Talk:Lufthansa

Article Protected

I have protected the article from change due to an ongoing content dispute, can you come to some consensus on this page please. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already two weeks now, and no discussion so far. Is the article protection still needed? AdAstra reloaded (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, is there any chance the protection might be lifted again? There does not seem to be any significant ongoing discussion about the alledged content dispute. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected on the grounds that with no talk page discussion parties accept the status quo per WP:SILENCE 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CeruttiPaolo, 4 September 2011

Noticed wrong wikilink format in Fleet History (Airbus A340-300) is: Airbus A340-300| the | shall be removed. thx and brgds. CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CeruttiPaolo, 4 September 2011

Lufthansa (31.12.2010). "Annual Report 2010". Retrieved 4 september 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
This source may be useful for the Corporate affairs and identity section, in particular subsidiaries. For example Eurowings is marked as owned 100% by Deutsche Lufhtansa AG over here. CeruttiPaolo (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added it next to Eurowings; hope this is what you wanted! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JetBlast, 12 September 2011

On the fleet table please can you change the link from Airbus A320 Neo to Airbus A320neo. On this section of the A320 page its branded as A320neo not A320 Neo. This is also the same on this link from the Airbus website.

The below airlines also have it like this

• Air Asia
• American Airlines
• Cebu Pacific
• GoAir
• LAN Airlines
• IndiGo
• JetBlue
• Frontier Airlines

Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, what about the A321 neo? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I didnt notice, sorry yes please can you do the A321neo as well? Thanks. --JetBlast (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --JetBlast (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A380 Routes

Hi, Do we really need a list of the A380 routes? At the end of the day its just another aircraft. We dont have a list of routes for the 747-400 etc. --JetBlast (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion you are right. But as Seat configurations of the Airbus A380 is an article of its own, it looks ok to give the routes on the airline article, as the A380 currently seems to be such an iconic aircraft (like the Concorde). AdAstra reloaded (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not needed it is no more notable then any other aircraft, most of the A380 section could also be trimmed and added to the history section. MilborneOne (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tagging onto what MilborneOne said i also this the Aircraft Naming Conventions section about the A380 should be trimmed. Some parts of the article makes it sound like a plane spotting site. --JetBlast (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Brunoptsem, 22 September 2011

Add the following to Accidents and Incidents/Fatal

• 26 July 1979: a Lufthansa cargo Boeing 707-330C registration D-ABUY operating flight 527 from Rio de Janeiro-Galeão to Frankfurt via Dakar collided with a mountain 5 minutes after take-off from Galeão. The crew of 3 died.[1]

(Brunoptsem (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)) Brunoptsem (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This incident is already included in the article. Are you proposing to rewrite the paragraph with your version? If so, please explain why. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

747-400M missing

LH also have upto 8 of these Combi variants in their fleet, so thats 22 744 and 8 744M, please update list with information accordingly.Mustangmanxxx (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this ? --Denniss (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Very difficult to find reliable sources for this as most references dont bother to note that the aircraft is a combi. Original research indicates that D-ABTA, B. C, D, E, F are combis but I created the list by looking at the pictures to see if they have the cargo door which I am afraid is original research and not allowed.. In the end it may not be that notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently LH has NO 744M, and afaik NEVER had any. LH Cargo operated the 742 freighter, but they have been replaced by a fleet of MD11 and 777F. --C. Deelmann (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure they never had any, at least those listed in my reply from eighteen months ago had the combi doors fitted, even if they were not used. MilborneOne (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Brand History without reference

The Brand history section is a matter of debate. The information present right now has a reference page cited to Lufthansa's page which has no information for the logo design and brand history. As such, the information being transmitted is incorrect. I urge the editors to erase this immediately. DBSSURFER (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because the website was changed (but not improved information-wise). Please do not try to get the brand history information removed beause you can't install your self-made brand history. --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the description talks about otto firle and puturzyn. Where does Lufthansa say about that? We are talking about the meaning of the word "Lufthansa" here. Not some crane logo dispute. And yes self-made brand history is yours not mine. DBSSURFER (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just given my reasons as to why I'm sure that the Hansa in Lufthansa comes from the Hanseatic Leage here. Once again, I can assure you that for a native German speaker (especially one with any affiliation with Hamburg or another Northern German city), there is just no doubt were the term Hansa comes from. Please note that Lufthansa indeed had that link to Hamburg. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

reference replacement

{{editprotected}} Please replace reference 25 with archived copy at http://web.archive.org/web/20091010130610/http://konzern.lufthansa.com/en/html/ueber_uns/geschichte/chronik/index.html --Denniss (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Snoozlepet, 30 September 2011

