Talk:American Airlines/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Posts Previously Above

I moved posts that were above the TOC to here. It makes the page more streamlined without removing previous posts. (Edwardlay (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

I removed the reference to a large new 737 order that was apparently to be announced at the Paris Airshow that had a reference to the flighblogger blog. The airshow has come and gone with no order from AA. It was also a rumor posted on a blog, so should it have been there anyways? 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-reverted the change to the sub-type of American's Airbus aircraft, which is in fact properly designated as the A300B4-605R, not just A300-600 according to Simon Forty's book, American Airlines published by ABC/Plymouth Press in 1997.

Travelsonic 22:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The article claimed that American flew over 98 million route passenger miles in 2005. This seems off as a single airplane can fly many more than that. I deleted the statement. Does anyone have a correct figure?


does any body know who is editing alaska airlines? they say someone is attacking us here!----------------

I slightly edited this page to delete an inaccurate paragraph. A paragraph stated that after the fall of Pan Am, Eastern and TWA in the early 1990s American Airlines became the most profitable publically traded airline. I'm not sure if this is correct. For one thing, TWA remained in business until 2001 when it was acquired by American Airlines. Additionally, I recall reading in multiple sources that United Airlines had made the most profits of any airline in history in the late 1990s, so it seems that there existed sufficient doubt over the validity of that paragraph for me to axe it.

If anyone has any information here which could go more into depth on this it would be worthwhile to discuss...


I think it's an injustice to Cord to call him a "corporate raider." Raiders are the guys who buy a company, sell off its component parts, and leave. Cord did shuffle companies around a bit, but he was trying to build an empire, not destroy something. He bought Duesenberg, then a makr of excellent cars, and turned it into a company whose cars still inspire awe 70 years later. Then he added Auburn, transforming that into a company whose products made people sit up, take notice, and buy. Then he started a new line, Cord.

I'm less familiar with his involvement in aircraft, but he did seem to be trying to build up something there, too.

Ivan Berger Fanwood, NJ

When gay couples are a terrorist threat

This [1] may be worthy of inclusion to some degree or another within the article. --AWF

Deletion of External Links by Sekicho

Sekicho, Can you please explain why in the American Airlines External Links you deleted a link placed by at 15:02 on 24 October 2004 (UTC) without a proper explanation, Putting "giving up and rv'ing to last stable version" is not a proper explanation. I checked out the site myself and there is legitimate material relating to American Airlines and the events of September 11, 2001 Terrorist attacks. It's not like it is a spam site and in fact there are several Wikipedia articles that link to that site and have been for quite a while. Misterrick 09:37, 25 October 2004 (UTC).

I didn't intend to delete that link, actually (I was just trying to get rid of all the vandalism and I reverted to one version earlier than I should have). That said, now that I'm looking at the link, I think it doesn't really belong here. It's not about the airline: it's about 9/11, which was a single event that involved the airline as an unwilling accomplice. Nothing substantial is said of AA that couldn't be gleaned from reading Wikipedia's articles on 9/11. - Sekicho 10:36, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
See I have to disagree with you here, Yes it is about 9/11 but since both American Airlines and United Airlines were victims in this "Single Event" as you call it there are bound to be people who want to know more about what happened and I feel that the person who created this site is providing historical information. Misterrick 18:10, 26 October 2004 (UTC).

I agree with all of what you've just said. However:

(1) Visitors have many options in finding out more. They can click on September 11, 2001 attacks, they can click on American Airlines Flight 11, they can click on World Trade Center... they can even click on Betty Ong. We don't need an external link to provide historical information because virtually all of it has been wikified already.

(2) More importantly, a 9/11-related website is not "on point" to an article written about American Airlines. 9/11 makes up only a small part of American's history, and likewise, American was only an accessory to the incident. It makes sense to link Max Miller's site from 9/11 and AA11, because his web site tells a lot about both. However, a person is not going to learn more about American Airlines from Max's site. We don't have a link to Max Miller from al-Qaida or from terrorism, even though his web site has a great deal to do with both, because his web site doesn't tell people anything about either!

(3) "External links" are not merely "related links." Their purpose is to provide access to content that cannot be reproduced (for legal, technical, or whatever reasons) on Wikipedia, and they should be as relevant to the content matter as possible. In this case, while Max Miller's site is related to American Airlines, it is not relevant to an article about American Airlines any more than a web site about Columbine High School is relevant to an article about Michael Moore.

