Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

Listing of Regional Carriers dba Mainline Carrier

Mainline Carriers in the United States (Delta/United/US Airways (American) outsource much of their flying to regional affiliates, which we display on Airlines/Destination tables. However, the regional carriers that are operating the routes can often change very frequently and without notice, thus leaving the airline/destination tables inaccurate. For example, if Delta Connection flies from Hartford (BDL) to Cincinnati (CVG) using ExpressJet and Compass Airlines, but then decides that they want to start using Endeavor Air instead, it's likely the table won't get updated for some time because the change isn't significant. Regional Carriers often start and stop different routes all the time, and constant updates to the table just aren't practical. In addition, having six different regional carriers operating for one airline looks a bit messy (and confusing for people who aren't as familiar with aviation as we are).

The first table below is an excerpt from Hartford (BDL)'s airline/destination table for Delta Airlines. You will notice DL uses 5 regional airlines at BDL, in addition to their mainline service. In addition, you will see that Chautauqua airline's is stopping BDL - CVG service on May 1. However, this service continues to operate as normal as other carriers (Endeavor Air) are still operating the flight. To the passenger, no change will be noticed.

The second table shows a modified version of this table, with the carriers operating the flight under the Delta Connection brand are not shown. It looks much cleaner and far easier to read for someone that doesn't know as much about aviation as we do here. In addition, it allows us to avoid having to update the tables every time a flight switches hands between a regional carrier. I don't see a practical purpose to listing all the regional airlines. If one is curious, they can click on the Delta Connection link and view all the carriers that operate as DL connection.

Airlines	Destinations	Concourse(s)
Delta Air Lines	Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul Seasonal: Cancún	East, IAB
Delta Connection operated by Chautauqua Airlines	Cincinnati (ends May 1, 2014), Raleigh/Durham	East
Delta Connection operated by Compass Airlines	Seasonal: Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul	East
Delta Connection operated by ExpressJet	Cleveland (begins June 5, 2014), Detroit, Orlando, Raleigh/Durham Seasonal: Atlanta	East
Delta Connection operated by Endeavor Air	Cincinnati, Raleigh/Durham Seasonal: Minneapolis/St.Paul	East
Delta Connection operated by GoJet Airlines	Seasonal: Detroit	East

Airlines	Destinations	Concourse(s)
Delta Air Lines	Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul Seasonal: Cancún	East, IAB
Delta Connection	Cincinnati, Cleveland (begins June 5, 2014), Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Raleigh/Durham Seasonal: Atlanta	East

Please provide feedback! Is implementation of this practical? The regional airlines are always changing so this would allow us to keep the airline/destination tables looking neat. Most regional flying has a brand (Delta Connection/US Airways Express/United Express/Air Canada Express, etc). Some don't -- for example, Alaska Airlines does not have a 'Alaska Express or Connection' brand, so AS's regional carrier, Horizon Air, would still appear on the table as 'Alaska Airlines operated by Horizon Air. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say "yes I like this" based on past consensus of what and why of destination listing's encylopedicity. However, I think we could get a quicker consensus if we limit this listing consolidation to a situation where one mainline uses multiple regional carriers. A small airport where AS/AA/DL/UA fly four different routes but they're all SkyWest may still be somewhat encyclopedic. HkCaGu (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it too. I could see listing it as "Delta Connection operated by Chautauqua Airlines, Compass Airlines, ExpressJet, Endeavor Air, or GoJet Airlines" to preserve the operating airline summary without confusingly splitting the Connection destinations. This approach would obviously would leave airports with only one regional operator for a particular brand unchanged. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If we make a change, we should streamline it throughout. I feel like if someone is interested in seeing what airline operates the route they can click on 'Delta Connection' to see what carriers fly as Delta Connection, or look it up. Even listing just the regional carriers can cause confusion, and some carriers may not operate all year round or may come in on an irregular basis as they are needed, if that makes sense. For a start we can consolidate situations where airports are served my multiple regional carriers (as mentioned by HkCaGu) under the same 'Connection/Express' banner, and go from there if that works out well. Obviously, as aforementioned, airlines (like Alaska Airlines) without a regional 'Brand' would not change. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys -- see this page for an example of how the Bradley International Airport table looks now, and after modifications. You will notice it looks much cleaner and is easier to read. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Any further feedback? We need consensus to even test this out. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say go for merging multiple operators of the same brand into one line. (Blahblah Connection operated by A, B, and C...) Managing which operators fly under the same brand isn't any harder than maintaining destinations. (FlightAware can easily show if a particular operator exists weekly at a certain airport.) Destinations are encyclopedic (somewhat). Operators are encyclopedic but secondary to destinations. HkCaGu (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So something like this? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Airlines	Destinations	Concourse(s)
Delta Air Lines	Atlanta, Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul Seasonal: Cancún	East, IAB
Delta Connection operated by Chautauqua Airlines, Compass Airlines, ExpressJet, Endeavor Air, and GoJet Airlines	Cincinnati, Cleveland (begins June 5, 2014), Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Raleigh/Durham Seasonal: Atlanta	East