On the codeshare section, Turkish and Asiana Airlines should be remnoved from the list as LH and both of the carriers are members Star Alliance and the sentence already mentions "besides Star Alliance members. Snoozlepet (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from JetBlast 5 October 2011

Hi. under Commercial near the bottom, is puts Iberia as Iberia Airlines. The Airline is not called Iberia Airlines its simply called Iberia. Please can this be corrected. Also please can you make the link like this: [[Iberia (airline)|Iberia]] - Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Images in the Fleet section

Could someone make the thumbs smaller - the images block parts of the table and make it unreadable. BadaBoom (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They look fine to me. What browser, screen size, etc., are you using? I'm using Safari 5.1.7 on a 11″ MacBook Air with a screen resolution of 1280 × 800. David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also for me the images & table look both fine and perfetcly readable: Safari 6.0.1 on 13″ MacBook with 1280 × 800 resolution. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The images use the default size which if you dont like you can adjust in the "My preferences/Appearance" tabs. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed a couple the other day as we seem to have lots in this article. --JetBlast (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

LHT Redirect?

Hi, Why does LHT redirect here please? --JetBlast (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No idea it is not a TLA one would associate with the airline as far as I can see. MilborneOne (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well i am glad its not me, i thought i had missed something. Maybe we can look at sending LHT somewhere else? --JetBlast (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Lufthansa German Airlines"

Really? Where is this officially used? --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All over the "offical" Lufthansa website for example at http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/service/contact.html MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I see. Thanks for that. --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just once again checked, and I have come to the conclusion that Lufthansa German Airlines is only rarely used, and always together/as a synonyme with the official Deutsche Lufthansa AG. I have amended the lead section accordingly.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Founding date

The article states (in the infobox) that Lufthansa was founded in 1926. I think that's not right (even though the company itself claims so). I think we should point out the difference between the history of the brand and the current company of that name. In fact, 1926 is the date when the Lufthansa brand was created. This initial airline was liquidated in 1945. In 1953, a new airline was founded and acquired the Lufthansa trademark in 1954. Yet another airline of that name was formed in 1955, but later lost that naming rights. I think basically, it's the same as with Pan Am Railways: Surely, that company was not founded in 1927. Any thoughts and comments? --FoxyOrange (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

not that i don't believe you but do we have a source please? --JetBlast (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