You seem to imply that I have some sort of evil motivation to wipe 9/11 from history. I don't. I'm just trying to exercise good editorial discretion. As a lawyer-in-training, I dislike the "parade of horrors" analysis, but it fits here: if we allow external links with only slight correlation to article content, we're going to end up with a ton of external links that aren't useful. There are a lot of articles that Max Miller's web site should be linked from. American Airlines and United Airlines just don't happen to be such articles. Sekicho 03:08, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

American Airlines edit

I edited this page to add a fact. It is true that when American Airlines became a subsidiary of AMR Corporation, AMR kept AA's original New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol. AMR stiil has it today.

Anyone is free to debate this fact.


I deleted the first picture of the 777, because there is already a picture of the aircraft type. It looks a little bit better, because the airplanes are all different types.


Aircraft Fleet

I changed the number of aircraft from 840, to 806, because in the book, "Ask the Pilot", written by Patrick Smith, he states that American Airlines has the largest aircraft fleet with 806 aircraft.CJS102793 13:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That book is a year old. the AA website says they have 710 in the AA fleet and 286 in the American Eagle fleet. I've changed the page to reflect that. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 21:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I need to go to more often. I just touched it up a bit. MOO!CJS102793 22:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Kind of curious the world's largest airline is not operating any 747 (and also has not ordered any A380). Seems you don't need to operate the largest planes in order to be the biggest airline . . . . 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

767-223 Retirement

I have edited the AA fleet size to 705 due to the 8/5/05 decommissioning of seven 767-223 airframes due to be scrapped. 11 767-223ER and 1 767-223 remain in the AA fleet.

- Mike @ DFW


How does the web page noted verify LGA, JFK, and BOS as hubs? I checked it out, and it does not mention anything about those airports being considered hubs.Chaz 16:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The caption to the lower right of [2] says "hub cities are shown in all caps," which has been a convention on AA's route maps as far back as I can remember. Given AA's dramatic expansion at these airports in recent years it makes sense that they would consider these airports to be proper hubs now... - Sekicho 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Aside from other hubs and focus cities, AA serves 15 destinations from Logan. These are either in the Caribbean/Latin America or Europe (with a couple coast-to-coast flights). The route structure AA has around this airport is point-to-point, not for connections. LaGuardia has 13 destinations other than hubs and focus cities. It has a number of flights to the southern US and the Caribbean, but no one is going to connect in LaGuardia to go from Atlanta to St. Thomas, for example. Having a major presence at an airport does not constitute a hub; an airline has to have coordinated incoming and outgoing flights to allow for connections. Dbinder 01:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, San Juan is not in caps on their site, but everyone considers that a hub. Dbinder 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed BOS, JFK, and LGA to hubs, since their caps on the site [3]Chaz 21:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if we're going by the "in caps" standard, then I'm removing San Juan. Dbinder 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Either the page goes by the "in caps" standard from AA's website, or it goes by the airports that realistically function as hubs. Since the majority seem to want to go by what AA says, San Juan is not a hub in that case, so I am removing it and will continue to do so. Dbinder 20:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

    • According to AA's 10-K filing for FY 2005, "American operates five hubs: Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), Chicago O’Hare, Miami, St. Louis and San Juan, Puerto Rico." Not JFK or LGA as the infobox currently states. -choster 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BOS is still listed as a hub. I changed the infobox to reflect that.Chaz 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps listing BOS as not being a hub? It's still in caps on their site, and I'll change it back to being listed as a hub Chaz 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Boston is a hub for American Eagle, but not AA mainline. The airline's own 2005 legal filing did not list it as a hub. It specifically stated that DFW, Miami, San Juan, St. Louis, and Chicago were hubs; nothing else. The map included cities in caps if they are mainline or Eagle hubs; the article is only about the mainline, however. The American Eagle article should include Boston and New York. Furthermore, if you insist on using the standard that a city must be in caps on the map, then remove San Juan from the list of hubs, since that is in lowercase on the route map. Dbinder 16:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one putting San Juan on the hubs list. Chaz 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See the infobox citation. QualityControl3533 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines does not have 5 hubs.... It only has DFW/MIA/ORD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The bug

I have worked at American for 15 plus years...and never heard the eagle called the bug.

