Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines

Terminated template in use in layout (Airlines)

Since terminated was converted to use a template, I'd like to propose that we standardize all of the status in the sample table. To that end, I created a few templates. Please feel to tweak the colors and comment on these. If no objections, this can replace the sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Airlines)

Country (State/Province)	City	Airport	Notes	Refs
Canada (Ontario)	Toronto	Pearson Airport	Terminated
Mexico (Baja California Sur)	Los Cabos	Los Cabos Airport
Mexico (Jalisco)	Puerto Vallarta	Lic. Gustavo Díaz Ordaz International Airport
Mexico (Quintana Roo)	Cancún	Cancún Airport	Seasonal
United States (California)	Los Angeles	Los Angeles Airport	Focus city
United States (California)	Palm Springs	Palm Springs Airport
United States (California)	Orange County	John Wayne Airport	Terminated
United States (California)	San Diego	San Diego Airport
United States (California)	San Francisco	San Francisco Airport	Hub
United States (Florida)	Fort Lauderdale	Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood Airport	Terminated
United States (Florida)	Orlando	Orlando Airport
United States (Illinois)	Chicago	O'Hare Airport
United States (Massachusetts)	Boston	Logan Airport	Terminated
United States (Nevada)	Las Vegas	McCarran Airport
United States (New York)	New York	John F. Kennedy Airport
United States (Pennsylvania)	Philadelphia	Philadelphia International Airport	Begins August 4, 2012
United States (Texas)	Dallas	Dallas/Fort Worth Airport
United States (Washington)	Seattle	Seattle–Tacoma Airport
United States (District of Columbia)	Washington	Dulles Airport

Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually using {{terminated}} for the new layout of destination tables. The most recent one I switched to the new format is at Sudan Airways destinations TAP Portugal destinations. It was raised somewhere in the heated previous discussion leading to the new format that no colors would be used, so I propose to use no colors at all. I've been looking for the way to use {{terminated}} with a white background, yet I found no internal parameters to do that. Is it possible?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that the use of colors would be fine if they are part of a template. It's much easier to use colors in a template than to have to remember some complicated hexadecimal code for each color, as we were doing before. It's not so difficult as it was before. The only issue with this is with destination lists that have start and end dates. Would there be any sort of colors, or should we just leave them be? For 99% of us, the hexadecimal color codes are way too darn complicated and having a template to apply the colors would be much easier. In fact these whole really-long tables can be pretty complicated in and of themselves, and it takes lots of time to convert them to the new format. —Compdude¹²³ 20:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone felt the need to add colors for the dates, that could be added. In the beginning, it might make send to add start and end templates with a white background color. That way, if in the future, it was decided that a color would be nice, it would be a very easy change to make. One argument for a template would be that you could do the center parameter in the template, removing the need for every entry to have that. One the other hand, date are long enough that the longest ones will be automatically centered. But if you use May 1, yyyy and December 31, yyyy the latter would wind up centered and the former left justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm centering the dates line by line, but your proposal is interesting. {{Terminated}} is automatically centered, but is there any possibility for {{date}} to be modified so that it can include the words "begins" or "ends", and also to be centered?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Date could probably be modified, but given it's high usage, I'm not sure it that would be the best solution. If the features of date are needed it could be used under the covers of a new template. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so... are we going to do this or not? The discussion on this thread has fizzled. —Compdude¹²³ 04:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am intruding into the discussion to tell you what I think about this. In my opinion we should places: 1) City, 2) Countries + flags. It remains more simple. Because (IMHO) the reader is more interested to city rather than countries. Few people are aware of the possibility to sort the table. This is what I think. Very nice idea, however, to create a template. --Wind of freedom (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that you won't find any support for that. That's how it used to be, and pretty much every member of the project disliked the old format. Most of us think it makes absolutely ZERO sense for it to be sorted by city, and having flags goes against MOS:FLAGS because flags are only to be used in cases where a subject actually represents a particular country (i.e. Olympic medalists). And besides, most of us didn't like flags anyway. Whenever I looked at a table that was sorted by city, the first thing I'd do was to sort it by country. I don't give a crap about how many different cities by the name "Santiago" that an airline serves; I'm more interested in how many destinations an airline serves in, say, France. —Compdude¹²³ 18:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can united the two airline destinations table in only one:

Country	City	Airport	Notes	Begins	Ends	Refs

For using in all airline because in a lot of airline we known only destinations begin date or end.