For a start, have a look at Lufthansa's official history page (which, as stated above, begins with the 1920s). But, there is reads "And finally – in 1945 – came the “over and out” for Germany and for Lufthansa", and a bit further down "Almost at the same time, two companies named Deutsche Lufthansa took to the skies – one on each side of the Iron Curtain". Though not explicitly stated, I guess this proves that indeed in 1953 a completely new company was founded. Also, this new company was initially named Aktiengesellschaft für den Luftverkehrsbedarf (LuftAG, at that time a spare parts dealer, not an airline), and became Lufthansa in 1954. (this is per this news report (in German)). Furthermore (but I need to do a bit more research here), Lufthansa is a bit arbitrary about its past. On one hand, it claims to have a proud history which dates back to the 1920s. On the other hand, I think Lufthansa got out of any compensation payments for forced labor workers during World War II (which were "used" by Deutsche Luft Hansa), in contrast to other German companies like Siemens, BMW, Bayer and so on. Lufthansa's legal argument was that it had only been founded in post-war Germany. see here. Or at Der Spiegel: "Für die heutige Lufthansa hat nach eigenem Bekunden mit ihrer Gründung im Jahr 1955 eine neue Zeitrechnung begonnen. Formaljuristisch ist das nicht zu beanstanden." (English: Speaking in Lufthansa's own words, a new era has begun with the foundation in 1955[sic!]. From a legal standpoint, this is not objectionable.). Here, the launch of scheduled flights is used as start date, but it's clearly not 1926. --FoxyOrange (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) was founded in 1926 and was re-established after World War II, in 1953." ⇒ [2].--IIIraute (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that this "re-establishment" (whatever this is supposed to mean) was in fact a complete new founding. Today's Lufthansa is not the legal successor of the earlier company. It only acquired the trademark logo and branding rights. For example, RusLine bought the name and livery from Air Volga. Still, there is no legal link between the two companies. --FoxyOrange (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The infobox states: Founded 1926 (as Deutsche Luft Hansa) (newly founded 1953) - giving the according link to the predecessor company article - I think it's fine how it is. The Lufthansa legal successor matter is quite complicated → [3]. The German WP article also gives the date of 1926 [4]. --IIIraute (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But in my opinion, the current situation is misleading and confusing. In the infobox, it states that Lufthansa was founded as Deutsche Luft Hansa in 1926, newly founded in 1953 and commenced operations in 1954; in the categories, the article is listed as "airline established in 1953". This looks quite inconsistent. Basically, there are two possibilities: Either taking the history of the brand approach, according to which Lufthansa was founded in 1926. That would be all, then (and the category should read "airlines established in 1926"), and there would be no need for a separate Deutsche Luft Hansa article, as it would be only one company (instead, something like History of Lufthansa (1926-1945) might be needed). The other approach (concerning the history of the legal entity, which I would prefer) would state in the infobox that Lufthansa was "founded in 1953 as LuftAG" and "commenced in 1954". In the text, it would be explained that the name and branding was taken over from the 1926-1945 company (more or less, this is the situtation of the current version of the article). --FoxyOrange (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note again (and excuse me if I should have been unable to properly point out the problem in my previous posts) that something needs to be done in any case. Most striking, the current version reads "commenced in 1954". This is just wrong, as the first flight of the "new" Lufthansa took place in 1955. Then, currently this tiny statement "founded in 1926" in the infox is the only part in any Lufthansa-related article which is in accordance with the abovementioned "history of the brand approach". The category reads "founded in 1953". I guess there is no doubt that this is a contradiction. If we just changed the infobox accordingly, nothing else would need to be done, as further down in the article it already reads While Lufthansa claims DLH's history as its own, it is important to note that it is not the legal successor of the company founded in 1926. If, on the other hand, one would chose to go with the "founded in 1926" point of view, a whole lot of other things would need to be changed, too. Most notably, this would mean that Deutsche Luft Hansa was not "disestablished in 1945", and much of it should not be covered in a separate article anymore. It's either all or nothing: If Lufthansa indeed was founded in 1926, the article should contain all pre-1945 accidents and incidents, pre-1945 aircraft types etc. Also, many Wikipedia articles specifically link to the "old Lufthansa". This would also needed to be changed, if one accepted that there was only one company. I hope that by now, I could make my point clear and appreciate your input.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Lufthansa) was founded in 1926[5] and was re-established after World War II, in 1953. →[6],[7]← see, Mini and Mini (marque), for example. --IIIraute (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Once again: The company founded in 1926 was shut down in 1945 and the remaining assets were liquidated in 1951. The company that was founded in 1953 was originally called Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf. In 1954, it acquired the Lufthansa name and logo (something similar happed with Pan American World Airways and Pan American Airways (1998–2004)), and in 1955 commercial flights commenced [so at least this "commenced in 1954" should be corrected]. This is quite well covered by Der Spiegel in a "Lufthansa: 50 years of flight" article, published in 2005:[8]. The crucial point is that the company now called Lufthansa was founded under a different name. Therefore, the statement that the pre-1945 company was "re-established after World War II, in 1953" is plainly wrong. At that time, what today is known as Lufthansa was called Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf and had zero legal affiliation with the pre-1945 company. Indeed, today's Lufthansa considers the pre-1945 brand history as its own, but there is no legal obligation [and this article seems to be about the company, not the brand]. Today's company is not the legal successor of the former one (and from a legal point of view, there is nothing like a "new founding" of a company, either a company is founded or it has never ceased to exist). And the old Lufthansa indeed has ceased: If you happen to still own shares of the pre-1945 company, they are completely worthless now. --FoxyOrange (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you want to ignore the date given on the Lufthansa website, as well as "WP:RS" like "Forbes", etc ... so how do you explain the dates that are given in the German WP "good article"? --IIIraute (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, no. All I want to point out is that there are several things: A German airline from 1926 to 1945, then a company founded in 1953 that became known as "Lufthansa" in 1954, yet another airline of that name and, finally, something which so far is not represented by a Wikipedia article: Lufthansa (brand), which was created in 1926 and used by these three different companies. As I pointed out above, Lufthansa has the habit of picking the best parts of the brand history (in order to define the company as one of the famous European pre-war airline), but the nasty parts (like the Nazi involvement of the pre-1945 airline) are ommitted. And indeed, from a legal point of view, the latter is right [and Lufthansa often points out that it cannot be held responsible for any Nazi crimes], because today's Lufthansa is not affiliated with the pre-war company.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because it is on the Lufthansa website doesn't make it correct. The Facebook page also managed by Lufthansa doesn't agree with the website. Just because an article is a good article does not mean it is perfect and is free of mistakes, just because the German version is a good article cannot add weight to the argument. Anyway Wikipedia encourages to use 3rd party sources when you can, rather than a primary source (in this case the LH website). --JetBlast (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, but maybe the fact that there are dozens of other WP:RS that state the same fact →[9] - so I guess you will have to live with it! --IIIraute (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, it depends on the outcome of this discussion, so in the end you might have to "Live with it" --JetBlast (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to prove the "Lufthansa was founded in 1953" thesis