TfD nomination of Template:OTA

Template:OTA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

WikiProject Texas silliness

Seriously, this is an article with very little Texas content. Is this really necessary? Does everyone feel the need to emblazon their pet project's stamp on articles? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Reno Air

Reno Air should really have its own article and not just be a forward to the American Airlines article. Unforunately, I don't have enough info on them even to start a stub. I know they operated MD-80s, MD-87s, and MD-90s, and had hubs in RNO and SJC, and from this article we can get the date they were acquired by AA. For a short time, Mid Pacific Air operated Reno Air Express flights using Jetstream 31s. That's about all I can think of at the moment. If someone can at least come up with a year they started, that ought to be enough to create a stub. -- Hawaiian717 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Found a start date and started the Reno Air article. -- Hawaiian717 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-Notable Incident

I have removed the following addition by MED777 to the Incidents and accidents section as I would consider a diversion due to a cockpit indicator, with a safe landing to be non-notable:

*An MD80 bound for Los Angeles (AA2261) was forced to return to the Denver International on
May03th 2006 evening for an emergency landing after the crew got a nose gear warning. The aircraft, which
departed around 9:30pm made a safe landing around 10:30pm.

-- Hawaiian717 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

AA Logos (Bird & Stylized) - Suggested Reformat

Not sure how to do it myself, but I think that the bird logo and the sylized "American Airlines" should appear in the same box, with a white background. In the blue cell, it should have "American Airlines" in standard bold font, similar to other pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean.estrada (talkcontribs) 2006-07-20 23:11:37 (UTC)

You got a link/example for that? I've corrected the problem that the airline name had been replaced with an image - so it's now just the AA logo. wangi 23:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not really the highest quality image, but something like this as a single image at the top of the table: It used to be two separate images. I'm still new at this, but I think what needs to happen is the two images need to be combined to one, and the plain text "American Airlines" stay where it is in the blue background. To me it just "looks" better i guess. --Sean.estrada 09:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the current logo is better. It seems too thin and the font looks wrong. I think [4] looks good but without the slogan (I don't think its current). [5] would be perfect if it were in color. I don't know how to convert the EPS to SVG though. -- Hawaiian717 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured out how to do it with Inkscape and replaced the logo. -- Hawaiian717 05:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me (or my computer), or does the blue on the logo looks very different than the blue in the official logo? It seems too bright. The logos from Brands of the World look good, but the one uploaded to wikipedia looks different. Any way we can fix it? -- Rover007TN 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Largest Company ?

According to List of largest airlines, AA is not the largest company in terms of passengers (and AF-KLM is said to be the 5th). Since I couldn't have any real confirmation I didn't change the article, but if someone could double check that would be great :) Lucasbfr 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the American Airlines (AA) article is missing just a few things. Altho I use Wikipedia often, I am just starting to figure out how to work the "behind the scenes" stuff. But I do feel that the AA article should at least mention Americans pionering of the "Admirals Club" and should mention that they are the only legacy carrier that has not (at one point or another) filed for bankruptcy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Many other legacy carriers have not filed for bankruptcy.....Singapore Airlines, British Airways, Scandinavian Airlines, etc. In the US, Alaska Airlines is the only other legacy carrier that hasn't filed for bankruptcy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Merging Admirals Club

As many major US carriers already have done so, we might as well do it for this page as well. See Admirals Club discussion page for more reasons why I believe it should be merged.--Golich17 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging AAdvantage

As many major US carriers already have done so, we might as well do it for this page as well. See AAdvantage discussion page for more reasons why I believe it should be merged.--Golich17 19:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Some deranged individual added a line to the "incidents" page

On the incident's page, someone added the lines "crashed intentionally by our government" under the Sept. 11th crashes row. Please delete. ```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spdr386 (talkcontribs) 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Also, this page is being edited to say that Flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly on September 11, 2001. This conspiracy theory is based on an online database not having those two flights (United's 175 and 93 are there). It is a database of on-time statistics, and AA elected not to submit on-time stats for their two flights. Please keep an eye out for this falsehood being put onto this page. --Joseph.nobles 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Complaint links

There's a discussion at Talk:Delta Air Lines#Complaint Links about the removal of the links to the complaints bulletin boards (such as, these complaints bulletin boards are all from one company and have minimal information) from airline articles. I invite you to discuss this change there. --Matt 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Check This

Microsoft owns American Air? I don't think so, can someone check this out? D-hyo 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did this come from? AA is owned by AMR Corp. MRasco 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Admirals club.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Admirals club.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aadvantagelogo.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Aadvantagelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont you guys think an AA.Com section should be added to this website?Arigont 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What would be in this proposed section? ( 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC))


I was thinking about adding some details on American's seats, like there are on other Airline pages. However, I thought it would be neat if we also listed seats under airline type, as this would be neat for anyone who was flying on American to see what is on that plane. I was thinking the normal section, just like the other pages, detailing all of the classes and seats. But then I would add a chart, with aircraft, type of seat, pitch, and future plans. The type of seat category would tell which type of seat from the details above. I think this would be a good addition to the fleet section, and is easy to do as American only has about 8 types of planes. I'm probably going to add this section soon, as I cannot see any objections, but if you do please just comment here and I'm sure we can make a very nice section. ( 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

