Talk:AirAsia X

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the airline project.

Malaysia Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conflicting info from reports

How does this fit in?? says Operations ceased... www.flyasianxpress.com

According to TheStar, it will start in July with service to Tianjin, Hangzhou and Manchester. Yet according to channelnews Asia as linked to in the AirAsia article, it will start in July with service to one of Tianjin or Hangzhou. Can someone confirm which one is correct and update the articles accordingly? Nil Einne 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is all speculation right now. Everything is not confirmed yet. So no one is correct at this point. We will wait and see until the formal confirmation is carried out. Till then there will always be conflicting news reports. Cheers. Zack2007 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles seem to want to 'confirm' the destinations. Since all these are still speculation and Tony Fernandes has not confirmed them, I would appreciate we dont use the word confirm. Thank you.Zack2007 12:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, TheStar claims ~~Tony Fernandes himself~~ the CEO of FAX himself confirmed the destinations. If ~~Tony Fernandes~~ the CEO of FAX himself has confirmed then this is not simple speculation and we need to be accurate in the article. The problem is, this doesn't agree with ChannelNewsAsia which appears to be quoting Tony Fernandes who is more ambigious. ~~If Tony Fernandes has not announced the destinations then we need to report this as well.~~ The problem is that sources don't agree. However given that CNA doesn't really contradict The Star that much, I would say we should assume the Star is correct in the absense of further infoNil Einne 09:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details

This article [1] better explains what the relationship between FAX, AirAsia X and AirAsia is Nil Einne 10:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

should we move the page to AirAsia Long Haul? kawaputra^tok2me 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether we should yet. Maybe wait for a couple of days for more information if any. or else depend on your judgement --Zack2007 11:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be moved to AirAsia X Long Haul since that is what is written on the title to its main page Stkhoo 14:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved so many times. Last time it was reported that Tony said they are going to drop the X. Now it somehow comes back on. Let's wait for more announcement. --Zack2007 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is back on!

“

He said FAX would stick to the AirAsia X brand for its long-haul service, instead of AirAsia Long Haul, and that the team at FAX was mulling over the need to have a separate logo from AirAsia.

“It is by popular demand that we are changing the name back to AirAsia X,” he said.

”

should the article be called AirAsia X or AirAsia X long haul???--Zack2007 04:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AirAsia logo.png

Image:AirAsia logo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of AirAsia X

I'm not sure if it is accurate to define AirAsia X as an "airline", and that it is "owned" by FAX. AirAsia X is a brand by AirAsia, franchised to FAX to allow them (FAX) to operate a long haul low cost service. To put it simply, AirAsia X is not an airline per se, but rather a brand for a service offered by an airline operator (in this case, FAX). The correct definition should be that AirAsia X is a long haul low cost service operated by FlyAsian Xpress. I am trying to emphasize that while the operation and ownership of the service belongs to FAX, the brand AirAsia X itself is not. Until FAX rename their company to AirAsia X, I think the relationship between FAX, AirAsia and AirAsia X is better explained this way. Agree? 74.78.194.9 08:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more accurate to say that it is more of a brand name for FAX. I agree with you. What do others say? --Zack2007 10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Since FAX has ceased operation beginning 1 October, and all the codes go to AirAsia X, it is only natural that we merge the two articles together into AirAsia X, and have a section on the historic flights of FAX. We do not need the FAX article as it will be redundant to the AirAsia X. With this, we can expand the AirAsia X article even further. --Zack2007 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of 18 Septmeber 2007, Fly Asian Xpress Sdn. Bhd. (FAX) has had its name changed to AirAsia X Sdn. Bhd. The point about AirAsia X not technically being an airline is now moot and the FAX article really should be consolidated into the AirAia X article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.24.188.102 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the news from? They are looking to change the name soon, but not yet. Remember the new aircraft was written, AirAsia X operated by FlyAsianXpress? So FlyAsianXpress is still the company which operated AirAsia X. So my suggestion is to have a section of the FAX into AirAsia X and redirect the FAX article to AirAsia X.--Zack2007 10:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a recent ads, it says "Operated by AirAsia X Sdn Bhd. (Previously FlyAsianXpress Sdn. Bhd)" When do they change it? Is there anyone that can provide sources. --14:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A340-600

Hello. I removed the bit from the fleet section that Air Asia X were to receive two leased A340-600 aircraft. This information is not commonly known and the referenced link doesn't provide for it. If you can confirm that Air Asia X will receive A340-600s, please revert my edit and include a reference. Thanks. Ben (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CEO

Azran "The Malaysian Train Station" Osman Rani, I think he deserves to be in too, don't you? jsha (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Destinations section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to list in general only those destinations where a launch date has been reported by reliable sources. That position is not only backed up by arguments but hasn't been challenged here. Borderline case where there is no launch date, but significant discussion can still be brought up here on the talk page.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section is really turning into a mess. It has very few references and as far as I can see is completely speculative. This section should either be completely removed or limited to cities/airports that AirAsia X has announced an official intention to fly to but has not provided a date (such as London-Stansted), AirAsia X has announced that they are investigating fly there or even if independent reliable sources have indicated AirAsia X is investigating the airport. On this rationale, I will be removing the entire section and cities should be re-added with a suitable citation. MvjsTalking 10:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even with references, most of it is just speculation and passing statements in the press. It's not definite plans, more of publicity spins but the holding company. We should only keep future destinations with confirmed launch dates. Planenut (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact remove this entire section only for it to be immediately restored by IP editors and a note left on my talk page. If you are in agreement with me, feel free to remove the section - maybe they'll listen to you? MvjsTalking 20:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it. Expect an edit war to start soon. Planenut (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the individual who is so insistent to add all the "future destinations", take a look at WP:NOTCRYSTAL. While you may have reference sources to the information posted, it's just PURE SPECULATION and cannot be verified. Nothing is firmed except London. Planenut (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me reiterate to the anonymous user who chooses to edit via an IP address rather than a registered account. You won't get anywhere by undoing the edits. State your POV here on why the list should be kept and not removed. Planenut (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor now seems to think that all the content is sourced and cited. It's not. For the most part, the few references that the section has refer to general continents and then the editor who created this section took that to mean specific airports. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or synthesis. But even that doesn't account for the vast majority of this that is totally and blatantly uncited. As I said at the top of this disussion, I would be fine for any specific airports that have been specifically discussed by AirAsia X such as London-Stansted to be listed. But for the vast majority of this section that is not the case. Could this editor who keeps undoing this consensus please weigh in here? MvjsTalking 08:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has now been protected but protected to a version that is not inline with the consensus. Could this be remedied? MvjsTalking 10:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I protected the last version due to heavy edit warring as an alternative to blocking as several parties were at or over the WP:3RR threshold. Exempting some reverts as correcting edits against consensus wasn't obvious either as the same two parties who commented here also reverted. The chance here is to confirm here consesus now. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Check - as per all my other comments, Wikipedia is not the place for pure speculation, personal synthesis or original research. MvjsTalking 11:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points raised by Mvjs. I went through all the links gave as references. None gave specific information regarding future destinations. It was purely speculation and original research and theories by the IP editor. Planenut(Talk) 11:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've now got a confirmation of that consensus. Any chance that the protecting admin can restore the correct version and/or unprotect the article? MvjsTalking 22:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.