Jump to content

Talk:Argyle 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 Lesliegb (talk | contribs) at 03:20, 21 February 2017 (POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation: Airports Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airport project.

POV

I know nothing about the politics of St. Vincent & the Granadines, but this article seems to have pretty large ax to the grind with the airport. Jpatokal (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Like Jpatokal, I know very little about the politics of this island nation, other than what i read on wikipedia. That being true, I am not sure that this wikipedia entry qualifies as an axe to grind. Irrespective of the government or politics, it is just plain bad governance and bad management to have an airport still not fully functioning 6 years after claiming it would be ready. They claim it opened Feb 14, 2017 - but the entire point of this airport was to have big planes from international carriers landing here. It would be a complete waste of money if only Liat, SVG, and Caribbean flew to Argyle - they already had that with the old airport. So, Argyle is still not really up and running six years after the first claimed opening date. I wish them the best of luck and i look forward to flying there when it really is open. But I have been watching this wikipedia site (and the official airport development site) for years. I am still waiting. It does not bother me one bit that the wikipedia entry takes a bit of a skeptical, almost sarcastic tone. Perhaps a bit of the sarcasm could be purged, but skepticism and disbelief - they have earned that. It would be dishonest to wikipedia readers to report further government claims at face value - they need to be called out on this.