If we go with this format that 'and' needs to be 'or' since all of the other companies do not operate the flights jointly. This may be a reason to only list the brand. Shorter and less confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree re 'or' and don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about operating carriers. There doesn't seem to be any objection to this idea amongst those who have commented, so I'd say go ahead, be bold, and do it for a few airports to see if that generates any opposition from editors who don't frequent this talk page. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the Delta Connection combined with all the regionals listed. I agree and needs to be changed to or. If no one has any objections, I will start with Bradley International Airport and Dallas Love Field to test the waters and if all goes well, I guess we can expand it site wide. Great Idea! Aviationspecialist101 (talk)

Looks good, Aviationspecialist101. Be sure to use the 'break' code < br > (omit the spaces between < and >) to ensure the table doesn't get too wide. Look at how I've fixed Bradley International Airport -- keep the airline section that wide or less. If we decide to omit the operators all together, that would solve that problem. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree this looks much better, but can I ask that < br /> is used instead, for those of us that use syntax highlighting? Thanks. Kennethaw88 • talk 01:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the breaks look bad, at least for my browser configuration (Safari running full screen on a 13" Mac laptop). The problem is that (at least on Bradley), it breaks weirdly in several places. For example it breaks in the space in "Chautauqua Airlines" then again as a forced line break after "Airlines". It would be best to set that column of the table to a certain maximum width (as a percentage of the full table width?) and let the operators wrap as they will. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 07:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How do we set a max column width? Let's do that because without it the 'Airline' column looks way too wide. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If that is a problem, then just listing the brand is probably the better solution. The only time I was able to recreate your problem, was going full screen at 1920x1080. My normal viewing window displays the tables just fine. So your mileage may vary depending on everything. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mine has the 'Airline' section of the table taking up more than half the table, and it looks ridiculous. I'm okay with just the branding. The various regional airlines will still be listed if you click on the brand. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also applied the change to Raleigh–Durham International Airport. So far, so good. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This sort of formatting issue is why using forced line breaks to get a desired table width is a bad idea. Depends on browser, screen resolution, font, and font size so it's hard to identify and reproduce glitches, and messes with accessibility. I'm afraid I don't have the template wizardry to specify column widths, but it's probably a minor modification to Template:Airport destination list (and probably can't be done without modifying the template). It looks like the template already forces the third column to be 10% of the table width. The point that the article for the brand lists all the regional operators make me lean towards not including the operators anyway. (But if we want to include the operators for editorial reasons, it should be entirely possible to make the column widths work properly.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are doing this, what should we do with AirTran? I think we should just get rid of "Operated by Southwest Airlines." Does anyone object? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I noticed that yesterday. On the pages I changed I elected to leave it alone since I was not sure what is best. I wonder if dropping the operated by Southwest is the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. What do you guys think? Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We can remove it. I believe AirTran and Southwest still have separate operating certificates (AirTran flights still operate with TRS) so it's probably okay. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They got a single operating certificate a long while ago. I just don't know if it is necessary to have it as they are just converting from AirTran to Southwest, not the typical merger. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

