User talk:SempreVolando

Welcome!

Hello, SempreVolando, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

your occupation

Hi, I've just noticed you are a first-officer for the a320. May I ask what training and what JPL etc... exams you took? Because I would be interested in a career in aviation, since I actually know quite a bit about flying, and I've flown an approach in a cessna 303. I also hold a few awards on FSX :D

thanks,

Cf38 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff Airport

If you visit Zoom Airlines's website you can see that they do not have tickets for sale on its service to Vancouver to Cardiff, thus resulting in myself to change the cardiff airport page. If you prove that this service still operates please tell me.

Many Thanks Loughrey13 —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff International Airport

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cardiff International Airport. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Cardiff Airport is an essential airport for the UK considering its location, the people relying on it, its routes, its role in the economy et cetera Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added no commentary of my own to the article, merely reverted to a previous version, a change made for good reason. You clearly disagree with the wording of the article and as such you should use the article talk page to put forward your point of view on this matter so that everyone can contribute and come to an agreement on the wording. As the 19th largest airport in terms of passenger numbers in 2006, Cardiff is certainly not a major UK airport and the previous text accurately represented the important part it plays in serving Wales. I have therefore reverted your change again and ask that you use the talk page if you wish to start a discussion on the matter. SempreVolando (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Durham Tees Valley

Sorry I might have lost one of your edits when I re-worked the article. It was badly in need of a re-work. Regards MilborneOne (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, there were only small bits and much of it you rightly removed from the article anyway. Hopefully it is a little better now. SempreVolando (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Easyjet

The new routes i added to the lgw page for easyjet are approved. they are bookable from tommorrow. So dont remove it again. Thanks Josh Rice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.81.173 (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My Apologies, have just reaslised this myself via the website. Nice of them to tell their staff first, as usual! SempreVolando (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Heathrow expansion

Thanks for your contribution to the 'opposition' section, very helpful. I have come back with some more changes, I have added back some details about the impact on Sipson (which got watered down a week or so ago), and also the section on the climate camp/injunction (but I have added details of BAA and responses to the camp and injunction). The camp was a very significant event gaining worldwide attention, and provides the context for BAA's involvement in Flying Matters. I think there will also be a call for short paragraphs on climate change, local air pollution and noise (with both points of view expressed) but think it is better to let the section 'settle' first. I look forward to your further contributions and hope the 'health warnings' on the section being removed. Do you agree with the heading change, I think it is now at a more logical position in the table of contents. PeterIto (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversed your reversion to London City Airport

Hi.

I've reversed your reversion to this article. I'm not a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, and as best I can tell the article isn't a part of that project anyway, although I guess it should be. I came to the article through Wikipedia:WikiProject London, which the article is part of.

The guideline you refer to seems bizarre from a general WP POV, and I've already raised an objection to it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. However that is not why I decided to reverse the reversion. I did that because an undiscussed reversion was IMHO way over the top. Wikipedia:Revert#When_to_revert suggests reversion in a few cases including vandalism, but explicitly not in good faith cases. As an editor not participating in the project you quote the guideline from, and making clearly non-vandalistic edits, I think I should be accorded good faith. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On a more pragmatic note, I feel that linking destinations does resolve some practical difficulties with the unlinked list. For example, without the link, individual readers are going to have to find out for themselves that the destination referred to as Nice is actually Côte d'Azur International Airport. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I just left a note at the WikiProject Airports Talk Page following your comment which crossed with your message, and have commented there on the policy as it stands for not linking the destination names. I apologise if you considered my reversion to be over the top, I did assume good faith in your edit and perhaps should have discussed it first, but it was on the basis that the edit was not satisfactory (in view of the aforementioned rule). I did not mean to cause offence and did explain my reasoning. In the meantime I have made no further changes as discussed on the project talk page since this article may be a good example to use as the discussion on whether to amend the rule (hopefully) progresses. SempreVolando (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your reply and no harm done. I'm happy to abide by whatever the discussion leads to. I've copied my second comment above to the talk page, as it probably belongs better there. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clickair destinations

An editor has nominated Clickair destinations, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickair destinations and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Destinations Sol Airlines

Hi..i'm Migssant. Hey why you think this article doesn't need the country flags? i think they look good and is better for the lectors.. Thanks for you attention. Have a nice day Lacreta (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

incidents-manchester airport

hi, why did you remove the incident of dragonair cargo from the page. its an accident and the refernce was given —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the guidelines for including an accident / incident are shown at the WikiProject Airports page and state that "Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

• The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
• The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
• The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry."