I did some research. Here is what I got so far. The source is in German, so I am going to translate the important parts. [Content in square brackets] are my annotations. The Lexikon der Luftfahrt (Encyclopedia of Aviation) [10] has a timeline:

• 18 January 1926: Deutsche Luft Hansa Aktiengesellschaft is registered in Berlin.
• 20 September 1945: The "Allied Control Council Act No. 52" is issued. The whole property of Lufthansa as well as the private property of any employee listed as "officer of official" is seized, due to the paramilitary role of the airline during WWII.
• 15 February 1951: At a special shareholders' meeting it is decided to liquidate Deutsche Lufthansa, dated back to be effective 1 January 1951.
• 29 May 1951: The Federal Minister for Transportation establishes a "Committee for the Preparation of [Civilian] Air Traffic".
• 6 January 1953: The Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf (abbreviated Luftag, lit. "Air Trafic Requirements Inc.") is founded in Cologne with a seed money of 6 million German Mark. Shareholders are the Federal Republic of Germany, the state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Bundesbahn and Bundespost, among others. This company is not the legal successor of the old Lufthansa. [This is the most important statement here; also note that until today, Lufthansa is therefore registered in Cologne (which can be seen in its official imprint: "Registration Amtsgericht Köln HRB 2168"), whilst the pre-1945 airline was registered in Berlin, see above. So, it's obvious that we are speaking of two entirely different companies].
• 26 June 1953: Luftag orders its first airplanes, four Lockheed Super Constellation [Please note that the company is not named Lufthansa yet].
• 6 August 1954: Luftag adopts the traditional "Deutsche Lufthansa AG" name. The naming rights had been acquired from the old "Lufthansa AG in liquidation" for 30,000 DM, including the crane logo and flag.
• 1 April 1955: German domestic flight (re-)commence, initially based on a special permit; the German souvereignty over the airspace is only re-installed on 5 May.

In my opinion, this is already enough to prove my point. Again, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Of course I am aware that there are many reliable sources which support the "Lufthansa was founded in 1926" counterthesis, but what I listed above are quite hard facts. I am not aware of a single source that claims that today's Lufthansa would be the legal successor of the pre-war company. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretations and conclusions very much fall under Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. The "Lexikon der Luftfahrt (Encyclopedia of Aviation)" is a tertiary source, and therefore should not be used in place of a secondary source ("Forbes"[11], for example) or a primary source (such as the Lufthansa AG company website[12]) for detailed discussion.