They did, yes, in 2012. Let's wait until they retire the AirTran callsign and brand before removing AirTran. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying get rid of AirTran, I'm suggesting we remove "operated by Southwest." Because while its true, it's really still separate. I'm completely open for discussion though. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I call your attention to this edit, where Alaska, Alaska operated by Horizon, and Alaska operated by SkyWest were condensed into a single entry for Alaska. I thought that since Alaska doesn't use separate Connection/Express style branding for the Horizon and SkyWest operated flights, we were going to leave those as they originally appeared? -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is no Connection/Express branding (in Alaska Airlines flight's there is no branding) we are going to leave them as they originally appeared. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't see that, my bad. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

What are everyone's thoughts so far? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd say leave Alaska alone. We try to stay true to who the operators are, but the reason we changed was because DL/UA/AA regionals have become cumbersome, meaningless and unmanageable. Not the case for Alaska, at least not yet. HkCaGu (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, we agreed to leave Alaska alone because the regional flying in Alaska does not have it's own brand. It's not 'Alaska Express' or anything, so we are indicating the operator. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Are we doing this for just US carriers only or does this apply to all worldwide regional carriers dba as mainline (i.e. Lufthansa Regional, Etihad Regional, KLMCityHopper, etc.)? Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with airports in the US and Canada, and if all plays out well, we can move it worldwide. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good start. A bundle of US airports articles still has not been updated to the new format. Rzxz1980 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How does everyone feel this is going so far? I think it's working out well. Thoughts? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I firmly believe this entire effort is a terrible idea, and completely detrimental to the usefulness of the destination section of the articles. Regional airline routes are updated by interested users with knowledge of the changes, such as myself. Treating "Delta Connection" or "United Express" as airlines themselves provides readers with misinformation that is more problematic than what we had before. (CLCadiz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

I have to disagree with you on that. Airlines change what regional operates operate certain routes very frequently, so it's difficult to constantly reflect those changes in the articles. Listing just the brand is an effective solution -- if someone was interested in knowing which airlines fly as 'Delta Connection' they simply click on the link and they can see. We aren't treating United Express or Delta Connection as airlines, we're treating them as brands. People are far more familiar with the brand than they are the actually operating carrier. There tables look much cleaner since we've implemented the changes, and from my perspective, easier to understand. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. First, these "brands" are displayed under the "airlines" column of the table. Therefore, they are being classified as standalone airlines with actual operating certificates, which is clearly an incorrect categorization by association.

Secondly, you also mentioned that an interested reader could click on the regional "brand" name in order to find out the route details, should they chose. Unfortunately, this is simply not adequate. Clicking on the regional "brand" takes you to an article which lists the regional airlines flying under that "brand." Clicking on one of those airlines takes you to that regional airline's page. On that page, there may be another link to "XYZ Airlines Destinations." Clicking that link takes you to a page which simply lists destinations. This does not provide any valuable information on route structure, nor does it indicate which destinations are served from a certain airport. It also rarely separates destinations by "brand," for the larger regionals with many major airline contracts (ExpressJet, Etc.) This means that all the destinations are lumped together in an unusable list. This is not a replacement for the airport-specific route information that we have had.

You also mention that most people are not familiar with regional airline carriers. I find this to increasingly not be the case. As you know, the law now requires airlines to disclose if a regional carrier will be operating a route. This alone has increased awareness of their existence. Furthermore, in recent days, major news outlets have reported on an "Airline Quality" study which listed airlines such as Endeavor, ExpressJet, SkyWest, and American Eagle. These names (and their roles) have become more prevalent, and I do not believe that omitting them from the airport page is productive. Regional airlines account for more than 50% of scheduled airline service in the United States. By only referring to the codeshare "brands," we are ignoring the fundamental mechanism by which the US air travel system works.

