Talk:US Airways

Condensing and Editing

The more I go through the page, the more I realize how convoluted and excessively detailed the entire history is, especially after the turn of the century. I'm willing to go through and research/add citations wherever needed (as I've done for the entire period up to the 90's), but I'm wary of deleting information that others might deem too important. Is there anyone else that I can work with to try and condense some of this? At least minimize clutter and streamline the history. And if there are no volunteers, what's the best way to do this myself without upsetting people? Thanks. Bizzarechipmonk (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

More sources

• Jones, Clarisse. "US Airways' efforts to improve service pay off." USA Today. September 14, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

split Dividend Miles

United MileagePlus and Delta Skymiles both have their own articles and I feel if some history can be added, there's enough information to spin Dividend Miles off into its own article. Thoughts? CapsLock NumLock ... CapsTalk NumTalk 00:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split off yet. First of all, I'm not sure it's as notable as MileagePlus or AAdvantage, which were the first two frequent flyer programs made by a large airline. Also, that entire section is unsourced, and it looks like a travel guide because of the lists of benefits for each tier of the program. People reading an encyclopedia really don't care about that stuff; rather they would expect to find that information on the airline's website or in an ad or travel guide. If it was split off in its current form, it would probably be subject to deletion. If you think it's notable enough to have its own article, it should first be improved with history added, benefits removed, and refs added. —Compdude¹²³ 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Both MileagePlus and AAdvantage include information about benefits. CapsLock NumLock ... CapsTalk NumTalk 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but both of those articles include info about the programs' histories, too. That should be added to this article. Also trim down the lengthy benefits listing. —Compdude¹²³ 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DCA is now definitely hub - I found source!

US Airways President: Reagan National Most Profitable Hub for Airline see article [<a href="http://www.sungazette.net/arlington/news/us-airways-president-reagan-national-most-profitable-hub-for-airline/article_1b7e2996-773d-11e1-bd8d-001871e3ce6c.html"></a>]. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is the most profitable major hub [..] of the US Airways route system, the carrier’s president recently said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Reagan National Airport is not a hub.

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is not a hub of US Airways, it is a focus city. It clearly states here: http://www.usairways.com/en-US/aboutus/pressroom/factsheets.html on the first pdf link, which was updated on April 1st, that Ronald Reagan National Airport is a focus city, not a hub. --Greggy123 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it already and included the reference to it, although some staff may say that DCA is a hub, the primary sources as per WP:V should be taken over what the staff had said. Sb617 (Talk) 09:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But you have weakness in argument due to Scott Kirby is President, which he is not just a staff! --B767-500 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's hope we don't get into an edit war with B767-500 (talk · contribs). —Compdude¹²³ 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't do the edit war with editors due to ...

You explains issues and don't just dumps my text. So, I just wait for upgrade to hub status when lefting the gates by Delta, and update DCA portion in summer.--B767-500 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that American Airlines-US Airways merger be merged into both American Airlines and US Airways--Petebutt (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Uh, any reason why? Because of the vagueness of this request, I'm visualizing the exact same info being copied onto both articles. This is a notable merge to say the least. Srsrox (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I updated the pointers to point to one discussion. You can not have a discussion in two places on the same issue! Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was discussed on the projects talk page before the announcement and there was no object expressed there. In addition, if merged to multiple places, these are the wrong two. What is actually being merged is the companies, US Airways Group and AMR Corporation. Yesterday there was material being added to at least 4 articles about this. There is no reason to split repeat this 4 times or to make decisions on what material is appropriate for each of those 4 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I cant see any reason why. As things develop the article will grow. --JetBlast (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: What would probably end up happening is that the same exact information will be copied to both articles. Better just to have it all in one place, easier for the reader and users. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Granted, there's not much in the article now, but there will surely be much more information made available as the merger continues. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – Merging it to two articles would mean that as the merger progresses, you'd have to update two articles with the exact same info. Why would we want to do this? I see nothing wrong with having an article about the merger. —Compdude¹²³ 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion related to the merge

• It seems to me that the content of the merge article should be included in one (1) of the two (2) articles American Airlines and US Airways. Would the users above have a thought on which would be the better target for that information? --Izno (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Split should be vetted properly {{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}

The following split should on the table for discussion:

{{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}

I don't know if the above is a split or a rename proposal, but just wanted to put it forward for discussion. The above is in reference to the article American Airlines–US Airways merger.

--71.135.164.241 (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)