The lead states the following: "Deutsche Lufthansa AG is the flag carrier of Germany". Although Lufthansa may not be a direct legal successor of the German airline flying between 1926 and 1945 of the same name, the company does regards itself as the official successor company, serving as the official flag carrier of Germany (1926-now). [13] Deutsche Lufthansa AG was founded in 1926 and was re-established after World War II, in 1953.[14] After the war, Germany was occupied by the Soviet Union, the United States, France, and Britain. Under the conditions of the occupation, both East and West Germany were forbidden to establish their own airline companies. British, French, and American airlines had a monopoly on air service in West Germany, while the Soviet airline Aeroflot assumed all air services in East Germany. By 1951, the reestablishment of a national airline for West Germany was proposed. The following year, the West German government in Bonn set up a preparatory airline corporation, and on January 6, 1953, Luftag (Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf) was created in Cologne. Member of the executive board: Kurt Weigelt who already was among the founders of Lufthansa in 1926.[15] Hans Bongers, who joined Lufthansa in 1926, was reinstated as director of the national airline. Lufthansa was "Reborn"[16], and also paid WWII compensations → "Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft".[17]. And sorry: In 1926 "Deutsche Luft Hansa AG" was located in Cologne - and "Deutsche Lufthansa AG" still is.--IIIraute (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Illraute, I very much appreciate your input. Still, I don't really understand your point. We seem to be in accordance that Lufthansa considers itself the successor of the pre-war airline, even though from a legal point of view, it is not. (Take, for example, the compensation payments. I have to admit that my research was insufficient here. Lufthansa indeed did pay these compensations, but the article you gave as a source clearly states that there was no legal obligation to do so. Lufthansa acted out of morality reasons). And you also seem to agree with me that today's Lufthansa was founded in 1953, originally called Luftag. This is backed by reliable sources, so it's not original research. And now I ask you: Why do you insist that Deutsche Lufthansa AG (the subject of the Wikipedia article we talk about here) was founded in 1926? This article is about the company, not the brand. And it's not about the term "German flag carrier", either. Anything else you wrote in your above reply (except the claim that the 1926 company was based in Cologne - do you have a source for this?) is right. Today's Lufthansa was originally state owned and established because Germany should again have a national airline. Many of its early staff members had already worked for the old Lufthansa. So what? Still, the two companies are not related other than that they share the same name.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Am 6. Januar 1926 wird deshalb die "Deutsche Luft Hansa AG" mit Sitz in Köln gegründet."[18] --IIIraute (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this source got it wrong. The original Lufthansa was indeed founded in Berlin, for example [19].--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The article above also points out that the liquidation of the company in 1951 was nothing more than a legal formality to secure the continuation of the "Deutsche Lufthansa AG" without being tainted by its own past. Therefore liquidation and decision to "reestablish" the airline the very same year.--IIIraute (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The company founded in 1926 fully ceased to exist in 1951. In 1953, a completely new, unaffiliated company was founded.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the title of this book: "Die Geschichte der Deutschen Lufthansa 1926 - 1984 " (The History of Deutsche Lufthansa 1926-1984) → [20]. --IIIraute (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My tuppence (ha'penny)

Flight 1952 "The old Deutsche Lufthansa was founded in 1926 by the amalgamation of Junkers Luftverkehr and Deutsche 'Aero-Lloyd. D.L.H. operated an extensive network which included a regular South Atlantic mail route; the company was dissolved at the end of the war"

Flight 1965 "the original Deutsche Lufthansa was founded in 1926" but also "The reconstituted Lufthansa re-entered the European transport scene on April 1, 1955"

Flight 1969 "In 1945 it was obliged to suspend all its operations (although it was not officially liquidated until 1951). .....It was not until the spring of 1955....that the new Lufthansa was able to start flying." (italics are my emphasis) GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Outcome

By evaluating this discussion, I have come to the conclusion that there are no objections against the claim that Lufthansa (today's company, i.e. the legal entity, NOT the brand etc.) was founded as Luftag on 6 January 1953. That's why I changed the date in the infobox accordingly (also, WP:BOLD applies, and I have not been aware of a significant number of editors with a contrary opinions: Illraute, I just think I have the better arguments). Every company has exactly one founding date, in Luftag's case this is clearly 1953 (Luftag just wasn't founded in 1926 - nobody has ever claimed so). I tried my best to explain why today's Lufthansa sees itself in the tradition of the earlier company. Feel to find re-word my humble efforts. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not - no consensus for change! For sure, it is not reconcilable with WP:RS to ignore and remove company information published by the Deutsche Lufthansa AG[21] or Forbes[22]. This information is backed up by dozens of other WP:RS, such as an official agency of the European Union (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)[23], Columbia University Press[24], or the BBC[25]. I am sorry, but you cannot remove well sourced material just because it doesn't fit your argument. Especially since you are deleting well sourced material from a long-standing NPOV version. The infobox does mention both dates: "Founded 1926 (as Deutsche Luft Hansa) (newly founded 1953)." --IIIraute (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record: I did not remove the self-published Lufthansa source, as it shows that Lufthansa indeed sees itself in the tradition of the 1926 airline. You are right that I removed some sources and added other ones, like Der Spiegel or Flight International, which are also reliable. The case is that those sources you give just have a generic "founded in 1926", without any in-depth investigation of the founding history. I'm not aware of any source that gives 6 January 1953 as founding date of Luftag, but still goes on to claim that Lufthansa was founded in 1953. This is exactly what I want to point out all along: That often, the "history of the brand" approach is chosen (according to which Lufthansa was indeed founded in 1926, no question whatsoever). But this very Wikipedia article is not about the brand. It's about the current company. And therefore, sources must be found which tell the history of Luftag. Finally: Please note that as it stands now, the whole article supports the "founded in 1926" version. The category reads "Airlines established in 1953". There is the sentence "While Lufthansa claims DLH's history as its own, it is important to note that it is not the legal successor of the company founded in 1926.". Both have not been added recently, but are longstanding, accepted parts of the article. Only the infobox had this double 1926/1953 date. And yes, this is not acceptable to me, because it should be one company, one founding date. In order to explain the special situation at Lufthansa, I added the footnote. My edit was properly sourced, and it is the only logical possibility (because the company founded in 1953 is still around today, whilst the 1926 airline had by that time already been liquidated). Therefore (and — as you also might have missed — I had changed a few other things, too), I have reinstated the "founded in 1953, explanation in footnote" version. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As I don't want to let this drift into an edit war, I will not do any more edits to the infobox for the time being. For a better documentation of my edit, I give you the sources which I think quite well establish my point: Flight International (English), Der Spiegel (German) and Lexikon der Luftfahrt (German). And this is the text I had intended to be displayed as a footnote following the "founded in 1953 statement":--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The company that today is known as Deutsche Lufthansa AG was founded as Aktiengesellschaft für Luftverkehrsbedarf (Luftag) on 6 January 1953. It sees itself in the tradition of Deutsche Lufthansa, the former German national airline that was founded in 1926 and liquidated in 1951, whose name and logo it acquired in 1954. Therefore, Lufthansa frequently gives "1926" as its founding date, though from the legal point of view, it is not the assignee of the earlier airline.