  • There is a web site,, that has a very good set of seat information for most airlines and aircraft. An external link may be appropriate to avoid simply duplicating their research and service. User:RichardTallent —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:22, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

Incidents and accidents, Hextic

That's enough Hextic. NYyankees51 22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


I want to know why this page recently had about twenty edits that ended up with the page in its 2006 form. I saw some member with an IP revert it, and now it seems normal. I am personally going to be watching this page for vandalism and will be deleting it. If you have something major to add, it should be mentioned here and waited upon until there are no objections. Thank you. (Edwardlay 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

  • I also noticed that the IP person may have deleted some good edits. If you notice that that person did that to your post, please just add it, don't revert any more. I am going to try and add as many good edits done by registered users as I can. Thanks(Edwardlay 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

This article has been hit by so much vandalism because it hit the front page of yesterday. Apparently the line about Flights 11 and 77 not being scheduled on 9/11 and therefore could not have been hijacked was added by an IP address belonging to American Airlines. Some diggers didn't understand that all this means is that any of AA's hundreds of employees or customers on a WIFI connection they provide could have done that and retaliated against the company by vandalizing the page. This is no longer on the front page of digg and within a few days all should settle back to normal. wraithfivefa 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for explaining that to me. Pretty interesting, but whatever debate or thoughts do not belong here. It seems everything is normal now. Thanks (Edwardlay 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

Okay, I believe I have added any changes that were important that the revert deleted. Everything seems back to normal, please let me know of any other problems. Thank you. (Edwardlay 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

OK, but the most important thing is whether the info provided is correct, regardless of the IP address.

The info contained the reference

Any further thoughts anyone? I think this information is defiantly relevant to the article, if I am interested in incidents with this airline then I want to know this information. Catonz 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find the information on that site. I couldn't figure out where to go. Can you link deeper? Also, I don't think the information is relevant in this article. It's too deep for this article. It can go in the individual incident articles. --Matt 14:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I never saw any of that debate on the page. I only saw the completely destroyed page that was saved by the revert. If you want to add some informtaion on that, please start a new section in this discusiion page so you can get other people's opinion and we can get a consensus. Thanks. (Edwardlay 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC))


I edited the incidents section to include information about the veracity of the Pentagon claim. Before anyone gets into some kind of dispute or edit war, please do your research about the incident and verify that this event actually took place. To date, there has been no known photograph taken at the 'crash site' showing an identifiable evidence that this disaster ever took place; Placing blame upon AA is therefore technically wrong and therefore, this section should be amended to exonerate them. MiracleMat 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

According to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Pentagon not hit by a Boeing 757, even most conspiracy theorists would disagree with you. This image disagrees with you. This article is about the company, and as such these incidents are appropriately included in the article. If you have an issue with this, please bring it up on the American Airlines Flight 77 article. --Matt 17:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
THAT'S all you have!??! and you actually believe an AIRPLANE hit the Pentagon. Where are the wings, the engines, the luggage, the BODIES. You, my friend, are an IDIOT (and a lemming). Stop trying to convince me and first convince yourself. So I guess you believe everything your government tells you. Let me get you that link to some swampland on the MOON! MiracleMat 17:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is not for this page. You may discuss it elsewhere. I also invite you to read WP:REDFLAG and WP:NPA. --Matt 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

== it look like advertise == This article clearly looks like advertise from the company that goes against the Wiki-policy please do not split this article and it needs more information about de lay off they been doing the pass years How many people? why is not showing this here? and the administration going of the company--Andresvzla (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Is it just me or does this article reads somewhat like a commercial endoresement written by the company itself? The list of external References is quite telling. Shouldn't there be a section called "Criticism" where customer complaints etc are at least mentioned? Regards, Nsk92 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1993 Strike information

I came here looking for information on the successful 1993 strike by American Airline Attendants that shut down the airline. I only found information on the unsuccessful 1997 strike by American Airline Pilots. Is that intentional? Looking at the comments here, it seems like this entry is controlled entirely by American Airlines. Can't they pay for their own bandwidth and leave history alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LHR focus city?

