Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Airports and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20: 60 days

Memphis International Airport needing expansion to discuss Fedex cargo service

When you look at airports hour by hour (UTC), there are two hours per day where Memphis International Airport is the busiest airport in the world. A pilot told me that Fedex has special permissions to fly with abnormally short spacing during the night when their cargo planes are the only planes using the airport. The Fedex superhub has no content in the body of the article with WP:ICs from WP:RS. It has been the busiest cargo airport in the world several years and is the busiest airport in the world for 2 hours a day. This airport needs some expert attention to beef its article up.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public charter flights

I'd like to discuss the listing of charter flights in Template:Airport destination list.

Listing a destination with "Charter:" gives the reader the wrong impression. Charter is a synonym for "hire" or "lease", as in a group chartering a plane.

In the United States, we've seen a proliferation of Part 380 "public charter" operators. These aren't a traditional charter restricted to a certain group. The plane is chartered from the operator by a marketer and tickets are sold, just like any public passenger airline. In several cases these two companies only exist on paper, but functionally, they're the same company. The arrangement allows the company to utilize pilots who are qualified to operate charter services, who can be either less experienced or older than allowed on commercial passenger flights.

In the case of these Part 380 "public charter" operators I feel we should either label them in the Airport destination list with "Public charter:" or not list "Charter:" at all in recognition of the fact that these aren't really charter flights in the traditional sense and are only operated under that naming to exploit a loophole in the law . -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is a US-only issue? Is it sufficiently noteworthy for a WP-wide rule or directive? Jan olieslagers (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we should get rid of all destinations from airport articles. Destinations are not a property of an airport, they are a property of the airlines. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's another discussion altogether. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, this is a US-only issue. But, as such, it impacts a fair amount of articles. When I attempted a bold change, I was reverted by @VenFlyer98 and asked to take the discussion here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney:

Agreed this is pretty much a US-only issue. As I stated on your talk page, I only reverted as WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT states to NOT list private charters anyway, so anything under the “Charter” label would be assumed to be a public charter, thus not needing its own label.

Personally, I would be in favor of just removing the charter tag all together since, as you stated, they’re really just “charters” to exploit a loophole. Thing was, a few months ago, another user started adding charter tags to these airlines in the first place (airlines such as JSX didn’t have tags for a long time). A discussion was brought up (I believe in either this project or at WP:AVIATION as well as at Talk:Nashville International Airport where they were adamant about the tags. Forgot how many users overall were involved, but I eventually agreed to adding them (I did however feel that they weren’t needed for 135 carriers, mainly for the same reasoning as you have stated). However, I’d be in full favor of having the tags removed from Part 135 carriers for the reasons you mentioned initially if we reach a new consensus on it here. Think it should be left how it is or the tag should be removed all together.

One more thing, you brought up Part 380 carriers, but airlines such as JSX and Contour are Part 135, which is what the prior discussion I mentioned was about. You also added the tags to these airlines as well, but like I said I’d be in favor of just removing them. VenFlyer98 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing the "Charter:" tag for the cases of the operators buying Part 380 "public charter" flights and them marketing them for sale. For reference, my notable examples would be Advanced Air, Blade, Contour Airlines, JSX, Southern Airways Express, and, if they win their FAA case, SkyWest. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, Part 380 companies can sell tickets, but they don't operate planes. Part 135 operators are charter airlines that operate planes. If a Part 380 sells seats on a Part 135 airline, they can avoid the rules applied to Part 121 operators.

Honestly, Contour is the most opaque of the operators. But I think it works like this: when you book a flight with Contour, you are buying the ticket from Contour Aviation (the parent company of Contour Airlines), who then, on paper, charters a flight from Contour Airlines.

JSX is more clear cut: Flights are operated by Delux Public Charter, LLC (dba JSX Air or Taos Air), a Part 135 operator. Flights are public charters sold by JetSuiteX, Inc. as the charter operator and Delux Public Charter, LLC as the direct air carrier, subject to Part 380 regulations.

Good explanations from Cranky Flyer and this commentary from George Mason University. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney

Thanks for linking, those are great articles. It certainly is interesting to look at, such as the entire situation with avoiding the rules applied to Part 121 operators. Like I said, I'm good with removing the tags from these airlines altogether, including for Contour. I believe your explanation of how they work is spot-on, and they operate the least like a charter compared to the other airlines you listed (they also partner with American and offer codeshare flights hence why they pretty much exclusively fly from AA hubs). I found the old discussion on charter tags I previously mentioned, and honestly the discussion didn't really go anywhere. It was just one other user and myself and I agreed to it but there wasn't any big discussion or consensus between multiple users. That discussion was here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 23#Part 135 Airlines as Charters in Destination Lists. After I agreed it just looks like the conversation died out so I wouldn't mind brining it up again or like I said, just outright deleting the tags. VenFlyer98 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RickyCourtney:

I see you removing the tags, thanks for getting started. Agree if anyone challenges it for now, we can just direct them here.

