be included. It didn't get much, if any, national news coverage and it wasn't as serious as, say, the BA landing at LHR a few weeks ago. Like HkCaGu says, we must be very strict about the types of incidents and accidents we can include because minor ones are very common. NcSchu(Talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a commercial airline pilot, and I can say with confidence that these events happen numerous time a week if you consider all national and international airline arrival and departures nationwide. In my opinion, it is useless to include just any incident. We should consider adding incidents if something material has transpired, or something of value can be gained from the experience.Keepitreal74 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS IN CAPS: IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR EACH OF YOU TO REVIEW THE FAA'S "TERMS", WHICH PAINSTAKINGLY DELINEATE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN "INCIDENT" AND AN "ACCIDENT". redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, the CAPS are really not necessary. You clearly misunderstood what the discussion here was about. Many of us here are Pilots, Flight Instructors and Aviation Law specialists. We are very well aware of the FAA definitions, most of which stem from a DOT publication numbered 8020.11B CHG 1. We were simply discussing the value of adding each Incident into the CAL Wikipedia entry. Surely you would agree, that if we were to add each incident (per the FAA definition) we would add at least one each day, clogging the entry with useless information. We are trying to establish a guideline for which incidents to include and which not to. Keepitreal74 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"FIrst 16 hour flight"

In "Current Operations" the article claims "On March 1, 2001, Continental launched a non-stop flight from Newark to Hong Kong, flying over the North Pole, which was the first non-stop long-haul flight service for any airline with flying duration of 16 hours"

However the wikipedia article on Qantas describes a 28 hour flight operated by Qantas in 1943.

    • it was probably a multi-stop flight?? is my guess.. lol i actually have no idea about the flight but my guess is that in 1943 they couldn't have flown a 28 hour flight without stops for refuling..just a guess though?

Hmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.59.127 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS IN CAPS: THERE WERE NO COMMERCIAL (OR MILITARY) AIRCRAFT IN 1943 CAPABLE OF A SINGLE 28-HOUR STAGE OF FLIGHT. QANTAS FLIGHTS OF THE PERIOD AVERAGED STOPS EVERY 4-6 HOURS. redstoneranger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneranger (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Alliance

When will Continental join the Star Alliance and if yes, will customers be able to book miles and more flights with them? Dagadt (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. They are planning to join Star Alliance once Delta and Northwest complete their merger (which will be in December 2008). During that time, Continental will need to go through antitrust regulatory approval with the FAA. If regulatory approval has been granted, Continental will end their contract with SkyTeam and join Star Alliance. I would keep checking their website for updates and subscribing to emails. But for right now, they are still part of SkyTeam. So they still need to wait until Delta and Northwest's merger is approved then they can do the "contract" stuff. I hope this helps. Cashier freak (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It did, thanks! Dagadt (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Pilot

Is it possible to be hired as Continental Airlines pilot with a green card? Dagadt (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

future of the long-haul fleet

Remembering the Continental CEO explaining that they will receive all new Boeing 787 at Houston, I ask me what they plan to do with the 777´s based in Newark. Will they also be replaced by the 787-8/9 or does Continental wait to place a an order for the potential 787-10 or the Airbus 350 versions (especially in case Boeing won´t build the 787-10)? Dagadt (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 1404 numbers

According to http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/21/plane-carrying-112-goes-runway-dia/ the injury toll in Flight 1404 is actually 38, not 58 as the Denver Post reported earlier today. It would appear there is conflicting information from the airport. --BetaCentauri 19:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is always seams to be conflicting info on accident reports right after the accident. I'm sure in a few days the official number will be released, the media always hypes stories at first to gain viewers, readers, etc. Spikydan1 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Crowding

I respect greatly the improvements User:Redstoneranger has brought to this article, however there are far too many images in the history section. I've tried to remove ones that were unbelieveably small and content-less but those edits have either been reverted or it hasn't helped much! NcSchu(Talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CO Star Alliance

Continental Airlines announced that they will be joining Star Alliance after their last flight on October 24, 2009. Are they going to moving to Star Alliance co-locations at airports or will they remain in their Skyteam location for a while? Cashier freak (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know for sure at ORD Contiental is moving to Terminal 1 later this year to be with with United...I don't know about other locations but moving at Star Alliance hubs is first priority for better passenger connections. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor incidents

