Jump to content

Talk:Logan International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dfiner (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 4 September 2016 (→Deletion of the "Expansion of International Service" section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

DL Hub or Focus City at BOS

Please do not add BOS as a focus city or hub for DL. We are currently reaching a consensus on the DL talk page, if you have opinions or sources, please post them there. For now we have agreed to not include DL as either, but when a decision is made, this page can be updated to reflect the decision. Stinger20 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston-Cancun AA Year ROund

Boston-Cancun on American Airlines runs YEAR ROUND on American Airlines every week. Source: American Airlines flight listings shows the route operating every Saturday from 11/4 until September 2016.. where they finished scheduling to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.76.32 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Totally agree here. BOS to CUN. Is a year round operation on American Airlines.runs 50 weeks a year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B16A:90F3:5179:6B70:EEA0:E33 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole November has no flights. If this isn't seasonal, I don't know what is. HkCaGu (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatelya 'seasonal' flight, is one that operates during a particular season. BOS-CUN runs year round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caulineire (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a 3:1 vote to keep AA's BOS-CUN at year round since it operates the route year round, just skips 2 weeks in November. Route DOES operate 2 weeks in November. Very much year round — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caulineire (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "vote". Seasonal means anything less than year-round. HkCaGu (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal means it operates during a particular season.. if that was the case I can give you a list of AA routes that arent year round. skipping 2 weeks is just reduced frequency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.76.32 (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the "Expansion of International Service" section

I disagree with those contributors who axed the "Expansion of International Service" section. The suppositions left with the edits--that the section was "way out of control" or "not what Wikipedia is for" --are personal opinions, and its complete removal does not improve the entry other than to make it shorter.

The rapid increase from 2012-present in foreign airlines at Logan is unquestionably remarkable in recent commercial aviation history, as evidenced by the numerous media articles to the development (many of which were referenced in the section) which also note the economic benefits on the metropolitan area of these developments. The phenomenon merits more mention than the presence of a cell phone lot or other mundane details about Logan, which remain in the article.

Many other airport articles on Wikipedia have detailed discussions of the history of notable services to that airport, so the section is generally consistent with content in other airport pages. I'm not going to go back and forth with other editors reversing the deletion, but the suggestions that the section somehow detracted from the article are based on individual preferences. Dfiner (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section was just a long random list of international services that had started since a random date. Wikipedia is not a list of random things. In this case the list was way out of control. If indeed such a trend was unusual enough to be notable (you use the word remarkable) which is unlikely it would need to have been something noticed and published as such for such a claim to be included. And if included would not simply be a list of such services but contain some analysis of the trend with maybe some salient examples and probably some statistics. This list had none of that. Just because other articles might have a similar lists (examples?) is not really a rationale for keeping this particular one.Andrewgprout (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This description mis-characterizes the section as "random things." It is not. Noting a succession in new international services beginning from an identifiable, first event is not at all random, as the information included all shares very specific attributes. A continuing sequences of like events does indeed suggest the use of some sort of list, which I'm not aware is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Also, the section did not consist entirely of a list, despite what you repeatedly say. If the list form was a problem, then it should be marked for editing, not deleted. The repeated supposition that the section was "random" and your assertion that it is unlikely that the trend was notable (even though multiple published sources referenced in the section itself, such as the Boston Globe, describe the phenomenon this way) suggest that you never read the section or its links, and are merely adding to the previous vague, subjective pronunciations rather than weighing the merits of the section. The burden shouldn't be on those in favor of its remaining to provide examples of similar content in other articles, if editors are not generally familiar with the wide variety of information often found in entries about commercial airports, then perhaps those contributors have less standing to judge content in such articles as relevant, or "out of control" --whatever that was supposed to mean. There need to be better reasons than those provided for expunging it entirely.Dfiner (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Logan_International_Airport&oldid=737699906"