Thanks for the discussion! VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put the link in the edit summary to direct anyone with concerns here. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the reverts, didn't see this conversation until afterwards! Recommend getting rid of the "Charter" tag in the style guide if we agree to go forward with this. If it's decided to not use charter tags on airlines that are, by definition, solely charter operators (even if they operate in a manner similar to, though still different from, traditional airlines), then there is no need to have that tag at all.nf utvol (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nf utvol:

We shouldn't outright remove the tag altogether. As stated above, this is mainly a US issue, there are plenty of flights in other places of the world (mainly Europe) that have charter flights with reliable sources to back it up. Mind you, these flights also operate like regular scheduled flights, but are charters. Ricky made a great point above in regards to how most use Part 380 rules.

(VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I get the nuances in Part 380/Part 135 operators, but that is part of the larger point. These are still charter companies operating in a legally distinct way from regular air carriers, and I think it's worth pointing that out if we're going to have a charter tag at all for any sort of scheduled services. It still isn't clear to me how these are substantively different from European scheduled charter operators that are listed as such. A quick perusal of EU charter services shows that they seem to operate similarly to the airlines in question and are still usually tagged in EU airport destination lists as charter. And honestly, in many of the places where the charter tag is used in reference to more traditional charter operations that I've noticed (e.g., the Maleth-Aero flights out of Manchester) that I think you can make an argument that they shouldn't be in the destination list since they aren't really even bookable flights by passengers.

Either way, it seems odd that we're carving out this exception for some charter operators just because they've structured themselves to look, externally, like a more traditional airline in some aspects, even though there are distinguishable differences both functionally and legally from Part 121 operators that are source-able. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I truly feel that placing this distinction and treating these operators the same as Part 121 carriers in destination lists is opinion-based and not necessarily supportable by outside sources. If anyone can provide a reliable source that states that these operators are functionally the same as a Part 121 operator and substantially different than other scheduled, bookable charter operators in other parts of the world, then I'd be less inclined to argue the point. If we really want to separate them out from their EU counterparts, then listing the Part 380 operators as public charters seems like a good middle ground to me so long as they can be sourced as such. nf utvol (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, these companies are legally operating as charter flights. However, my primary concern is including the Charter: tag can mislead readers into expecting a more typical charter flight experience, which isn't the case for these airlines. They function more like traditional scheduled airlines with public ticketing and regular flights. As sources like Cranky Flyer highlight, these airlines operate similarly to Part 121 carriers in terms of booking, scheduling, and what passengers experience. The consensus seems to be that in the case of these Part 380/Part 135 airlines, removing the "Charter" tag seems appropriate, given their operational similarity to Part 121 carriers.

You raise an interesting point about European charters. However, I really don't know enough about operations outside of North America to speak on that issue. While they might seem similar on the surface, there could be key differences that justify using the Charter: tag for those flights. Reliable sources would be helpful to determine if the tag remains necessary for those flights.

However, I don't think the concerns about the European operators should prevent us from removing the tags from the US operators. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything you said. I just brought up Europe since I remember some examples of sources directly stating certain routes are charters, but in terms for the US, I agree with removing the tags. VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think we're at consensus on this just yet (we wouldn't be having this conversation right now if that were so ;)). I bring back the point though: why do we have the Charter tag at all for airline destination lists if we aren't going to use it for these situations, which, in my mind, are pretty clear cut due to the legal status of these charter operators? If anything, the Cranky Flyer article stresses the importance of the legal distinctions between these charter operators and Part 121 airlines. I understand your point about the nuances being somewhat opaque to the typical traveler, however we need to be taking a more wholistic look at it than just passenger experience. After all, we can't just base these tags off of passenger experiences on board the aircraft, if we do we risk getting uncomfortably close to being a travel guide.

Either way, the more I mull it over, the more I think that the Public charter: tag is a good third way. It tags these operators as different from standard Part 121 airlines (which they indisputably are different from, legally and functionally), but also alludes to their status as not-quite-charter in operation. Also, acknowledging that this is probably a different discussion, I would also argue that charter services that do not sell individual seats and operate on some sort of schedule (e.g., the aforementioned fly-cruise flights or casino flights) should probably not be in destination lists to begin with. nf utvol (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are indisputably different legally. However, I would dispute that they are functionally different. In passenger experience, they function identically to traditional Part 121 scheduled airlines.

I think the concern about using a Public charter: tag is that its meaning is not immediately clear to the reader, which is critical in a table. I'm also concerned that it's just overly pedantic and not actually that helpful to a reader. At this point, I would be opposed to going back to that.

I would be hearing more about the European charters and how they're similar/different to these Part 135/380 operations to understand why this tag existed in the first place and to understand if it's even necessary. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of former airlines and destinations

I recently deleted a list of former airlines and destinations in the Kai Tak article on the basis of WP:IINFO. Though I'm not sure it was fair to do so, because we have a discrepancy between our airport and airline articles: we list every current and former destination of an airline (e.g. List of Delta Air Lines destinations), but we only list every current airline and destination of an airport. Is this discrepancy justified? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Why not? One is about transportation hubs, the other is about corporations. The airline articles could be improved by saying when a terminated destinated used to be served or when a current one began. The airport articles could even have what airlines used to fly there. Of course, we've collectively made editorial decisions for each of these sets of pages to have a certain type of format that would be most helpful to readers, but tables on different topics may certainly have different formats, so I don't see a discrepancy. The Kai Tek article could indicate what airlines/routes flew there when Hong Kong Airport opened rather than those at any time, but I don't see that list as indisriminate either. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view both are fundamentally the same: lists of airline destinations. One is by airline, the other by airline from each airport. For example we have a list of Delta's destinations and lists of its destinations from Atlanta, Detroit, etc. It's just two different layers of detail.