I propose also to coloured only in terminated destination the city name too. --Wind of freedom (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly how the table format is right now. I'd rather not add another place for us to fill in colors using ultra-complicated color codes. These tables are updated so often (airlines frequently change their destinations) that it's just a pain to edit when it's really complicated with all the colors. —Compdude¹²³ 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that we already had a discussion (now archived) not so long ago, and it was agreed to use the current format.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But in "instructions" page are showed two tables: in first table there are "notes" and in the second table there are "begins" and "ends" dates. We can join the two tables in only one as on the example two lines above. --Wind of freedom (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, two tables are shown because you may choose to use one format (that includes start and end dates) or the other. The above table is a proposal by Vegaswikian, and as such is not to be implemented yet. The accepted format, built by consensus, is one of the two appearing at WP:AIRLINE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Since discussion on this has quieted down, is there an objection to using the format with colors and symbols to indicate the type of station? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with them, but realise that {{focus city}} and {{seasonal}} haven't been created yet. Shall them be? Moreover, can {{airline hub}} include a link to airline hub?. And, by the way, is there any possibility to create templates for start and dates? Maybe a variation of {{start date}} and {{end date}}? I'd do in on my own, but right now don't have the skills...--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

unsourced reference?

I edited Turkish airlines destination list to add Colombo along with a an image of an internal airline document listing new destinations to be launched with dates and jetstreamer has removed it calling it unsourced, how is it unsourced when its from turkish airlines and so what if its in photo form? should I also stay away from adding references by taking photos of schedules from OAD guide book? 175.110.204.102 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It is evident that you do not have clear the concept of what a reliable source is.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, those destinations (including Colombo) are not in the booking engine nor on TK's website. Snoozlepet (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not all sources are reliable. I did a simple reality check and found your source to be either outdated or simply unreliable. New routes that are supposedly a couple months away and still not bookable do not make sense. And also without real schedules we don't know if the return date is the same as the outbound date. HkCaGu (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopian Airlines

The article has been nominated for GA reassessment. You can give your questions, comments, concerns, etc. here. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Otrag

We need an article, lest we already have one under another name, for OTRAG Range Air Services. Tony Three toes Martin aloha! 22:05, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Add Denver Air Connection to that....Antonio Old Man Martin et tu? 03:10, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Why? Are they notable? YSSYguy (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Denver Air Connection was featured in a Diane Keaton movie I was watching just today, Darling Companion, and upon looking it up, it's a real airline that is mentioned in several web pages, plus just the fact it IS in a movie itself makes it kind of notable at least. On the other hand I guess that maybe it does not need a stand alone article, maybe we can add that to it's section at Key Lime Air. On the other hand, OTRAG Range Air Service seems to have been involved carrying NASA cargo, and it is also well-covered on internet sites. [1]Antonio Fart Man Martin et tu? 11:14, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

Brighton City Airways

Recently changed Brighton City Airways to make it more encyclopedic and to make it clear that it is not actually an airline. The article originator has reverted it back into a promotional piece for the virtual airline. I have changed it back to the "wikified" version but appreciate if others can keep an eye on it, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Wind of freedom (again)