I also submit that "operated by" lines are not messy nor confusing. On the contrary, they provide a clear reference as to the routes operated by a certain carrier. The route structure can sometimes be complex, but that does not mean we should be dumbing down these articles. Wikipedia contributors should be striving to maintain accuracy and not to commit to destroying good information for the sake of simplicity. The vast majority of airline-serviced airports in the United States are smaller Class C and Class D facilities with a very small number of regional destinations. The regional routes from these locations are manageable and have, in fact, been largely correct. Especially at these locations, which account for most of the airports, the route and operator volatility that you refer to is greatly overstated. The accuracy of these routes can be easily verified by cross-checking the recent flights on tracking services that monitor filed IFR flights, such as Flightaware. The regional airline's official route map can also often be used. For most of these airports, it would take a mere minute or two to verify route information currency.

The difficulty mainly arises with larger class B airports that serve as major hubs for the regional networks. This poses a challenge, but can be effectively managed by a coordinated division of responsibilities. A major airport's regional route structure can be updated and verified in 15 minutes. I believe that it is completely reasonable to enact a system in which these routes are validated at a regular monthly interval. A "Regional Route Team" should be created, where each person updates the ~5 major airports under their area of responsibility. I volunteer myself to prove that this can be done. It would be a terrible shame to destroy largely accurate information for the purpose of streamlining and expediency, especially when doing so does not accurately portray the US commercial aviation network. I strongly suggest moving forward with a trial to demonstrate viability. (CLCadiz (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

While I appreciate your feedback, and you make some good points, I again have to disagree with you. If someone is so interested in exactly which Regional Carrier is serving which routes from an airport, they can look that up on the airlines website, or as you mentioned, FlightAware. We simply don't have the manpower or the time to constantly monitor which Regional Airlines are flying which routes. It changes very often, and can be sporadic. Trust me, I've been active on WP:AIRPORTS for over 4 years. There are more productive things that we can do on Wikipedia with our time than constantly check the accuracy of which Regional Airlines are flying which route. The Airline/Destination tables look much cleaner now, and I find it to be easier to understand. I don't have time to cross check the routes for airports every month, and I doubt people would want to spend their time doing that. Wikipedia is about content creation. We're not creating any new content if we are spending time ensuring that we ensure the Regional Airlines operating a particular route haven't changed. Listing just the 'Connection' or 'Express' brand solves this problem, makes the page look neater, and does the job. I see no reason to go back to the way we had it. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, this type of change does not get a big announcement. In fact, many of these may not be pre announced at all. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, most changes of regional operator are not 'announced'. The only way to spot a change is to attempt to book a flight on the airline's reservations system, or check FlightAware. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed the changes.. disappointing. I prefer the old format. (27.122.12.74 (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

Why is that? In my opinion, the new format looks much nicer, is easier to read, and is less confusing for people who aren't so knowledgeable in aviation. In addition, it saves us from having to update the table every time a flight changes regional carrier. All in all I think it's a good change. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well this grinds my gears a bit. I rarely ever comment on here but I had to. This is a lousy change. I'm far from an aviation expert but I'm not ignorant about those commuter airlines masquerading as US Air and so forth. Ton of them out here in Phoenix, and I travel regularly so I like to check the Phoenix airport wikipedia to see which ones fly where before I try to book. (had a bad experience with one so I like to know because it effects which airline I choose) Now it's a real pain and I can't find that info. It was so clear before. I don't get it????! - Kent H. (108.170.1.2 (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Kent H: Stop pretending to be three people. Your signature style gave you away. You are CLCadiz, 27.122.12.74, and 108.170.1.2. Please read WP:NOTTRAVEL. Accuracy is not supreme here. Encylopedicity and notability are higher in priority. We had not entertained "timetable direct" destinations--those that change every few weeks and never continue through the schedule and seasonally not repetitive. Multiple-carrier regional brandings are of the same nature. Wikipedia listings aren't intended for travel reference. HkCaGu (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need to use Wikipedia for that? Don't the booking engines give you that information? I'm sensing an something odd here. No one is masquerading as anything in the airline business. Makes me wonder if you are the IP, that keeps trying to confuse the terminology and seems be have a grudge against the regional carriers. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! First time I've been accused of multiple personality disorder! (lol) Unbelievable, Forget it gentlemen, should've known there was no point in bringing it up - Kent H. (108.170.1.2 (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)))