This accident is therefore not relevant for inclusion. SempreVolando (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i thought it was relevant thats all, due to damage to aircraft etc. is the incident about the excel airways takeoff relevant then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough - the reason for the guidelines is simply to prevent airport and airline articles from becoming filled with minor incidents which happen all the time. In terms of the Excel Airways incident it is a more difficult one. I would be inclined to keep this as it was described by the AAIB as a "serious incident" with several safety recommendations made to both the CAA, NATS and Manchester Airport plc (see here), and therefore may comply with the final category for inclusion in the guidelines (invoking a change in procedures within the industry). Best to start a discussion on the article discussion page so the opinions of other editors can be sought on that one! Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yeh thats fair enough i didnt realise it wasnt relevant enough. I was also thinking if you might know where we can get get up to date passenger numbers for manchester from. Either on a rolling 12 month time line or for the first few months in 2008. It would be good to see if there is any change but i have looked briefly and cant find anything? cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The CAA statistics are really the only official ones I know of - see the CAA Stats Page. If you click on the provisional airports data you will see some January 2008 Provisional Airort Stats which shows Manchester in Jan 2008 having 1,316,690 passengers (down 0.8% on Jan 2007) and the rolling year to Jan 2008 was 21,880,737 (down 1.1% on the rolling year to Jan 2007). The provisional February 2008 stats are due to be on there on Friday next week (14th March). Hope this helps. SempreVolando (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport

I restored the weather link here as it appears in several Canadian airport articles. It serves as an anti-spam link as can be seen here. It links to the official NAV CANADA site rather than advertising some site. At the time (September 2007) there were two different sites that were trying to put links in for weather. I know that there had also been attempts in other airport articles to get various weather sites included. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

LHR Virgin Nigeria

You were asking for a source for the London Heathrow Airport mention of the Virgin Nigeria Airways service to Lagos from March 29th, which you reverted. Would this timetable do? David Biddulph (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. You're right - the flight also appears on the BAA timetable. Sorry about that - checked the VK website but saw nothing so assumed it was confusion over LGW/LHR. Feel free to re-revert. SempreVolando (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gatwick Airport Apology

Sorry about reverting your revert we were probably both waiting for the IP user to stop his multiple edits. Still not the 30th March yet! MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I assumed that was the case. SempreVolando (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oasis to MAN and DUS

Is Oasis beginning HKG-MAN and HKG-DUS flights on July 3? Users keep readding back to the destinations list with a reference that I don't find very useful. Couldn't find the flights on their website. It still has Hong Kong to London-Gatwick and Vancouver flights stilll listed but not Dusseldorf or Manchester flights on their schedules. Did they announce it? Thanks! Audude08 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Audude, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I have now posted on the WP Airports Discussion I don't believe there is yet any reliable source other than speculation for this route commencing. Until the airline starts to sell flights or publishes a timetable or press release, it shouldn't appear on Wikipedia, so I have removed references to it. SempreVolando (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey SempreVolando, about the Oasis flights to DUS and MAN. It is odd that the HK airport website has the flights listed on their schedules for July 4 but neither Oasis Hong Kong Airlines's website or Manchester Airport's website mentions the said flights. Audude08 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Save

Go to the site of Venice Marco Polo Airport official website (English) and put seasonal schedule, you will see that the flight from London Luton to Venice maky (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)User:S marky 90

Information

Hello, thanks for the information you data.Mi like to know where is your information? Thanks hello maky (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. Thomsonfly, First Choice, Jerairfly and TUInordic timetables are at This Site. SempreVolando (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MAN Catchment Area