I'd like to draw your attention again to the behaviour of the user above. Besides unilaterally moving airport articles ([2], [3] and [4] are just three examples), the user is now striking on airline destination articles, like Ethiopian Airlines destinations ([5], [6] and [7]), where s(he) is separating the table for passenger and cargo destinations. Can we have a thorough discussion regarding this user? I find their unilateral changes disruptive for both this project and WP:AIRPORT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm undecided about this specific formatting, but noting cargo-only destinations for airlines that operate separate cargo-only flights, strikes me as a reasonable thing to do. As far as whether the user's history of unilateral major edits and page moves requires disciplinary action, that's something that I think belongs more in an administrative area rather than in a WikiProject discussion. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a punishment of the user, but for him/her to be told by others (I already did it) that the project in particular, and Wikipedia in general, is built by consensus. However, their behaviour is close to WP:POINT.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The seperation of the cargo flights looks fine. Not to sure about the names. The common name should take precedence. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fleet - New orders/MoU

Is there already a guideline as to when an airline's order should be added to its Fleet listing? I bring this up in relation to the Hawaiian Airlines page where their recently announced Memorandum of Understanding has been included as an Order in the Fleet table. It is noted that it is an MoU, but it is slightly misleading to mark it as an order, when that is not the case yet.

I would suggest that aircraft commitments only be included in the table once its has been added to the airframer's order book or been officially announced by the airline. Until then, I think it should belong as a note within the Fleet section - as I originally contributed. Bthebest (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly as you say. This is not an order yet, so it shouldn't be included as such in the fleet table.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it is not an order until they have signed, no reason why they should be included. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the definition of "officially announced by the airline", you mean announced by the airline as a firm order, right? Because in this case, Hawaiian itself has issued a press release regarding the A321neo MOU. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The question here is that the airline has signed a purchase agreement or not. Announcing is not buying.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What about options?

What about listing options? I see these listed in some fleet tables. —Compdude¹²³ 18:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Options come once a firm order has been placed. If an airline has at least an aircraft on option, it's because it has bought some aircraft as well.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. Even so, is it fine to still have a column for options? (or some mention in the notes section?) —Compdude¹²³ 04:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific

The date format in the Cathay Pacific article keep being changed by an IP and has been reverted a few times. I have semi-protected the page for a month but as I reverted one of the changes I am looking for any other admin working on the project to check my actions, thanks. Note the latest IP involved have been blocked by others as a sock of the "Rogers Canada Date Format sock" ! MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll request a protection again.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: This editor using Canada's Rogers Communications IPs had been blocked progressively and concurrently nine times over two IPs, going back to February 2011, and the last blocks expired February 2012. He had come back several times over the past 11 months changing DMY dates to MDY. See Block log of 174.112.122.52 and Block log of 99.254.158.227. HkCaGu (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

airlineroute.net

There has been a discussion which now is archived about whether airlineroute.net is a reliable source See Archive. Unfortunately that discussion has been archived so I couldn’t add to it. It has been argued that airlineroute.net is part of UBM Aviation, a profit company, with “commercial concern” which from my point of view is also true for most media companies. UBM is also the organiser of the World Routes Development Forum (Routes), the biggest global meeting between airline network managers and airports to discuss new services including most major airports and airlines (see listing). Routes is widely acknowledged as an independent broker between the two parties. Part of the service is the most up to date news about route development via routesonline.com and airlinesroutes.net. Being an airport manager myself I always found that the information given are highly accurate and are followed by most airline network managers and airport route development managers I know. In my daily work it is more accurate than flight schedules filed by airlines with us or civil aviation authorities. In a nutshell, I think it is a reliable source. Looking forward to reading your comments. JochenvW (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this is currently being discussed here. Slasher-fun (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ThanksJochenvW (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why we decided not to regard it as a reliable source is that the website says this at the bottom of the page: "...Although the best efforts have been taken in collecting and checking the material we can not and do not warrant that the information contained in this product is complete or accurate and does not assume and hereby disclaims liability to any person for any loss of damage caused by errors or omissions.". That disclaimer was why we don't consider airlineroute.net to be a reliable source. —Compdude¹²³ 18:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok let's continue to keep this discussion on the airports talk page, so as not to have it in two places. —Compdude¹²³ 18:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Airlink