Should LHR really be a focus city? Someone has added it to the airline's infobox and I was wondering if AA identifies LHR as a focus city? Bucs2004 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello. That would be me that added that. I forgot to sign in. But anyway, I added it because I have heard it refernce in Avaitaition articles, on the grounds that American flyies many, many flights into there. They operate flights from Boston, Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth [begins March 29], Los Angeles, Miami, New York-JFK, Raleigh/Durham [begins March 29. Some of these are not from their hubs, so it's more than just a normal city. Also, if you try to book a flight to somewhere in Europe, Afirca, and some other places on, they will route you though Heathrow. Anyway, let me know what you think. I would love to have a discusiion on this, as I am no dictator. By the way, I apprciate you not just deleting it as some other members would have done. (Edwardlay 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
  • Also, RDU is a focus city and it has 7 flights to AMS, the same as LHR. And I noticed that in the NWA page, Amsterdam is a hub. They also have 6 or 7 flights into there, same as AA into LHR. The only difference is that NWA declared AMS as a hub. AA has not declared LHR as a hib, so it cannot be listed as a hub. But I believe it fits the criteria for a focus city. (Edwardlay 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
American just happens to have a very large presence (about 16 or 17 daily flights) at LHR (the largest, if I'm not mistaken, of all the non-British (or at least non-European) airlines there). All of those cities you listed as having LHR service are either focus cities or hubs. The reason AA tends to route Europe/Africa/etc.-bound passengers thorugh LHR is because those passengers pick up connecting flights on British Airways, one of AA's codeshare partners (as well as a fellow member of oneworld. While LHR is a very important destination for AA, it is not a focus city.
Also, I don't know where you are getting your data from, but RDU has zero flights to AMS.
On the subject of NWA, AMS is a hub for them because not only do they recognize it as such, but because they have flights from AMS to non-hub/focus cities (like Hartford). It is also the main hub for NWA's partner airline, KLM. MRasco 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • About the RDU part, I made an edit I shouldn't have to my own writing. I wanted to compare AMS and NWA to LHR and AA. I also wanted to show that RDU was essentially the same as LHR. I think before we make this call, we need to come to a conclusion on what a focus city is. My opinion was that AA focuses much of their traffic through LHR, for the reason you said so. Also, could you expalin yourself more about why LHR is not a focus city? Thanks. (Edwardlay 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
And you said that AMS is hub for NWA because it's parter, KLM, is based their. But AA's partner, BA, has a hub at LHR? (Edwardlay 02:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
Hi, I just said we need to come up with a def for a focus city, but we can't. We need to use Wikipedia's. And it is "In the airline industry, a focus city is a location that is not a hub, but from which the airline has non-stop flights to several destinations other than its hubs." I believe LHR fits that definition. Thanks (Edwardlay 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
I mentioned the NWA/KLM relationship as one of the reasons that AMS is an NWA hub (i.e. they built it up to be a hub because of the partnership; but that discussion is for NWA's talk page, not AA's).
Back on topic, I feel the key word here is "several". Looking at AA's LHR-focus city operations (since there are no flights outside of AA's hubs and focus cities from LHR), you see 2 daily flights each to LAX and BOS (though I have read in a discussion forum that one of the BOS flights may be cut, but that's irrelevant here), and will have 1 daily flight to RDU (allowing JFK to be a hub, though it has "secondary" status on AA's article). This totals 5 daily flights to 3 non-hub cities (not quite "several"). In addition, my feeling is that many people (including me) do not count focus cities as "not a hub" when determining focus city status for other destinations. You make some good points, but ultimately I feel LHR shouldn't be considered a focus city: it simply doesn't have enough non-stop flights to "several" non-hub cities to be called a focus city. Besides, LHR hasn't been noted as a focus city before (as far as I know), and I don't see the need to do so now. MRasco 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. It looks like we must agree to disagree. That's fine with me. I think now we just need to wait for more opinions, as it's only me and you and we diagree, leaving no reoslution. So, I'll be waiting for some other members to share their thoughts here. Thanks, (Edwardlay 19:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
  • LHR isn't a focus city; it's a nothing. It just happens to be a destination that has service from all but three (STL, SJU, LGA) of AA's hubs/secondary hubs/focus cities. Unlike KL/NW, AA/BA doesn't have cross-ownership of each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportFriend (talkcontribs) 23:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

28 September Incident

I have removed the incident a number of times, it is not really notable, nobody hurt and the aircraft was not substantially damaged. An IP user keeps adding it back. Please discuss before you add it back why you think that a minor incident is notable enough. Thank You. MilborneOne 21:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Poorly designed section: Fleet