First of all how seriously do you want to take yourself!? It's not the end of the world by the way, I do appologise that people from all over the UK might just want to use Manchester International at some point in their lives and that doesn't slot in nicely to your little wiki palls ideas. You can tarnish my name all you like over talk pages, but thanks for letting me know eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abfab27 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might take a look at Wikipeida's policy on civility? I have been perfectly polite and reasoned in my discussion with you on this topic and would therefore expect the same in return. Judging by your contibution on the discussion at the Manchester Airport page (which I politely invited, so that your views could be debated among other wikipedia editors), the policy is likely to be quite lost on you anyway. SempreVolando (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Manchester Airport. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Woody (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, my apologies for this. I do not make a habit of violating the three-revert rule, with this article unfortunately I and one other editor tried hard and politely to encourage the offending editor to use the discussion page in order to come to consensus before making potentially controversial / against policy edits. Unfortunately this was to no avail as the editor Abfab27 refused to participate in any discussion on the matter, simply responding with a couple of uncivil remarks. SempreVolando (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Heck it's not like I'm important, I can't ban you *grin* It was more of a hold on stop it please to both parties :) --Blowdart | ^talk 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: easyJet

No worries, I noted the edit summary you left immediately, and understand the reasoning behind it before you wrote. I'm not a pilot, but it sounds to me like mechanical failure caused a compressor stall, and all the flames were just incompletely consumed fuel igniting after exiting the engine - doesn't strike me as a notable event in itself either. Regards and thanks for your message, WilliamH (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On Your Edit Summary Here...

Hey there, Sempre. When you are using some kind of policy or project guideline as a reason for an edit, could you please link to that project guideline or policy properly in future? I saw your summary and thought it was page blanking because it was linked wrongly. Only after looking at your page did I realise my blunder and did a self-revert. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 10:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for that - did intend to link properly but slip of the keyboard! SempreVolando (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ceased Airline

Hey there, just out of interest which airline that used to fly in to manchester has ceased all operations?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danfearn77 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was EuroManx. See my edit here. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

bmi Regional ICAO

Hi,

My friend is a bmi regional pilot (on the E135/45) and he assures me that their ICAO is BMA not BMR, so I feel my source is correct.

If you have anything to say, please email me at: sam.nagy@hotmail.com

Sam

SamNagy (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam. Unfortunately Wikipedia requires verifiable sources, I'm not suggesting your source is incorrect however an ICAO code can only be used by one airline at once. In this case BMA is used by bmi. It may be that BMI Regional flights are operated under the BMA code, but this does not necessarily make their own allocated ICAO code BMA. I have started a discussion at the article talk page so this can be cleared up; in the meantime the code has been kept as BMR in the article as the BMA code remains unverifiable. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BMI Regional. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Whilst you may have citations you're still over 3 revisions in under 24 hours. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

BMI Regional ICAO

Hi,

Do you want me to send you some realworld flightplans that feature the callsign?

Sam

SamNagy (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that the 'Midland' callsign and 'BMA' code are used by BMI Regional, however per my reply above this does not make their allocated ICAO code BMA, per ICAO it is BMR. This is verifiable. If you continue the discussion at Talk:BMI Regional other editors can also contribute and hopefully we can come to consensus. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Silverjet

Hi. Please note that Silverjet is not defunct. It has suspended operations, not closed down. MrMarmite (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MAN

How is the ground collision between LH and Futura not "notable"? It is a collision and LH have requested even that the German equivalent to the AAIB make a report never mind just the British... so I hear. Where do you compile the rules for what is a "notable" accident? AreaControl (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. See WP:AIRPORTS article guidelines which include a section on what should / should not be included in Accidents and Incidents sections. This accident only caused minor damage to the aircraft involved and is therefore are not notable. Likewise a (very similar) incident which occured in 2004 was removed as non-notable (see AAIB report here). Therefore just because the AAIB (or national equivalent) investigate an incident and produce a report, this does not necessarily mean it is has encyclopedic notability. These guidelines were introduced to avoid Wikipedia becoming flooded with minor, non-notable aviation incidents which happen regularly all over the world. Hope that helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. SempreVolando (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham International Airport (Retailers)

Hi,

This isn't advertising as its not in line with any particular retailer, therefore please do not remove them. Additional info such as Austin Reed & Julian Graves have been added as they opened recently, I note that the other retailers have been on BHX's wikipedia article for a long time hence no reason to remove them.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.220.150 (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately this information remains non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and as such individual resturants, shops, etc... within an airport are not notable. New shops and restaurants will open very regularly at airports around the world, but this has no encyclopedic notability. The fact retailers have been mentioned in the article for some time also has no bearing on their notability. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats subjective and whilst I take on board what you say the article advises of developments at airport, hardly giving directions or travel guides to people, therefore it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.220.150 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NASlogo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:NASlogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:PLHlogo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:PLHlogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Travel City Direct