The article on the helicopter shuttle service Airlink was recently put up for DYK. While it is a very well written article, it relies on a source from a personal website written by a retired airline employee. I wasn't sure if it could be considered reliable so I'm posting here for a second opinion. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No it is clearly a self published work, it can be usefull to find reliable references but should not be used as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and the "hook" being asked for "that the helicopter used for the "curious" Airlink shuttle service between Gatwick and Heathrow airports subsequently "languish[ed] in weeds somewhere in Brazil" would be one of the first things deleted if the article had a tidy up, it is just not notable and not the sort of thing we would add to an airline type article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought it wouldn't pass but wasn't sure if the guy was the leading expert on "defunct intra-airport helicopter transport in the UK" kind of thing :) Any other sources that you might come across on the matter would be appreciated. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 18:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Airlines in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Airlines for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I responded to these questions; it would be cool if another editor participated in the interview, too. Thanks, Compdude¹²³ 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance

Lots of stubs and Airline articles needing attention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Maintenance--Petebutt (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

JACDEC Report

Yesterday, an IP editor added sentences about ranking nth-last in safety records to several airline articles based on this article by Alex Davies of Business Insider, which in turn based on this report (see their contribs for a list). Personally, I don't think citing the report for the claims is appropriate. My rationale is on my talk page, which I'll quote below:

"As someone who likes and reads about civil aviation (not a whole lot, but it's a hobby), I question the authoritativeness of the report and the appropriateness of citing it on Wikipedia. Aside from being a limited comparison with no explanation of how the airlines were chosen, the methodology used is unclear—we don't know how they arrived at their scores from the metrics they used. And it seems to compare the past 30 years regardless of the age of each airline, arriving at conclusions that are questionable when labelled as the "safety rate (index?)" of the airlines, as many of the airlines close to the bottom have not had any major accidents in recent years. I'll freely admit that China Airlines had a terrible record (to the point where the phrase "Four-Year Limit" was coined to refer to its having a hull-loss accident every 4 years), but unless the report is a well-recognised publication on aviation safety, citing it for the sort of claims seems inappropriate, for articles on any airline."

I'd prefer that the additions simply be reversed. Failing that, we should at least amend the claims (other than the one at China Airlines, which has already been modified) to clarify that only 60 airlines were compared. Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. wctaiwan (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air

Hi, I've just come across the following problem: Are Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air the same company?

If so (which would mean that all that happened in 1974 was a name change), I think the two articles should be merged. Concerning the fleet history, there is already one shared list. For consistency, the same should be done with the accidents and incidents. And the remaining Gulf Aviation history section could easily be enclosed into Gulf Air.

One the other hand, if the two companies are not the same, it should be taken care of having the information split accordingly. For instance, in that case Gulf Air should be listed as "founded in 1974" (similar to Lufthansa: Officially they claim to be founded in 1926, but here in Wikipedia it is listed as "established in 1953" because from a corporate law standpoint, Deutsche Luft Hansa was totally unrelated).

As always, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. --FoxyOrange (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears they are the same company. I found the following on Gulf Air official website[8]: "Gulf Air has come a long way since it launched services in 1950 as Gulf Aviation Company." Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They seem like they are the same company, so the two articles should be merged. —Compdude¹²³ 19:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I started the article "Gulf Aviation" as a stand-alone article for a number of reasons. (a) I have not found any reliable Bahraini source of company information for companies based in Bahrain, and therefore cannot cite the evolution of Gulf Aviation as a company in detail - for example I believe that ASGUL, Gulf Helicopters and perhaps Gulf Hotels started under the umbrella of Gulf Aviation when BOAC Associated Companies was a significant shareholder. (b) Part of the changes in 1973/1974 involved the re-registration of the aircraft on the Omani (A4O) register and so this seems a natural break point between the airlines known as Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air. I have not yet researched which entity/entities held the relevant Air Operators Certificate(s). Further comments etc welcomed. Simon Woodhead (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're thinking that Gulf Aviation and Gulf Air are two separate companies? —Compdude¹²³ 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know - that was part of my initial rationale for starting the separate article. I have only been able to establish that BOAC Associated Companies bought a minority holding in Gulf Aviation in 1951, and that their holding was bought out by the governments of Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman with effect from 1 January 1974. Simon Woodhead (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A Turkish Airlines not notable occurrence