I don't think most editors would support a list of former A&D in airport articles. Someone once tried to add one to the CVG article and it got moved to the talk page. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Kai Tak and other closed airports, I don't see a problem with a list of historical destinations as long as we can source them properly. Destinations don't need to be current to be encyclopaedic, and route development to Kai Tak is historically important information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical destinations are certainly verifiable, for example from old OAG copies at DepartedFlights.com or old route maps. But that's where I see WP:VNOT come into play. I favor summarizing information from these sources and integrating it into the history section. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial names in leads

In the lead sentences of a number of articles about airports, or in a footnote attached to the lead sentence, there is a list of "obvious" colloquial names for the airport. Example: Midway International Airport begins:

Chicago Midway International Airport (IATA: MDW, ICAO: KMDW, FAA LID: MDW), typically referred to as Midway Airport, Chicago Midway, or simply Midway, is a major commercial airport on the Southwest side of Chicago, Illinois, located approximately 12 miles (19 km) from the city's Loop business district.

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport begins:

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport^[a] (IATA: PHX, ICAO: KPHX, FAA LID: PHX) is a civil–military public airport 3 miles (2.6 nmi; 4.8 km) east of downtown Phoenix, in Maricopa County, Arizona, United States.

^ Commonly referred to as Sky Harbor Airport or simply Sky Harbor

Some other airports have similar lead sentences or footnotes attached to them. Are all these colloquial names necessary, or could we consider cutting back on them somewhat? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the extra obvious names. I first noticed this in the ATL article: "Also known as Atlanta Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson International Airport, Atlanta Airport, Hartsfield–Jackson, and formerly as the Atlanta Municipal Airport". Sunnya343 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, only include other names if they're actually alternatives. Obviously people don't always say the full [Namesake][City][Type][Airport], and we don't have to write out the most self-evident shortenings. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have made some edits along these lines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be wrong with just adding a couple of common colloquial names only inserted in footnotes? Especially names found on highway signage commonly used by travelers. For instance, at John F. Kennedy International Airport, there is a footnote in the lead that says "colloquially known as JFK". You can argue that JFK or JFK Airport is an "obvious" name and also the same as the FAA airport code. It couldn't hurt to include "Kennedy Airport" too in this footnote. Not saying add all colloquial names to create clutter, but only those most commonly used. Clearly cutting back doesn't mean deleting all completely. Tinton5 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I was making the edits to remove some of the colloquial names, I intentionally changed the footnote from "Colloquially referred to as JFK Airport, Kennedy Airport, New York-JFK, or simply JFK" to just "Colloquially referred to as JFK". That's because most airports are not commonly referred to by the general public by their FAA or IATA codes, but John F. Kennedy International Airport often is called "JFK" by the general public. (I'm not talking about aviation buffs who know and use lots of FAA/IATA codes.) Similarly, I left the footnote "Commonly referred to as LAX with each letter pronounced individually" on Los Angeles International Airport because that nickname is used by the general public, unlike most FAA/IATA codes. In other words, FAA/IATA codes are not obvious nicknames for airports since they are only used as nicknames for a few airports. By contrast, a nickname that just consists of the city name plus the word "Airport", or a distinctive part of the airport's name (such as the surname of the airport's namesake) with or without the word "Airport", is the kind of "obvious" name that I think doesn't need to be included, and it looks like Sunnya343 and Reywas92 agreed with me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of requested move

A discussion is taking place regarding the title of the Bangalore airport article: Talk:Bengaluru Airport § Requested move 4 May 2024. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vertiport - Heliport there's a difference

Even if the word vertiport is redirected to Heliport it's not the same. Just have a look on Draft:vertiport or the German version from it is translated, to find some of the differencies. Helicopter and eVTOL aren't the same too. So you may unterstand, why I want to create a new article named Vertiport in English Wikipedia. What do you think about it? Leo067 (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: we should not be in a hurry to document a neologism that is scarcely used "in the real world". First wait for the term to "take root". Besides, even if today some people make a difference between "eVTOL" and "Helicopter", that difference will only become more and more vague over time, in my expectation. Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington National Name

I’ve been having a bit of an edit war with some IP editors over at Salt Lake City International Airport. The back and forth edits have been going on for over a month now. Basically, the IP user(s) keeps changing “Washington—National” in the destinations table to “Washington—Reagan National” or something similar. I keep reverting as “Washington—National” is used on every airport page that has it as a destination; it’s even used in the example table at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. Just wanted to gather consensus that “Washington—National” is the name we should be using so we have established consensus about it. VenFlyer98 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer "Washington-National" since it's more concise. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Commonly referred to as Sky Harbor Airport or simply Sky Harbor

[a]