Until we can decide what to put i have removed this as per WP:BOLD. It is impossible for a company to be founded twice. We can put it back when we decide whats happening. In the meantime i have asked an admin to look at this. --JetBlast (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Per FoxyOrange, the two airlines are/were separate entities. The Lufthansa website cannot be used to claim otherwise as it is not an independant third-party source but a primary source. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But what if there are other WP:RS that support Lufthansas' own claim - just ignore them? → → Forbes[26], European Union (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions)[27], Columbia University Press[28], BBC[29],[30]. --IIIraute (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these can be ignored. There is a reason, which I have stated above, but which you, IIIraute, does not seem to acknoledge. So, here it comes once again: One can either consider the Lufthansa brand (which was created in 1926, no doubt whatsoever), or the current company (that is, the legal entity). This very Wikipedia article clearly is about the company. The sources I provided in this discussion (and which User:Mjroots refers to) prove that the company today known as Lufthansa was founded on 6 January 1953, that it acquired the "Lufthansa" name only in 1954 (aircraft had been ordered earlier), and that it is not the legal successor/assignee of the pre-war airline. These references all have feature length with a significant depth of the analysis, and there is not a single source which claims something different (e.g. that Lufthansa were the legal successor of the pre-1945 company). Your sources (Forbes, BBC, etc.), though, mention the founding date only in a passing, trivial manner. As I pointed out above, there is indeed some confusion because Lufthansa itself gives 1926 as its founding date. It is only natural that "1926" is therefore taken up by other media. But Lufthansa has obviously chosen the brand name approach. It's sort of a business philosophy to display a long tradition. But this is not relevant for this Wikipedia article (that it, to the "founded in" item in the infobox), because it adheres to the company approach.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as someone not previously involved in this conversation – it does not really seem that uncommon for a company to try to push back its founding date and claim the history of another company after purchasing it or just reusing its brand name. Sources that are usually considered reliable are often willing to go along with such a manoeuvre, perhaps sometimes just to save the effort and space needed for explaining the details of the actual situation (or perhaps because they didn't bother to learn the actual details or just don't really care about the issue). In my opinion, Wikipedia should try to resist that sort of spin and ensure that the actual situation is made clear. And it seems pretty clear at this point (as described above) that the company currently known as Lufthansa is not the company founded in 1926 (regardless of what some sources may say). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

More sources to be considered

A quick search in a source that I often use mentions that the company was founded in 1926. Notwithstanding, the history of the company is also worth reading. A discussion similar to the one presented in the article is followed. To me, the current company was founded in the mid fifties, although the company traces its roots back to the mid-twenties.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the current airline was formed in the 1950s but takes up a history of the brand that goes back to the 1920s. As we already have an article on the earlier Luft Hansa it may be better to put a 1953 start date with a note similar to the suggested by FoxyOrange further up. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt know that! In my opinion Deutsche Luft Hansa should have a start date in the 1920's and Lufthansa to be 1953. --JetBlast (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