Hello. A user keeps adding a minor incident ([9]) into the list of accidents and incidents. I already reverted their addition once ([10]), but the user has reinstated the content again ([11]). The event is so not notable that Aviation Safety Network does not even include it in TK's list. Can we please discuss this stuff here?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

ASN is not the arbiter of notability on Wikipedia. ASN is a source of information. Last week's incident was quite notable to people in Izmir last week, and it was covered by dozens of news agencies throughout the world, in less than a day. The incident is properly reported and cited. Your actions so far are inappropriate. Unless you can cite objective criteria that exclude its mention, the entry stands. Immediately cease vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:AIRCRASH. This guideline defines what accidents are worth including in Wikipedia articles. Just because it was in a bunch of news articles doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable enough to be mentioned in the article. —Compdude¹²³ 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Last week's incident meets the criteria because 'serious damage to the aircraft' did occur. When an engine fire is severe enough to use extinguishers, during approach nontheless, the engine is damaged, and need significant repair. Deploying the engine fire extinguishers is not a casual occurance, and does not happen often. It is serious, and causes serious damage. User talk:Jetstreamer has an ongoing problem with vandalism and edit wars, as you can see in his user page. This is not his first and won't be his last abuse of dispute resolution and reverts. I move for a temporary ban. It is important that we take this behavior seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013

2001 I think you need to strike you personal attack on Jetstreamer, as far as I can see he didnt do anything wrong. Jetstreamer challenged you edit on the grounds that it wasnt notable, you added it again and it was removed by another user. Your addition has been challenged it doesnt matter what the reason you have to get consensus on the article talk page to add it again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but an engine change because of a failure is not a "serious damage to the aircraft" to me, or we could add a new "notable" incident almost every day... On a plane, there is no such "severe enough fire" to use extinguishers, all fire (or even smoke) events are serious enough to use extinguishers. Slasher-fun (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Slasher-fun's comment, no one was seriously injured or died nor did the crash cause severe damage to the airport. Almost all aircraft suffered lightning strikes or minor engine fires all the time unless people on board died. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@2001:470:BC86:1:222:19FF:FEF3:BC0A: I told you to read WP:AIRCRASH, did you not read it yet? It is very imperative that you read that page. It basically says that an aviation incident is only notable under any of the following three conditions: (1) The incident resulted in fatalities, (2) the incident caused significant damage to the aircraft or airport, or (3) the incident resulted in change of procedures for the airline, airport, or aviation industry. Under these conditions and these conditions alone is an aviation incident considered notable enough to be allowed to be listed in an airline article. Failing to meet these conditions will result in the incident being quickly removed from an airline page. And please stop the personal attacks directed towards Jetstreamer, that's just not cool, man! —Compdude¹²³ 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

2001's position is that the engine fire is sufficient to be considered "significant damage to the aircraft". However, that position seems to have little agreement from other editors, thus the incident fails to meet the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines. 2001 also tries to establish notability by being covered by "dozens of news agencies throughout the world". In this case, I would refer to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, which states that "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. —Compdude¹²³ 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mokulele Airlines