The American Airlines fleet section is overwhelmingly based on current events ("now-centric") and contains almost no historical information, which is where an encyclopedia should excel. What historical information there is is at the top of the article and is focused almost entirely on business aspects and organization. Furthermore, for some reason there's an entire article called "American Airlines fleet" which is almost exactly identical to the "American Airlines fleet" section. Can something be done about this? I don't want to start chopping up other people's work if someone is trying to nurture this area. -Rolypolyman (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the Fleet section (and the associated separate article) and was going to comment about it, but I see you have already written almost exactly what I was going to write! I say go ahead and "start chopping" Rolypolyman! Ozzieboy (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The Fleet section on the main AA page really is a nightmare! People have been updating info on the main page and not on the additional page and vice versa. I have made a start on trying to make the fleet tables on each page identical, but it's driving me crazy trying to work out which one is the most up-to-date. The Fleet section DEFINITELY needs to be whittled down and the majority of the info kept in the separate article. Ozzieboy (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggest dont try and make them the same - move all the fleet data to American Airlines fleet and just make a simple list of current aircraft in this article without all the facts and figures. Some of the text is duplicated so again I would suggest just a simple text summary on this page and move all the detail to the fleet article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I will look at doing that next when I have time, unless someone does it first. For the moment, the tables are the same on both pages, so if someone else makes a start on it, at least they won't have to work out which one has the more accurate information.Ozzieboy (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

has anyone noticed that the fleet...

the fleet is completely innacurate. the website ( that there are a combo of 300 MD-80 jets, and the number of 757's has decreased by 1 and as well with the B767-200's, which, in addition, nowhere in the website states that they are extended range aircraft. will someone please check this out?Duhhitsminerva (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


I have removed the text about only five passengers on a transatlantic flight twice (once from accidents and incidents) and user User:Inetpup has added it back in with the comment please discuss. This is not a notable or an uncommon event and needs to be removed again. Any comments from other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's non notable. Where are the environmental groups when an empty 777 goes somewhere? American needed to get the plane there, happened to have passengers that should have been on the flight originally and needed to get there, and staff that had to get there, so why fly it empty? --Matt (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Though, I'm not the original author, someone regrettably removed this text:
  • March 6, 2008: Five people were the only passengers on a transatlantic flight, causing environmental groups to criticize the carrier for leaving a wasteful carbon footprint. Using about 68,000 liters (15,000 imperial gallons) -- or 13,000 liters per passenger -- of jet fuel for the nine-hour trip from Chicago to London, American Airlines is being accused of waste.[1]
Do others (besides MilborneOne and Mlaroche) feel this should be removed? I think it should be in a controversies section. Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be removed. This wasn't a notable incident, just something that ticked off a few environmental groups. American Airlines and other airlines fly planes almost empty more often than is reported (usually for maintenance and aircraft positioning purposes). This flight wasn't the first of its kind, and certainly won't be the last. MRasco 20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you suggest an environmental groups article or list of environmental incidents article, where this text could be posted? Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Expansion in 1980s and 1990s

This section is confusing, at the beginning it says: "In the late 1980s, American opened three new hubs for north-south traffic. San Jose International Airport was added as a hub after American purchased Reno Air." This didn't happen untiln 1999 but then later it says that AA sold it's facilities to Reno Air, which according to the section was bought by AA years earlier. Could sombody please tidy this up? Thank you. (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Richicago

Downgrade hub status of KSJU (Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport)

It looks like AA has dumped this hub effective 03-September. What should we downgrade to? Secondary hub? Focus city? Let me know. Thanks! --Inetpup (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ORD hub

Is ORD still AA's second largest hub or is it now AA's smallest hub? (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but on the info box they're listed alphabetically, not by size. --Matt (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


I am bringing this to this discussion as JesseW and I disagree as to the relevance of this section and information. I removed the catering section, as I do not see it as being relevant.

While it isn't binding, I think this article is quite relevant. Who caters American Airlines is important to Gate Gourmet and LSG Sky Chefs, but not as much to American Airlines. This is the slippery slope toward becoming a directory of links loosely related to American Airlines which falls under what wikipedia is not. I would argue that American Airline's internet provider (Verizon) is even more relevant than the caterer as almost all of their customers use their internet site/connectivity to their database to order tickets, whereas not everyone drinks a soda while onboard. But I wouldn't list AA's internet provider in the article.