In the infobox, there is a long list of presumed Lufthansa subsidiaries. Per the respective Wikipedia article, this term defines "a company that is completely or partly owned and partly or wholly controlled by another company that owns more than half of the subsidiary's stock." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess only those companies should be listed, in which Lufthansa indeed holds a majority of the shares?! Surely, JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not considered Lufthansa subsidiaries? Also, Lufthansa Technik and LSG Sky Chefs (and maybe others?) should be listed there, as these are wholly owned (and btw Lufthansa Technik is abbrevated LHT, which seems to solve the above "mystery of the redirect".) Cheers, --FoxyOrange (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

JetBlue Airways and Luxair are not, they are just shareholders you are correct. I removed some hubs from other airlines from the info box before. --JetBlast (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the hubs, Lufthansa's website lists Vienna and Zurich as hubs for the airlines but in reality they are not as LH fly to 4 destinations from those cities. Vienna is a hub for Austrian Airlines and Zurich is a hub for Swiss International Air Lines (in which both are subisidiaries owned by Lufthansa). This information is about the airline itself not the parent company. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I performed an update from the last Lufthansa Financial report. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fleet images

Hi, A while back I removed some images from the article. All of them where just images of aircraft. Pretty much the same as others in the article. I removed them because they are just placed in the article to take up empty space and being decorative. For users who have a slower internet connection these type of images make the article load slower, not everyone in the world has high speed broadband. Also users with smaller screens, it can mess up how the article is displayed. I really don't see the point in having 8 Lufthansa aircraft all in the same area, they all pretty much look the same. The user WorldTraveller101 reverted this and i have reverted back. Judging from his past activity on 2 accounts he just keeps edit waring and doesn't bother with talk pages. He just keeps reverting to get his own way. So I wanted to see what others thought? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't see the need of placing an image for every aircraft in the fleet. I'd prefer showing images of long-haul aircraft, but that's just my likening. Three pictures are enough, that's for sure.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, following the removal of these images, the article now lacks visual identification for the Airbus A340-600 (of which Lufthansa is the largest operator) and the Boeing 747-8 (of which Lufthansa so far is the only operator of the passenger version). Concerning these two types, I think images are indeed needed (as long as there are images in a sufficient quality, of course). I would even go as far as to claim that it should be favorable to have one image of any aircraft type that is/was operated by an airline for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, photos of the Airbus A300, Airbus A310, Boeing 737-100/200, a Boeing 747-100/200 and possibly others in Lufthansa colors should be included, as Lufthansa operated considerable numbers of these types, which clearly shows a significance for the aviation industry. Adding such images is not just decoration, but informative (the article must not be slanted towards current aircraft types, as notability is not temporary). Of course, when the article gets too long, certain content might be reorganized at something like History of Lufthansa, but in my opinion article lenth should not be used as an argument against adding images. On the other hand, currently there are images of Air Dolomiti, Air Malta and Lufthansa Cityline aircraft in the Lufthansa article. Indeed, these seem to be purely decorative and therefore should be removed. As a side note, I am much more concerned about the large number of aircraft images added to some airport articles, which do not seem to add any value to the article (as they do not contain any information about the airport itself). It is by no means favorable to add an image of any airline that serves a certain airport (take Frankfurt Airport as an example). --FoxyOrange (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I did remove a poor quality 747-8 image. Any aircraft that is unusual or not very common should be on i agree but not endless images of 737, A320's 747's etc. There are a few old aircraft images already in the article. --JetBlast (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments concerning the year Lufthansa was founded in

There is an ongoing dispute over the founding date of Lufthansa. See RFC-section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Germany#Request_for_comments_concerning_the_year_Lufthansa_was_founded_in to add your comments. GermanJoe (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please change logo from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/27/Lufthansa-Logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.179.19.224 (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Better sources needed for several Lufthansa hijackings

Hi all, I just went through the "Hijackings" list, flagging all incidents which only have a single reference, an entry at the Aviation Safety Network. As this website is essentially user-generated, other sources to back the ASN info are needed. Unfortunately, I did not succeed in finding anything these incidents in any other sources during a quick search. Therefore, these (minor) hijackings might be regarded non-notable as well. To be fair, I have to add that I believe that I added those to the Lufthansa article myself some time ago.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the designation "flag carrier" still correct?