How should we word this change on the WP:AIRPOTS/page content page? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Destination Maps

Just reverted the addition of some very large destination maps in Düsseldorf Airport, not sure even when collapsed they add to the article have these been discussed before ? MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

European destinations map

Düsseldorf Frankfurt Tirana Ljubljana Pristina Athens Thessaloniki Corfu Heraklion Rhodes Dublin Moscow-SVO Alicante Berlin-TXL Catania Palma de Mallorca Ibiza Kavala Madrid Paris-CDG Malta Chisinau Belgrade Bourgas Varna Riga Rome-FCO Milan-LIN Vienna Minsk Bristol London LHR London City Sofia Antalya Larnaca Malaga Chania Dalaman Dubrovnik Jerez de la Frontera Kalamata Kos Mykonos Preveza Rijeka Santorini Split Tivat Zagreb Pula Zadar Prague Tel Aviv Helsinki Heringsdorf Reykjavik Amsterdam Geneva Aberdeen Barcelona Basel/Mulhouse Beirut Bergen Bilbao Billund Birmingham Bologna Budapest Bucharest Copenhagen Dresden Edinburgh Faro Gdansk Göteborg Graz Hamburg Istanbul Katowice Kiev Krakow Leipzig Linz Lisbon Lyon Manchester Marseille Milan-MXP Moscow-VKO Moscow-DME Munich Naples Nice Nizhniy Novgorod Nuremberg Oslo Porto Poznan Skt. Petersburg Samara Stavanger Stockholm Stuttgart Tallinn Toulouse Turin Valencia Venice Vilnius Warsaw Wroclaw Zurich Ankara Innsbruck Salzburg Florence Friedrichshafen Rzeszow Bastia Olbia Palermo Verona Luxembourg Podgorica Sabiha Gökçen Ponta Delgada Izmir Gazipasa Menorca Patras Adana Kayseri Simferopol Rostov-on-Don class=notpageimage| Europe destinations from Frankfurt International Airport;Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

Asian destinations map

Novosibirsk Amman Dubai Abu Dhabi Bahrain Kuwait Jeddah Dammam Riyadh Medinah Muscat Sanaa Bangkok Yangon Phuket Ulaanbaatar Doha Beijing Kuala Lumpur Jakarta Singapore Tokyo - Narita Tokyo- Haneda Nagoya Osaka Seoul Shanghai Chengdu Changsha Nanjing Qingdao Shenyang Guangzhou Hong Kong Taipei Hanoi Ho Chi Minh Male Delhi Bangalore Chennai Mumbai Pune Colombo Dhaka Baghdad Erbil Najaf Tehran Almaty Astana Baku Ashgabat Dushanbe Tashkent class=notpageimage| Asian destinations from Frankfurt International Airport; Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

North, Latin American and Carribean destinations map

Newark New York-JFK Boston Philadelphia Detroit Atlanta Dallas Houston Charlotte Denver Mexico City Miami Orlando Fort Lauderdale Punta Caña Puerto Plata Barbados St. Lucia Cancun Washington Dulles Chicago O'Hare Toronto Calgary Montreal Ottawa Vancouver Seattle Halifax Anchorage Baltimore Fairbanks Whitehorse Minneapolis Las Vegas San Francisco Los Angeles Panama City San Jose San Juan Santo Domingo Antigua La Romana Tobago Montego Bay Havana Holguin Varadero class=notpageimage| North and Latin American and Carribean destinations from Frankfurt International Airport; Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

African destinations map

Agadir Casablanca Nador Algiers Oran Tunis Enfidha Djerba Tripoli Cairo Marsa Alam Hurghada Sharm el Sheik Banjul Boa Vista Sal Accra Abuja Port Hartcourt Lagos Malabo Addis Ababa Nairobi Mombasa Kilimanjaro Zanzibar Mahe Mauritius Luanda Windhoek Johannesburg Cape Town Fuerteventura Funchal Gran Canaria Tenerife South Lanzarote class=notpageimage| African destinations from Frankfurt International Airport; Red: All-year round destinations, Blue: Seasonal destinations, Yellow: Future destinations, Green: Charter flights