Can someone else help keep an eye on Mokulele Airlines? Over the past couple of days a new editor or two has been coming in and removing a lot of cited historical content, along with making other changes that don't fit in with the wikiproject standards, such as listing all destinations in the infobox. I suspect the user has a conflict of interest with the airline itself, as the first editor that did this was MokuleleAirlines (talk · contribs). This account was banned for violating WP:CORPNAME, though now the same types of edits are being made by Aztravelwriter (talk · contribs). Thanks. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Now under a two week protection from new editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

American Airlines and US Airways's proposed merger

Since both airline's have announced a possible merger or currently in talks about merging. Shouldn't each airline's article should have a separate section about the proposed merger since there wasn't any section made for it? Snoozlepet (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is likely to drag on for a while and since at this point we don't know what the surviving airline would be, if in fact the merge goes through, I would lean to either a separate article so that we don't overload one of the existing articles with the material which will surely be posted hourly. If it is in an existing article, then it probably should be a section in the AA article since they are in bankruptcy and the one likely to be acquired. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposal. Having a separate article is the better choice.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Aerosvit Airlines

Hello fellas! I've marked the the end date for operations in the infobox as needing sourcing. Does anyone know if Aerosvit ceased operations? To the best of my knowledge, the airline has drastically reduced its operations and has been banned from operating into Russia.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the airline is not defunct. One: the airline's website is still in operation. Two: According to this press release from the airline, http://america.aerosvit.com/us/index/usflinfonew/aboutusnew/news/14327.html, the airline will operate flights to New York, Bangkok, and Beijing for the Summer 2013 schedule (the airline's sole long-haul transcontinental flights) and the airline has already opened ticket sales for New York flights (Beijing and Bangkok flights will be bookable when the schedule for summer 2013 has been approved). If the airline has ceased operations, the airline's website will go blank and will say otherwise. Snoozlepet (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD nomination

I've nominated Zakavia for deletion. The entry for the nomination can be found here.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with airline names

There is a systemic problem in Wikipedia, possibly illustrated by the U.S. Airways article. Since it is a systemwide issue, I bring it up here first.

Frontier Airlines was a U.S. airline until around the 1980's. The current Frontier Airlines was started by many of the old Frontier Airlines management but is a separate WP article. I agree with this treatment. In other words, a shared name doesn't mean a shared article.

TWA was an airline acquired by American Airlines. Therefore, TWA has an article whose history ends in the 2000's. I agree with this treatment.

US Airways has done the wrong thing. It was acquired by America West. The headquarters are in Phoenix. The management are America West people. The airline is essentially America West. The WP US Airways article should begin with the history of America West and then mention "the airline acquired US Airways and took that brand name...for a history of the airline, US Airways preacquistion, see the US Airways (1992-2008) (years are approximate). Alternatively, we can start an airline article about US Airways, the current airline.

Remember, brand names are not the key factor in an article as we see in the Frontier Airlines article.

By doing what is done with US Airways, we are unwittingly helping US Airways brainwash the public. The airline you are flying is America West. Likewise, United Airlines is really run by Continental's CEO and Continental's operating certificate.

I have no beef with US Airways. I fly them occasionally. I just want to do what is best for Wikipedia. Auchansa (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the old edit history, you will see near edit wars trying to keep it clear which airline was the surviving one. Sometimes beginning a new article could be the best solution. Look at Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino which ran under several names and included a total replacement of the hotel and casino. So when major changes happen, how do you decide on a new article vs. expanding/extending an old one? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if there was further discussion. We could begin by saying if an airline acquires another airline and the acquiring airline keeps its name, it's clear that the acquiring airline's article should continue. We should also cautiously evaluate the informal term of "merger". Often, press releases uses that term to soothe the public. Whose operating certificate is used is a factor but not necessarily the gold standard. This is because airlines have purchased other's operating certificates and not even used that airline's personnel, aircraft, or name. So if the identity of the management who takes over control of the new airline. We should not automatically favor an airlines PR department, who may want to keep a name. Lastly, we may consider the historical lineage. For example, the lineage from Allegheny to USAir is fairly clear. USAir took over PSA and Piedmont.