I've just reverted an edit by which the lead statement "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" was removed. I feel that this should be discussed first (per WP:BRD). According to Wikipedia, a flag carrier "enjoys preferential rights or privileges accorded by the government for international operations." Is this still true? If so, what are Lufthansa's privileges? In any case, please note that the ownership status (whether being state or privately owned) is irrelevant here. Best regards--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"German flag-carrier Lufthansa appears to have cancelled orders for three Airbus A380s."[31] --IIIraute (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but is this really sufficient? I mean, are we really listing airlines as "flag carriers" simply because a magazine has called them this way? This source is also used at the flag carrier article to justify Lufthansa being listed as such, but come to think of it, all we can extract is that "even though not being state-owned anymore, Lufthansa is still frequently identified as German flag carrier." The question remains: What are the alleged "preferential rights or privileges"?--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR to me. There are literally hundreds of WP:RS describing Lufthansa as the "flag carrier", "national carrier", or "national airline" of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• To make my point perfectly clear, I think that Lufthansa is rightfully called "flag carrier of Germany" (which is why I reverted the edit that sparked this discussion). The only thing is that, come to think of it, I cannot say why this should be true. Obviuosly, I have encountered a problem with the definition of the term "flag carrier" and have therefore just initiated another discussion about this broader topic.--FoxyOrange (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The matter is that a reliable source backing up the content is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nevert thought about that, but I assume that the source above (I added it to Flag carrier, BTW) has checked all the conditions mentioned.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Having recalled that previous argument between me and User:IIIraute, I once again explained the matter using a footnote. Cheers--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is your definition of the term flag carrier ⇒ "an airline that is or was owned by a government, often with the name of the country in its name", like "Deutsche Lufthansa AG", for example. (Definition of flag carrier noun from the Cambridge Business English Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)[32] --IIIraute (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since I had been the editor who restored the "Lufthansa is the flag carrier of Germany" bit, the burden was on me to find a reference for this statement. Note: It's indeed no problem to find a source calling Lufthansa "the German flag carrier", but in order to prove that Lufthansa is the German flag carrier, I encountered the question: "What makes an airline a flag carrier, after all?" I was unsure whether I should follow the Wikipedia definition (flag carrier=privileged airline) or if I should simply follow "flag carrier= airline called as such". Similar to the question "When was Lufthansa founded", there is no simple answer (or rather, the answer is a matter of debate), which is why I added an explanatory note.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

An explanatory note is fine with me, I actually like them a lot. Nevertheless, the one you added has no sources.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I placed two refs directly behind the footnote (one for "today, Lufthansa is (still) called flag carrier" and one for "until 1994, Lufthansa was the German flag carrier, no doubt whatsoever"). Technical question: How do I put refs inside footnotes? Is this possible at all?--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done it for you. Please check that that is what you wanted. You may practise with the other note inside the infobox --Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again; now I'm feeling somewhat silly because there hasn't been any problem putting refs into footnotes. For the past half year, I had somehow been under the impression this wouldn't work. How strange.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Average age of the fleet

Isn't there any information about the average age of the Lufthansa fleet? 112.198.82.170 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not that important as it is never reported by reliable sources, most sites that do have average age are enthusiast sites which are not the reliable and dont give an indication that anybody else thinks it is of note. MilborneOne (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Flag carrier

Time to learn: Those who insist since years in Lufthansa being a flag carrier (even only de facto) should deliver proofs. 77.12.191.242 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit origin

On numerous occasions someone has added a second theory (or replaces the established theory) of the origin of the name "Lufthansa" with a statement that the name derives from Sanskrit. The theory varies from time to time and no credible explanation or source is ever given. It now reads "The other [naming theory] is that the word was designed by F.A. Fischer von Poturzyn, who had written a book of the same name, in which he detailed the word Lufthansa as an amalgamation of two Sanskrit words: 'Lupth' and 'Hansa'." First, there is no real reason to doubt the officially stated etymology of German "Luft" (air) + "Hansa" (the medieval Hanseatic league). Also, the currently posted Sanskrit theory is dubious since the common Sanskrit word for air is vayu, not "lupth". While I am no expert in Sanskrit, I have not been able to find anything to substantiate that the Sanskrit word "lupht" (which appears contrived to match the German "Luft") even exists.

I think the background to this is that there do exist historical relationships between Germany and India (that were especially strong pre WWII) and a shared Indo-European linguistic background. With regard to the part of the theory that "-hansa" should refer to a swan or crane rather than the Hanseatic league, there is an interesting and real link between the German word for goose (Gans) and the Sanskrit word for the same bird, which is exactly the same: "Gans".

I am removing the theory of a Sanskrit origin of the name since it is both highly improbable and not supported by any evidence at all. Thracia91 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement?

Is it allowed here for Wikipedia is declared as non commercial?--65.220.39.79 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)