Also challenged the addition at London Heathrow Airport, anybody else have a concern about these? MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The matter had been raised not long ago, but I don't remember if it had at this project. Nevertheless, I'm against the addition, as per WP:NOTRAVEL. Furthermore, these maps duplicate the information present in the content included within the {{airport-dest-list}} so I'm for the removal. Actually, I'm also removing the map from Kuwait Airways.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the maps from Frankfurt Airport too ([1]).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Removed from Ninoy Aquino International Airport. MilborneOne (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed in Archive 13 but no conclusion reached. Maybe time to re-assess? SempreVolando (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any support here for retaining these. So maybe we now have a consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this comment fits better at WT:AIRLINE. Maps also removed from SriLankan Airlines destinations ([2]).--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping these maps. Spatial reasoning allows readers to ask questions and present data in ways that a simple list or table couldn't. I think the maps add value to the airport pages at little cost. I have made a map for Akron-Canton Airport modeled after the one in Madison airport page. Xavier86 (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A good example of why these maps add no value to the article, huge map with very little information and what is on the map should be in the article anyhow. Also if it has to be hidden it really shouldnt be in the article. Wikipedia is not a travel brochure, suggest they all should be removed on sight, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:COLLAPSE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WP:NOTTRAVEL is applicable here. It could be argued that it's just a visual representation of the destination charts (which are even more detailed in breaking it down by airline), but it's still better presented as a list than a bulky map. oknazevad (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit revisions

Hello, I'm a novice editor and could use some advise. Some one keeps reverting the edits for the Columbia Gorge Regional Airport article. Any ideas on dealing with someone like this? Thanks,Trashbag (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Same person as I had dealt with before: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 13#Airport terminology vandal. HkCaGu (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, no rationales provided for the reversions.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted another edit on that page. If it persists, then take it to WP:RFPP. Rzxz1980 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just that page; I've reverted a bunch of edits in the same fashion today from 128.32.104.164. Even put a note on the user's talk page. The most egregious of his errors is blindly changing nautical miles to miles and removing metric conversions. The simplistic English is not in anyway an improvement , as it simply removes proper technical detail and reads poorly. Honestly, I think it's an established editor, as the markup is not that of a beginner. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I looked at this an left a strong warning. If this keeps up someone will need to post so an admin can decide if this IP should be blocked. I'll note that I did revert a number of these edits. They seem to be on small airports likely not well watched. Some editors need to go though all of the articles this IP has edited and cleanup the edits that were followed up by additional edits by other editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Since User:75.16.27.73 is now blocked for three months, wouldn't any IP he uses in this manner be already in violation? If so, we should tag the IP talk page with {{sock|75.16.27.73}} so it takes less time to stop continuing behavior. HkCaGu (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP at 128.32.104.164 is at it again. I'm 100% sure that it is actually User:Tim Zukas. Here's why.

Tim has repeatedly added external links to a Flickr account containing scans of vintage airport diagrams. He did such in the history section of various airports as a direct external link. That goes against the external link guidelines, so I removed a few, including the one for JFK. He re-added that one, indignantly demanding to be pointed out the rule, which I did both in my edit summary and a note on his talk page, where I said it should go in the external links section.

The very next edit saw the 128 IP do just that. Following up to makes sure that others were similarly fixed, I noted a pattern of behavior among the IP, the registered Tim account (for which he has been in trouble before), and the other IPs mentioned here and in the previous thread HkCaGu refers to. Notably, the 128 IP was one of the IPs involved in the edit war that lead to the block of 75.16.27.73.

So was 173.164.133.26, which has specifically been used by Tim to answer a note on his own talk page. So it seems that this editor, who has been warned about this exact sort of editing before, is editing logged out to cover his tracks.

