Talk:Qantas

FAC Recomendations

OK. With the recent FAC nomination I put in for Qantas, I have had some recomendations (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Qantas) I am willing to make most of these changes myself or for anybody willing to help, I would apprechiate it. If I have no response for supports, opposing or anyone willing to help by November the 2nd, I will start making these changes immediatly by myself. I am doing this so Qantas will be a FA one day soon!

Please reply on my talk page as well as here. Aflumpire 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't Touch

Please do not any major edits to Qantas in the next few days while this is a FAC. I have a limited internet connection at work and none at home for a few days. If any major changes do want to be made in the next few days, please place a comment on my disscussion page. I will notify on this page when I have completed the major upgrades.

Aflumpire 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Go on editing as normal. I just got my internet back and its to late. Sorry everyone. Ill try to get it up to FAC standard in a month or so. Keep looking in this space for more info later down the track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflumpire (talk • contribs) 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Img cover sept.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 787-8

The article mentions Qantas are receiving 787-8 and 787-9, the 787-8 are going straight to Jetstar and shouldn't be marked down for the Qantas fleet. --Goldwing 5000 (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Incidents....

In the last day there has been revisions done by people who suggest that some recent events are notable or not notable to be added to the page. Personally I dont think that events such as the rejected landing (VH-OEJ at LAX) where no serious damage or injury occurred are really worth adding to this page. The other recent incident at Darwin involving 717 VH-NXE however, I think is worthy as the aircraft sustained damage and may or may not still be too damaged to repair (I might be baised as I added this incident to the page!) Please add your opinons here instead of undoing peoples revisions etc.... Andrew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazkal (talk • contribs) 13:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've read (NT News, Nine News Darwin and ABC NT) when I was in Darwin the cost to fix (Media have stated that Qantas doesn't want to scarp the aircraft so they don't damage there record[1]) which will cost more then the cost of a new aircraft but the problem is Qantas hasn't said much therefore it could be media hype and the incident is still being investigated so we should wait for an outcome before adding it to the article[2][3][4], Same goes for VH-OEJ in LAX. For all we know it could be a tyre issue or something failed in the cockpit therefor it's just if's and could be's. I do believe that the VH-OJM from London to Bangkok should be left if it can be expanded. I've looked for some guidelines for Airline companies but yet to find it but if anyone can point me to the page it would be great! :) EDIT: Photos of the damaged VH-NXE -- Bidgee (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The accidents and incidents that were removed are not notable, not injuries, not serious damage or did not invoke a change in procedures with a wide effect. MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeroplanes

Somebody has added an asterisk linked to the Airbus A340 page in the middle of the sentence, "Although Qantas did not choose the Boeing 777-200LR, it is rumoured that Qantas is still looking into buying aircraft* capable of flying Sydney-London non-stop." This is Ridiculous.--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The Fleet section also says Qantas does have 1 A380 with 20 ordered, they do have 20 ordered but currently don't have one.--Goldwing 5000 (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

3rd oldest airline

can this be substantiated or qualified or cited? At the moment it flies (no pun intended) in the face of the linked article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. The "world's third oldest airline" refers to an airline that is still operating today. Have a look at the table again. Qantas is thirded by KLM and Avianca. However, according to the reference that is actually cited, Qantas claimed that they are the world's second oldest airline. http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/FactFiles.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvjs (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's my interpretation of the sentence as cast that came to that conclusion; the qualifying element being right at the end. I may try a rewriting of that bit.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

KLM have some claim to have been operating longer under the same name - albeit they are now a subsidiary of a parent company. The KLM article doesn't state though when they adopted the name/what they flew as initially, and the statement there isn't sourced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK, Qantas are currently running a TV ad campaign with the slogan "the world's most experienced airline", which explicitly says that the "more than 87 years" it's been operating is longer than any other airline. There's no on-screen small print qualifying the claim! 86.132.139.133 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflation of Qantas fleet numbers

A discussion has been created at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Inflation_of_Qantas_fleet_numbers in regards to inflated numbers being used for Qantas (and some other airlines). If you have anything to add to the discussion, please do so at that link. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

April Incident

I have removed the 8 April incident twice as not particularly notable against the WP:AIRLINE guideline, I could be wrong can the IP user who keeps re-adding it please explain its notability. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Landing or Taking Off