This discussion is not to settle simply the USAirways problem but to have a general framework to fairly and consistently evaluate all airlines. This will avoid the "other crap exist" argument. For example if there is a right and wrong way. Some may propose the wrong way then ignore other examples, saying "other crap exists". This is bad for WP. Auchansa (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any experience from other industries where mergers and aquisitions happen? JochenvW (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FWiW the US Airways article appears to be OK as it is an unbroken continuation of the original name, the airline claims it was started in in the 1930s as All American Aviation, so if the airline thinks it has a continual history I dont see why we should treat it differently. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

One could content that the USAirways article has a huge problem. I have not made a conclusion yet so do not shoot the messenger.

The article could have a history of the airline as the following:

The airline was started as America West, the oldest airline of the post deregulation period. It grew and grew. Then it took over USAirways and assumed their name. The headquarters is in Phoenix, America West's headquarters. The big wigs are all America West people. The call sign is "Cactus", not "USAir". For a history of USAirways, see USAirways -2009.

The problem here is that an airline with poor name recognition takes over a well known airline and takes its name. Usually, it's the big airline that takes over the small one. In the case of Frontier Airlines, there are two articles, one for the old airline that ended in the early 80's and the current airline. This shows that the airline name does not decide what the WP coverage will be.

This problem is not unique to USAirways. Valujet has this problem. Valujet was an airline tainted by a crash. Then it bought a small airline and took over its name, AirTran. Yet the AirTran article treats it the wrong way. It should begin with the history of Valujet. The history of the small AirTran carrier may be covered either as a separate article or mixed. In any case, it is completely wrong to separate Valujet to a separate article but not the small Air Tran that was taken over.

Auchansa (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

However, Valujet completely gave up its name to become AirTran, and we are going along name lineage, or that's what seems to be Wikipedia's norm. If you want to find a ValuJet article, you can find it via a link on the AirTran page, which has all the info about ValuJet you need to know. Also, I think that it would be rather confusing if we wrote along the lines of 'US Airways started operations as America West Airlines' ... info info info etc... 'America West Airlines then merged with US Airways' with US Airways being a completely different company despite talking about the airline US Airways. I hope you get my gist. Airlinesguy (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your analysis about Valujet. The AirTran article basically says "the old Air Trans started...all this history...then it was acquired by the airline formerly known as Valujet....then it continued until Southwest." In essence, we are being biased by having an article about the brand name and ignoring the big gorilla, Valujet. This is completely the wrong way to do it. There are several plausible correct ways, but not the current way. This is way standardization is necessarily in WP. Auchansa (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But some of that could be addressed by, in the US-HP case at least, having started a new article (not saying that would be correct). The combined airline did have a name change as I recall making for a clean break into a new article. Companies strive to maintain early roots after a merger keeping the earliest founding date from any branch. I'm afraid to look at the CO-UA article to see how it was handled there. I have argued in the past that at some point you need to revert back to separate articles so that reading is easier, especially in the history sections. No matter how this discussion winds up, it should be clear that this is not going to be a one size solution fits all cases. One side note. The HP article was kind of frozen in time to reflect that company at the time it acquired US. However we lack that for the old US Air. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your opposition to one size fits all. We should have standardization then all non-standardization as an exception or if there is a clear reason. I am open to discussion to what the standardized way should be, however.

In summary, my first draft proposal for standardization would be to assess who is the acquiring airline. Then the history of the airline should be that of the acquiring airline. Other airlines which contributed to the entity may be included or may have a separate article. End of summary. Comments in opposition or in support appreciated. Auchansa (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lineas Aéreas del Sur

Before AfDing the article, I'd like to get some thoughts regarding it. The only two references included are not reliable (one is Planespotters.net and the other is a set of three images at Airliners.net), plus the official website included in the infobox is dead. Clearly, the page fails verification. FYI, I'm Argentine, and it's the first time I hear from this airline.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)