This is a major accusation, I know, but I wouldn't make it unless a) the evidence was so solid and b) the behavior wasn't so problematic, including edit warring, sock puppetry, and editing against consensus and guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well we have thess edits by Tim Zukas: [3] and [4] HkCaGu (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would tag the IPs as being a suspected sock-puppet since all three of those IP accounts have similar edits. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:128.32.104.164 is back today with two edits. Reporting to AIV. HkCaGu (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

someone messed up Dallas Love Field citation

Dallas Love Field's airline and destinations section has a messed up citation. It now looks like Delta Connection serves all the destinations and Southwest serves none. Please fix. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.54 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

S○me○ne tried to fix, ßut it is still messt upt. Now DL's new r○ute from DAL-MSP is missing. 🐹🐷😺🐶🐸 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.54 (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to fix ßut looks ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.54 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A lesson learnt at London Heathrow Airport

Hello everyone. I think it's worth taking a look at this thread, where a reliable third-party source came in contradiction with an official press release. I followed the standard WP:VERIFY protocol of providing a third-party reliable source only to find that I was wrong. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Seasonal adjustments"

Is there a convention for showing in destination tables routes that are ended temporarily, but not on a regular basis? Example: this adjustment on Southwest's ECP-BWI route. I'm sure there are other examples. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Will the airline suspend service again the next year? If it is being suspended temporarily on those dates, resuming service, and no flights are found for next year then it is a regularly seasonal flight. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear whether the suspension will take place next year as well. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 19:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

More issues at London Heathrow Airport

Hello. I invite you to take a look at these contributions, where the unsourced addition of start/end dates is just an example of a pattern that has been increasingly spreading across almost all airport articles and is a blatant violation to WP:VERIFY, which is a basic policy. I'd like to draw your attention to this and also to know the way to stop this behaviour. Any comments?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

SpiceJet Bangalore to Bangkok

Per this article on SG's website, BKK is listed as an SG destination out of BLR and vice versa. But none of the flight booking websites list SG as an airline from BLR to BKK. Even on SG website, BKK is just not listed in the drop down menu. So this does mean that this route is scrapped right? — Abhishek  ^Talk 07:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Air Traffic Control Simulation

Dear airport experts: Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Should it be kept and improved instead? Or is this information already covered in another article? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: A major issue with the article is the lack of inline citations. That wouldn't be an issue if the references provided were to support the entire draft. I really doubt about it. Maybe my question is trivial, but have you contacted the creator about improving the draft before wiping it out?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Every one of these drafts that are eligible for deletion under db-g13 has had a giant template pasted on the talk page of its creator reminding them that if the draft isn't edited within 30 days it will be deleted. As soon as one edit is made, the category is removed and they drop off the list. As the 30 day time period nears its end, we have to consider the drafts still on the list abandoned. If you think that this is a worthwhile topic, I can delay its deletion for six months in case someone wants to improve it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Yes, I know what you say but perhaps the creator wanted to keep the article and does not have the time to improve it. However, the creator hasn't edited since last September. Given these conditions a deletion seems appropriate.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Destinations in airport articles where airline doesn't have 8th freedom rights

I recently edited the Los Angeles International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport articles to add each other as destinations for Qantas. QF107 operates SYD-LAX-JFK on a 747, QF108 is JFK-LAX-SYD. Qantas does not have cabotage (specifically, 8th freedom) rights for the domestic LAX-JFK segment, meaning they can't sell solely domestic itineraries. However, they can carry passengers on that segment that connect with other Qantas flights (at LAX). I don't know if Qantas can also connect their passengers between code-share flights to/from LAX operated by another airline with the Qantas LAX-JFK flight (if Qantas sells the itinerary). Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content#Body lists criteria for the airlines/destinations table:

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

Per the above quoted policy, NY-JFK is a Qantas destination from LAX (and vice versa) as: 1)the same aircraft/flight number is used, 2) passengers can embark/disembark, and 3) it's not a "hub" where the aircraft is often changed and/or there is a (nearly) complete turnover of passengers. There's just the caveat that the flight can't carry passengers solely between LAX-JFK. I edited both articles (LAX & JFK) to reflect this after starting discussion at Talk:Los Angeles International Airport#Qantas JFK "destination". However, both edits were soon reverted as "vandalism", despite the fact that my edits were made according to policy and there was no prior consensus to not list JFK as a Qantas destination from LAX & LAX as a Qantas destination from JFK.