The picture entitled "Boeing 747-400 landing at London Heathrow Airport" seems to be a picture of a 747 taking off; given the aircraft's attitude and the partly retracted position of the landing gear. I note that his has been recognised before by the photographer but the wikipedia entry itself hasn't been updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.223.161 (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Where has it been acknowledged by the photographer as a taking off picture? Mvjs (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont think it needs to be acknowledged, nose up, not much flap and landing gear retracting - all thing you dont do when landing. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

QF30 Incident

I do not feel that the QF30 incident meets the notability criteria for accidents and incidents as per WP:AIRLINES. It was not a hull loss or any serious damage beyond economical repair. Not a single passenger was injured. It certainly pails in comparison to the QF1 runway overrun. There are two other discussions on this very page about similar incidents. We could include the numerous 747-300 incidents that have occurred but we don't. Under this rationale, I have removed this from the page. Mvjs (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not notable. It just happened today and as all media does like with the Darwin, NT jet[5] (Which has been fixed and is flying again) which was buckled it only lasted a few days then died off in the media. No one was killed or serious injuries, the aircraft wasn't lost nor did it crashed and is repairable. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I guess I agree with you. It's just the exaggeration of the media. Jackelfive (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a comment in the Accidents and Incidents section to hopefully prevent it being added again. Mvjs (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Qantas Flight 1 should remain on the page as it was the most serious accident in more recent times. Jackelfive (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Qantas Flight 30 has an article created. Nachoman-au (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. Please feel free to put in your two cents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 30 Mvjs (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just like there was a minor problem with the landing gear but a large chunk of the plane just blew open and debris started flying inside! IT is very serious! They said that some of the ceiling and floor fell in! That is serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Debris could have injured someone but it didn't, I've heard nothing of the ceiling or floor falling in. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If the ceiling and floor fell in people would of definitely been injured (if not killed). People are getting sucked into the media hype. It makes a good story to attack the impeccable (before someone says something, yes, Qantas had fatal crashes before the jet era but there has not be a single jet fatality). Mvjs (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the news and most sites do say that passengers said that some of the floor in the aisles fell in so people could see the cargo hold. Also, in first class some of the ceiling came down but not on people. It is quite serious and I think as serious as the QF1 incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.252.88 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not as serious as the QF1 incident. The above comments are you have made are rubbish. The only why you can see the hole is outside the aircraft. 220.240.144.75 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The airlines project guidline says incidents should be included if "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport." Why does a 2.5 x 3m hole in the hull blown out by probable explosive decompression, combined with internal floor and ceiling collapse not count as "serious damage"? Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The incident fails both basic notability guidelines and WP:AIRLINES notability guidelines. Despite current media coverage as the event has just occurred, there is no evidence to prove that this event will have long-term notability, which is the real determinant of including such an event in the section. I have requested semi-protection for this article to prevent the edit warring between anon users. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and unless news coverage continues into the future and over and beyond the context of simply this piece of aircraft falling off, there's no reason to mention it in the article as a major incident. There's no indication that this has resulted in hull loss or that this is permanent damage to the aircraft. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone: I don't have an opinion either way, but I will note that if people keep reverting each other blindly, I'll protect the page, probably to the version you don't like. Work something out here, stop with the "rubbish" comments, and come up with something reasonable. --barneca (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that at this moment the incident is not notable. The image of the hole looks like one panel has come of (original research!) it is todays news and in the general scheme of thinks will disappear of the front pages. It could be notable depends on the cause it could be an explosive device or just some piece of equipment that had an serious unexpected event! I think we should wait from including it as all will be a lot clearer in a few days time. An encyclopedia is not todays news it has an infinite life it and we can wait for reliable information and sources on which to make a judgement. MilborneOne (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. My opinion is that this incident is notable, due to the relative infrequency of in-air incidents and the severity of the damage. There was significant damage to the hull of a major commercial aircraft sustained while in-flight. If it were something simple such as an instrument broke off I would agree that it is not notable, but this was a very serious even that could have been much more catastrophic. I fly 4-6 times a week and enjoy reading about these incidents. I would hate to have this piece of history stripped from Wikipedia. Thoughts? Benace (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)