Nice job removing the advertorial text. You might be interested to know that the text was added by an IP address registered to Virgin Holidays (212.24.80.125), which probably explains the tone of language used. I left a COI notice on their talk page. --TimTay (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryanair - Bournemouth Airport

Hi, just a question regarding the reverted edit about where you attained the information to revert the edit, as the Ryanair website shows that all but Turin operations are seasonal. Yellow routes indicate summer routes, blue routes indicate winter routes and grey routes indicate "year round" services. Currently, the website shows that 17 of 18 destinations appear as year round services, of which were changed within the last 2 days. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.194.179 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I was using the Bournemouth Airport website (Summer / Winter Destinations Timetables). The Ryanair route map isn't very accurate when it comes to seasonal routes - if you check the timetable on the Ryanair website (Timetables) it confirms that these routes are not bookable until the summer (and Turin ceases for the summer). For example, Palma commences 31st March and ends on 24th October. Ryanair call this "year-round" on their route map! Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, however - i changed the routes all from seasonal to "year round". This is because the website changed the routes from seasonal to year round on the 2nd february 2009 - this is the first time that ryanair have changed the seasonal routes at Bournemouth, shortly after announcing new routes to Faro, Limoges and Reus. Before the change from seasonal to year round services, the 3 new routes were added as year round routes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.229.153 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have re-added the seasonal tags as these routes are demonstratably and verifiably seasonal per the WP:AIRPORTS definition. I have stated the points on the Bournemouth Airport talk page if you wish to make further comment there, and so that other users can read the logic and also contribute to the discussion if they wish. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

BA CityFlyer Flight 8456

Hi, you removed BA CityFlyer Flight 8456 from BA CityFlyer article. I would like to say maybe the article itself for CJ8456 is not notable but I do believe we should keep the incident on the actual CityFlyer page due to the fact the information may come in helpful, its currently being investigated by AAIB, it did cause damage to aircraft and the airport (closed airport throughout the night) and there was an injury onboard the aircraft. I'd like to add the information and references as validation if you believe it is ok. Thanks. Zaps93 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

London City Airport

You removed two referenced entries involving accidents at the airport. Whilst neither meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria to make them notable enough to justify a separate article, they are each sufficiently notable to have an entry under the aircraft type, airline involved and airport where it happened. I can't see anything in WP:AIRPORTS that says the incidents are not sufficiently notable for a mention. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryanair toilet charge

Hi, I agree that the piece I added suffers from POV - specifically the word "talent" is not the right one to use.

Can you suggest how we can balance the statement to point out that Mr O'Leary is a well known mischief maker who does this type of thing time and time again, as discussed on the talk page for the article. 84.9.35.236 (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Please mind WP:3RR on Dublin Airport. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Busiest airports in the United Kingdom by total passenger traffic

Sorry about that. My 2 year old grandson got to the laptop and decided he wanted to start editing Wikipeida and I missed it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, assumed it was not intentional! SempreVolando (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TOM Airways.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:TOM Airways.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Emirates Airline

Hi, the incident i had put was anotable incident for Emirates. It was the first incident of Emirates, in which the engine sparked on fire and take off was aborted. Also, broken debris was left on the runway. It is quite notable, since the Australian safety board launched an investigation, and the engine was sent back to the Rolls royce factory. I think it is quite important. So, please bring it back. (MoHasanie (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

But the aircraft did get damaged, as the engine was set on fire. The fact that the Australian safety board was involved is quite serious. You said that they're are hundreads of incidents like this, however major investigations haven't been involved. Even the engine was sent back to the rolls royce factory.(MoHasanie (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Really, well i can't argue with that. I just thought it was important, becasue in a recent article by the Times, they mentioned this incident of emirates, and they also mentioned the johannesburgh incident, and the 2009 march melbourne incident.(MoHasanie (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Palmair