I tried searching the internet for examples of other flights like QF107/108 that are operated despite lack of cabotage rights and could not find any examples to see how they are handled on WP. I think they should be listed since passengers can embark/disembark to connect to different flights (just different international flights on the same airline), just as long as there's an endnote to the table mentioning the lack of 8th freedom rights on the route. AHeneen (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to remember that wikipedia is not a travel guide, the reason the airports have a list of destinations is to show the number and range of destinations from that airport, in this regards the actual airlines are not that relevant but are added to show the number of carriers that operate services. Anything else for exampe cabotage rights and fine details are not really relevant to the airport, basically how many airlines operate to/from the airport and where do they go to is the basic idea, anything else should be in wikitravel. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation tweak

I've made a few WP:BOLD changes, based on what I believe to be WP:COMMONSENSE, in the categorisation tree for airports. I figured I'd drop a note here before moving further with renames, instead of just shuffling the tree. Specifically, originally, the tree went:

• Category:Airports > Category:Airports by type > Category:Airfields

This looked a little odd to me, and upon looking things up, I found that Airfield redirects to Aerodrome. (Which means that, technically, an argument could be made for Category:Airfields to be renamed to Category:Aerodromes, but that's another kettle o' fish.) And airports are types of aerodromes/airfields. As the article says, "all airports are aerodromes, not all aerodromes are airports." So I reorganised the tree to:

• Category:Airfields > Category:Airports

Which is much more logical, as an airport is a type of airfield. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Most airfields are described as airports on wikipedia for some long forgotten reason which may explain the original categorisation. Although Airfields>Airports is more logical. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions about Destinations Lists

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing but I've started a project to update the airport pages for Africa. It's been going well but I've run into a few problems and I have some questions I'm hoping members of this group can answer: 1) What is a destination? Is it only a list of DIRECT flight locations or does it include destinations that include stop-overs but not changing planes? 2) If the answer to this first question is that destinations via a stop-over can be include then how about if it involves two or even three stop-overs but no deplaning ? I ask this because in Africa some airlines fly routes that go A to B to C to D to E and then back to A. So should E be listed as a destination for D, C, B, and A? 3) Lastly, what if the airport only receives flights from a destination but does not fly there (for example, A receives flights from B but only flies to C directly from A). Thanks, I hope there are already some rules for this kind of thing. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a detailed set of guidelines at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. If that doesn't answer your question, ask what's unclear. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you! This helped a lot.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993, also WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT specifically state to avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub. I removed your addition of Atlanta at Roberts International Airport for Delta because the flight involve a stop at JFK (JFK is a Delta hub). For the destinations as long as the flight number is the same, the aircraft is the same, and that it does not stop at an airline hub then it should be listed. Rzxz1980 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian airports

I notice that quite a few articles on Brazilian airports are now out of date due to construction related to the soccer World Cup and the 2016 Olympics. Just wondering if there was any interest in working to improve these articles. Hack (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Airlines that do not operate a "hub and spoke" systems and focus cities issue

There has been a dispute on certain European low-cost carriers that are not "Hub-and-spoke" carriers (they don't have "hubs" but rather "bases") but one user instead has designated them as "focus cities". Any suggestions on how to resolve this. Thanks! Rzxz1980 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps invite them here to explain why they think that non-hub and spoke operators have focus cities. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed many EU airports have non hub-spoke carriers listed as focus cities at that airport for a while now. Rzxz1980 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: The issue here is the term "focus city" and does it refer to all carriers or only the carriers that operate a "hub and spoke" system. Rzxz1980 (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I always thought focus cities were bases where airlines have many point to point flights to places that are not their hubs? Eightnine2 (talk)