The whole section appears to be non-notable and I would suggest it should be removed, any comments MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and Continental Flight 1883 should be nominated for deletion. Spikydan1 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think Continental Airlines Flight 12 is more deserving of that (it's basically an incident in which a plane hydroplaned and went off a runway..nothing more than that). 1883 probably doesn't deserve an article either, though an aircraft landing on a taxiway by mistake is probably important enough to mention, especially since it did generate quite a bit of media coverage, at least in the NY area. A lot of them are pretty inconsequential, though. NcSchu(Talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to flight 61...It is a non event just because it was a slow news day and the media followed it does not mean that it should be listed here. The problem was not unique, no one's lives were ever in danger, no one was injured, no damage, etc. All other major airlines pages do not list incidents where nothing happend. Spikydan1 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 3407

Sorry to Seanwarner86 and 74.78.170.81 for using revert without a useful edit summary. Flight 3407 was operated by Colgan, and per WP:AIRLINES policy the accident will go on that article and not this one. --Matt (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit looks good - as people stop looking here for this, it'll probably be removed from this article. --Matt (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should apologize given that Ive been here longer (it was a minor edit anyway)Seanwarner: Good night and good luck (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove the flight from this page, but the information can and should be moved to Continental Connection if it hasn't been already. For instance Comair Flight 191, does not show up on the main airlines page. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't find it odd that this article doesn't mention Flight 3407 at all? It was less than six weeks ago and the official Continental Airlines entry has no mention of it under major incidents?

98.194.252.209 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC) ESPECIALLY given the fact that the families of those that died in the crash are pursuing a lawsuit against Continental Airlines as well as Colgan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.252.209 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

flight 3407 should be included, at least as a reference back to Colgan Air... 155.37.131.50 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a note on where to find information about accidents and incidents on flights under the Continental banner, since people will look here for such information. If it is kept elsewhere, a pointer should be left. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paycuts

There should be some mention of the paycuts that Continental forced on employees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.173.91 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Varney Speed Lines?

The picture of the plane clearly says "Speed Lanes" not "Speed Lines"... just checking to see if this is correct. 68.101.165.156 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It operated as both Speed Lanes and Speed Lines at different times, and a few other variants, but Speed Lines was the most long lived. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines Flight 61

Incidents such as Continental Airlines Flight 61 are not notable enough on their own for an incident article, or for a mention on the airliner page. However, I do believe the death makes them notable on the airline page. Such incidents seem rare enough to be noted, provided they cite reliable sources, of course. - BillCJ (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Air/PC#Incidents for the guidelines. Per the guidelines, this could actually be listed on the airliner's page, but as the incident is unrelated to the aircraft itself, itreally doesn't need to be listed there. - BillCJ (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frisking

I reverted the addition of the frisking incident to the former President of India, original editor has added it back in again saying it about the FIR and apology by the airline. It just appears to be a storm in a tea cup and in the seventy-odd year history of the airline is not really notable. But I will leave it to others to decide. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the man himself was not bothered by it all http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4808357.cms MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the frisking incident has been removed by someone. I still believe that an incident which resulted in

  • both the houses of the Indian parliament criticizing it,
  • a show cause notice being issued to the airlines and
  • an FIR lodged at the airlines management
    easily qualifies to be a minor incident. But then again, I don't want to indulge in a reverting spree till a consensus is reached

trakesht (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news service, every little thing that happens can't be added or the section would be hundreads if not thousands of entries long...See WP:AIRCRASH for more info on notabilty. Spikydan1 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH says

General criteria: It involves unusual circumstances;
 One or more of the passengers on board is notable; or
The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions''''

Certainly Abdul Kalam is notable,AND an FIR was lodged " against all the concerned staff of the Continental Airlines" and were criticised by the indian parliament-
for me, this looks like that the incident easily meets the criteria
interestingly, the remaining 'minor incidents' seem not to meet the criteria given in General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents :) trakesht (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft accidents section does not apply because Continental is a commercial airline...Look at the Air carrier criteria for Continental. For the remaining minor incidents: CO 12 and 1883 have their own articles and the other two flights had a person die. See Talk:Continental Airlines#Minor incidents and Talk:Continental Airlines#Continental Airlines Flight 61. Spikydan1 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok- granted that- but my question still remains. isn't the issue notable under WP:AIRCRASH. Also an FIR has been charged against the country head and three others yesterday for this incident. trakesht (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article3480029.ece
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Continental_Airlines&oldid=304415683"