Talk:BA CityFlyer

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

Start

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

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airline project.

Cityflyer/CityFlyer

Use User:Christopher_Card has changed all the references in WIkipedia and this article from BA Cityflyer to BA CityFlyer. I am tempted to change it back ! as the Operating Licence has Cityflyer Express Limited trading as BA Cityflyer and it refered to as Cityflyer on the British Airways website. Just thought can anybody provide a citation for the change. CityFlyer Express. MilborneOne 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History

Have reformulated this paragraph because there seems to be a widespread misconception among Wikipedians that defunct CityFlyer Express was a part of BA's former regional operation. CityFlyer Express never was part of BA's regional operation in its various guises, i.e. BA Regional, BA CityExpress or BA Connect. Instead, BA subsumed its erstwhile wholly owned CityFlyer Express subsidiary into its short-haul Gatwick mainline operation as part of its reorganisation at London's second airport in the wake of recording its first-ever full-year loss at the turn of the millennium.

User:Pimpom123 17.25 GMT

Non-notable incident

The recent minor incident to a BA CityFlyer aircraft at LCY does not warrant inclusion in this encyclopedic article as it does not meet the criteria defined at WP:AIRLINES, namely that:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry

These guidelines were introduced in order to avoid airline and airport articles becoming cluttered with minor, non-notable (and ultimately non-encyclopedic) incidents. Remember that verifiability does not equal notability. Please do not re-include the incident before discussing the issue here so what we can come to consensus on the issue. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the incident is not notable but note also the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BA CityFlyer Flight 8456. MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll agree maybe it isn't notable, but I felt it was. I'll nomitate it for deletion if it is kept on BA CityFlyer article as it is some rather good information to know, and to be honest this article does need more things and something like this is worth mention. So if I add some references etc, can we have it on here please? Thank You. Zaps93 (talk)22:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it qualify on the basis that "It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline ~~or airliner~~."? Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Accidents_notability Or is BA Cityflyer just part of BA in which case, it's not notable - indeed it's possible that the Cityflyer web page should be merged with BA? 84.9.32.224 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that this certainly would justify mention in the airline's article - where it is detailed already - but that it doesn't necessarily justify a separate article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is otherwise a minor incident which doesn't need an article. Indeed, the BBC call BA Cityflyer "British Airways" (they fly a BA Logo, colours and brand) and this article doesn't actually contain anything of substance. The question is really if this is a seperate airline worthy of an article or if it's just another paragraph in the BA article (minus the minor incident). 84.9.32.224 (talk) 09:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]