Hi SV, Zaps93 has changed the Palmair article to reflect that it is an airline and has reverted my reversions. I have tried to explain on the talk page the difference between an airline and a tour operator (albiet a whole aircraft charter operation). I have given up banging my head against a brick wall, but just as a sanity check with your experience could you have a quick look at it. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MO I have commented at the article talk page but agree with your analysis, there's not much more to say! The article is misleading in it's current form. SempreVolando (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for your help, the user does not appear to understand what an airline is! MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

Explain to me your problem with the things i have added to the Aer Lingus Page

• Some may find it helpful... fair enough you dont but some might
• The more info the better edcuated you would be after you read the page

Please contact me via my pagey thing... so we can come to some sort of comprimise thanks for you co-operation --Msmyth (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit of Ryanair's page

Hi SempreVolando, I don't get why you cut my edit? Why leaving other incidents and not adding new ones? The incident has a source, and passengers need to get transparent news. Do you have any interests in protecting Ryanair, as you are a pilot yourself? I'll unedit the page, and will add in a near future more incidents related to Ryanair as I feel like people try to hide these information. Let's talk if you disagree with my edit. Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.204.86 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. SempreVolando (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion to Incidents - City of Derry Airport

Greetings SempreVolando

Being a new editor, I now understand your reason for the deletion of the two, what you might call minor, incidents. You are certainly in accordance with wiki policy.

Would you consider allowing them on the basis that they are major in terms of the operation of this particular airport? I make this proposal as a gesture of goodwill on the basis that I believe no-one else would mind.--Cyber Fox 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are too quick to delete

I am editing the article, give me a break! --Cyber Fox (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work on keeping airline and airport articles in line. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! SempreVolando (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See BA trouble over Concorde tribute

London City Airport and BA made a big fan fare about this inaugural flights. Hence relevant.

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2009/09/ba-trouble-over-concorde-tribu.html

You can add above reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.37.129 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reference. It is not the inaugural flights which I feel are not relevant, they are mentioned in the article already, it is the opinion of the group Campaigners for the return of Concorde. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and so if this is deemed relevant the opinion of British Airways must also be included to provide balance to the article. However I still maintain that the issue has little encyclopedic relevance.

In the meantime I have started a discussion at the article talk page so that other editors can provide their opinion and we can gain consensus on the issue. Please feel free to add your view there. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland West Airport Knock Editing

I was just giving info about the routes that were available in 2008 and now. Isn't it worth mentioning that a route to Glasgow was available in 2008 with Bmibaby? It is technically info about the airport, not a travel guide. Isn't it worth mentioning the connecting service to Cork via Dublin with Aer Arann? I see information at the beginning of the Recent Years section about MyTravel's service to Birmingham! Isn't that info about a route? It's not a travel guide. I see other people in the past have had bother with editing of pages. I think we should come to a consensus about the Aer Arann connecting route being in the Ireland West Airport article.

Jamesliveproductions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesliveproductions (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is understanding what Wikipedia is designed to be, and what it isn't. Encyclopedic airport articles are designed to provide things like historic information, location, notable events. etc... They are not designed to list a history of what routes have been operated by airlines at the airport over the years, unless those have some encyclopedic notability (like the first scheduled flights, the first transatlantic flights etc..). You are right to say there is no logic to the MyTravelLite Birmingham service, it has no particular relevance and should be removed.

In terms of the Aer Arann route, WikiProject Airports is quite clear that only non-stop and direct flights should be listed in airport article destinations lists. "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." - this means the Aer Arann Cork service should not be included as an aircraft change is required en-route at Dublin. If you disagree with the project guidelines you should take that up at the project talk page. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can I just say, isn't there significance in the information about the Ryanair route to Alicante, as it is the first scheduled route to a European destination?

James, Jamesliveproductions

Castle Donington

You said: "Revert: Never heard of anyone refer to an airline's HQ location with reference to an administrative district! Can't see the relevance of this."

Is Castle Donington an incorporate municipality? Or is it just a place name? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Castle Donington is a place (a town/village), in which BMI's headquarters are located. My edit to the article did not remove reference to Castle Donington, but to North West Leicestershire, which is an administrative district, whose location and in particular boundaries are unlikely to be familiar to most people. It is also of little relevance to the BMI article, as it is not a place. Hope this makes sense? SempreVolando (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)