At best this should be integrated into the article elsewhere, I checked and I am not sure where it would fit. —Cliffb (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The only one of the 6 US legacy carriers that doesn't use Gate Gourmet is US Airways, according to the Gate Gourmet article. Means they're pretty ubiquitous, and probably not that important to be mentioned for American. LSG Sky Chefs is used by at least half of the US legacy carriers, so I feel the same way as Cliffb - people onboard don't know if the seats are made by Recaro, or if their food is catered by Gate Gourmet. I'd say it's non-notable. --Matt (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that does explain things much better. Thank you both for your comments on this. I agree that it's not appropriate to put have a section on Catering that only consists of links. About mentioning it at all -- while your points are certainly reasonable, I still think a sentence of the form, "Like most other US legacy carriers, American uses Gate Gourmet and LSG Sky Chefs as caterers." is appropriate. (But we might as well leave it out until someone gets around to finding a citation for it...) As for mentioning American's ISP -- if you have a citation to back up the claim that American's web presence is handled through Verizon, please do include it. "Loosely related" doesn't seem a fair description of companies with a large, long-standing contractual relationship with the subject of the article. I think mentioning all the major contractors used by American (at least, those we can verify) would be a benefit to the article, not a detriment. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page! JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't create notability - other sources do (newspapers, media, etc). I still think listing off the verifiable vendors would fail any notability tests. I agree with Cliffb about the relevance of content tie in: how is American affected by Gate Gourmet? (A little, but aren't caterers somewhat interchangeable to the public?) How is American affected by having Verizon as their ISP? (I'd argue extremely little.) Listing off vendors without why we should care about them in relation to American Airlines goes against the notability guidelines. --Matt (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
What does their internet service provider have to do with the price of tea in China? Other than their RS being SABRE none of that matters!QualityControl3533 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you define (or link to) the acronyms you use? By RS, are you referring to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, or something else? And as for SABRE, is your use mentioned in that article? Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The issues of third-party mention are certainly reasonable; I (or anyone else, if they wish) will see what I can dig up in terms of third-party discussions of American's catering, and the companies that provide it. The same can and should be done with regards to the contractors, if any, for their web presence. That's the bottom line -- if we can find third-party discussions of these topics, we should include them; otherwise, we shouldn't. Nevertheless, possible ways Gate Gourmet affects American range from their food safety practices leading to illness or lack thereof among American's customers, the prices they charge American leading rather directly to changes in the prices American charges it's customers, etc. In order to determine if any of these possibilities are real, we need to find citations. Until then, I agree, the names should not be mentioned. -- JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was referring to their reservations system which happens to be SABRE which is actually owned by AMR Corp. Perhaps if you wish to incorporate technology into the articles then we should stick to things like that rather than what their Internet Service Providers are as they may not wish that to be public knowledge in attempt to maintain the security and integrety of their internal computer networks. The Internet Sevice Provider used by those in the corporate office has no impact on the operation of, saftey of, or the customer experience with the airlines. The catering is also not as pertinent because it can differ based on which hub or station the plane is originating from and really is not critical to an airlines operation unless one of their contractors is unsafe in which case the customer should probably be made aware of that. QualityControl3533 (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hub/Focus City List

We need to do something to ensure that this switching of the list back to order of operation size from aplhabetical doesn't happen anymore as it has become a rampant problem within this article and reverting and explaining doesn't keep it from happening again. Thoughts everyone?? -WikipediaFlyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find this rule? Half of the airline articles list hubs by size while the others list hubs in aplhabetical order...If someone could look up the rule they might end this edit war. Spikydan1 17:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikydan1 (talkcontribs)

Dont think their is a particular rule it is normal to use alphabetical order for lots of things as it saves having arguments about how they should be sorted (date, size, weight, mines more important etc). Obviously doesnt work here! All I think is needed is a concensus on this talk page to use alphabetical. Perhaps it should also be discussed at Template talk:Infobox Airline and some words added to the template guide. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
uhhhhh....look at the other airline's pages. They have their hubs listed by size don't they??? Look at WP:AIRLINES at Air Canada's infobox. They have their hubs listed by size and not listed lapha order. And don't go around changing that cause that would be vandalism. (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

American Eagle/Flagship Airlines

There is a link in the American Eagle article labled "Flaghsip Airlines" which must not be watched on a regular basis by anyone, but if you could click that and address the issues presented there and participate in the discussion that has been started on the article's talk page that it links to that would be great. Thanks everybody! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

SJU still a hub or now a focus city?

Does anyone know if AA demoted San Juan from a hub to a focus city? Since the change was suppose to take effect on September 3, should we put SJU in the focus cities section of the infobox or should we leave it as a hub? Cashier freak (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • According to AMR's 2008 10K, SJU is still considered a hub, though that may change in the next filing— the website has already backtracked a bit, grouping it as a hub but drawing a distinction between SJU on one hand and DFW, ORD, MIA, and STL on the other. There is no official, objective delineation between a hub and a focus city, and so we fall back on the airlines' own characterizations of their networks. -choster (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Largest airline in what regard?

Delta has a fleet twice the size with the Northwest merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your question....If you are asking for the largest passenger airline by fleet size it is stil AA until NW and Delta start operating as one airline (That may be up to a year from now). Spikydan1 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1970 fleet composition table

I have reverted the removal of the table because it seems justified as a sourced data point for historical comparison.

The concern was raised that "1970" was an arbitrary choice. While I am not troubled by that, perhaps we should explore why "1970"? Proofreader77 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the 1970 tables to airline articles, why 1970 because it is an interesting point in time, the first generation jets (and propliners) were still in-service and the 747s was just entering service. Also a lot of airlines had plans to operate both supersonic aircraft. It is intended to add other snapshots in time to give an idea of the development of the airline. One IP user has decided he/she doesnt like it and is removing them from articles because the date was arbitary, so is history it is properly cited and this is an encyclopedia not American Airlines today article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. (I too believe the snapshot in time is illuminating.) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well, but I could properly cite any number or irrelevant things about American Airlines but that does not make them historically significant. If it has significance it SHOULD be stated as such in the entry. It should say why 1970 fleet distribution is important. Otherwise I could add a table of all the tail numbers that American Airlines has ever had AND properly cite, but that would be pointless. If 1970 is important because it is the "dawn" of the Jet Age then something should be added to that effect -Lobo04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Registrations (Tail numbers) are not notable but the development of the fleet is. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have taken note of your comments and have added a narrative to the 1970 section. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to add a reminder that an encyclopedia does not only contain current information...But also historical information. The fleet data from 1970 also shows what the airline looked like before the Airline Deregulation Act in 1978 when the airline industry had major changes. Spikydan1 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent tagging of the Miscelania section as trivia ...

Yes, Virginia, sir. :) But there are exceptions to guidelines ... and in this case, I vote for exception.


Is that information better "worked into the article" ... removed ... or left in a "Miscelania" section? In my eyes -- it's better where it is. (Unless it's not true.:)

Let me stop, for now, with that (clearest, to me) case -- but there is a larger issue involved here, which has only with the trivia tagging become clear to me (a relatively new editor). That larger discussion is not for this page, of course, but I do want to thank the editor who tagged it for making me think this hard. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All of the section is unreferenced so should be tagged and removed if no citations are added. If notable enough they should be elsewhere in the article. As for the only legacy carrier quote above, it sounds a bit like original research. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree completely that "unreferenced" is justification for removing all of this—otherwise it is the place to stick in any BS anyone thinks up. (I'll make a copy of those in a sandbox ... and if I ever have time, lol, will try to find some citations.) AS FOR THE BROADER POLICY ISSUE, as I mentioned, not a discussion for this page -- and not until I've got a few more Wiki-miles on my odometer. But again, glad this issue was raised. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

MD 80 Replacement with...? Article is self contradictory

I have fruitless in finding sources that are specific in regards to American replacing its M82s and M83s with the 738. Right now, this article contradicts itself:

"American has begun the process of replacing all its MD-80 jets with Boeing 737s"
"A fraction of them will be replaced with Boeing 737-800's over the course of several years"
"All MD-82s and MD-83s are to be replaced with 737-800s Every 2 MD-82s or MD-83s to exit service, are to be replaced with 1 737-800"
  • So far, Flightglobal provides that "the 76 737-800s that are scheduled to arrive through the first quarter of 2011 [are] to support the carrier's planned replacement of aged Boeing MD-80s."
  • According to Reuters, "The announcement is another step in American's execution of its fleet renewal plan designed to replace its MD-80 fleet with more fuel-efficient 737


  • According to The Seattle Times, "The Boeing 737-800 aircraft will replace about one-fourth of American's current aging fleet of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series jets"

So I can't figure out how to edit this article to reflect the fact that American will replace its entire MD-80 fleet. Does anyone have any thoughts? WasAPasserBy (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

- American already stated that what they really want is a nextgen narrowbody from Boeing or Airbus. This fleet replacement plan is only for the oldest MD-80s. A lot of sources that I have checked either stated 1/2, 1/4, or all. Most were 1/4. The 1:2 ratio thing seemed a little steep to me, that would be an extreme capacity cut, even in a time of economic downturn. According to "Airliner World" magazine, American only plans on a total cut this year of 6.5% (that includes from all aircraft, not just the MD-80, a lot of that cut would be from the A300 phase out too).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:American Airlines/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looks good for now. I have promoted the rating to B-class.--Golich17 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC).

Substituted at 14:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)