Jump to content

Talk:American Airlines/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Reference list

I suggest the implementation of {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} on this article, because of the length of the reference list. Opinions, rejections? —bender235 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you are well aware there is no consensus for these changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it.
I'm trying to find out whether there is local consensus here. Let's see how the reactions are. Your vote obviously doesn't count here (and neither does mine), since you haven't contributed to this article at all. —bender235 (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:MOS: "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." I have disagreed (and I know from recent discussions that others also dislike these changes). Since there is disagreement, the policy is to keep the established style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha, oh no. You certainly can't elude your own rules. Either each of us is a non-contributor to this article and therefore does not have a say regarding the style, or your "rule" was garbage from day one. But in that case, all of your ANIs were baseless. —bender235 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Bring it up at WT:MOS if you don't believe me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
So in your opinion, I have no right to modify this article because I haven't previously contributed, but you have all rights to veto anything although you haven't contributed either? That's ridiculous.
And again: you created that "non-contributor has no rights whatsoever" rule. I know it's not in MOS, or anywhere. Because you made it up. But since you did, you have to obey that rule just like I do. —bender235 (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The rule as stated in the MOS is "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Take it up with WT:MOS if you don't like it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You're a funny dude. But okay, lets adhere to WP:MOS. But I hope from now on you also adhere to WP:OWN and WP:BRD. —bender235 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been saying for a while we should adhere to WP:MOS by not making random stylistic changes to articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The proposed change is neither "random" nor is it purely "stylistic". {{Reflist|2}}, which has been used until recently, makes the references unreadable on small screens. Therefore, this is more of an WP:ACCESS improvement rather than a simple stylistic change. —bender235 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a stylistic change. If there were an WP:ACCESS issue with reflist|2, we would get rid of that parameter entirely, not randomly change it on a few articles. You could bring it up at WP:ACCESS, I guess, if you think it would really get consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

AMR likes Sabre[1]: is it favoritism?

So, it's curious that AA's litigation against (formerly in-house) Sabre is on hold. Is AA favoring Sabre over Apollo (Galileo) and Travelport? Let's discuss with references from news sources. Thanks. --Inetpuppy (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Postwar Developments

On 30 March 1973 AA became the first major airline to employ a female pilot when Bonnie Tiburzi was hired to fly Boeing 727s.

The next two paragraphs should be removed - not relevant to AA From 1971–1978 Beverly Lynn Burns worked as a stewardess for AA. She went on to become the first woman Boeing 747 airline captain when, on the afternoon of July 18, 1984, she commanded People Express flight #17 (aircraft 604) departing Newark International Airport at 3:30pm to Los Angeles International Airport.

In a prearranged effort, this honor was shared with another female People Express captain Lynn Rippelmeyer, who flew flight #2 from Newark to London Gatwick at 7:35pm that same day.[15]

American Airlines has been innovative in other aspects initiating several of the industry's major competitive developments including computer reservations systems, frequent flyer loyalty programs and two-tier wage scales.[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiceman2 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Spiceman2 (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Spiceman2

Hello, I've noticed that the following paragraphs in the pop culture section make it look like a random assortment of facts. They're listed below. Any suggestions on where to put them? Thanks.

  • AA lobbied heavily to be assigned the IATA airline code US when the U.S. military released it for non-military use. However, USAir ultimately won the bid for the US airliner code.
  • AA is the only Big Five legacy carrier in the United States which has not filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
  • AA has its name on two major U.S. venues, American Airlines Center in Dallas, home to the Mavericks basketball team and Dallas Stars ice hockey team, and American Airlines Arena in Miami, home to the Miami Heat basketball team. When the Heat and Mavericks played each other in the 2006 NBA Finals, it was referred to as the "American Airlines series."
  • The nose section of an American Airlines DC-7 is displayed at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum

These are worth putting in the article, but they just aren't in the right place. Please share your suggestions on where to put them.

Thanks, Compdude123 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Historic fleet

AA also operated 747-200F for cargo division American Freighter, its not listed in the historic section, even if leased it should be included as it flew in full AA livery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.39.206 (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What to writing about bankruptcy issues?

"AMR Corporation (NYSE: AMR) may have been the victim of some aggressive reporting that turned into rumors of an impending bankruptcy filing. The company tried to refute this notion yesterday, but its own verbage did not convey any true denial. A “preference” is not exactly an outright “No!” to those who interpret news."[2]
So basically, nothing to writing about the false rumor. --B767-500 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 787–9 Order

In the fleet table it shows an order for the 787-9. In the notes it says the order is not firm. Maybe this shouldn't be included in the table if this is the case? Other airlines seem to follow this rule --JetBlast (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It still needs to be mentioned as prose in the fleet section, but it should NOT go in the table until the order is firmed up. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 737 MAX order

Hi, Is the order for the 737 Max firm? According to this official Boeing press release Southwest is the only one with a firm order. If this is the case shouldnt the order be removed from the fleet table? Thanks. --JetBlast (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it should still be mentioned in the Fleet section. Same goes for Lion Air; they committed to the 737MAX but didn't place a firm order for it. —Compdude123 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100% --JetBlast (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you could make the edits as you have done on other articles? --JetBlast (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Flag Carrier?

Why is American Airlines claimed to be the flag carrier of the US? The Flag Carrier page says: "A flag carrier is a transportation company, such as an airline or shipping company, that, being locally registered in a given state, enjoys preferential rights or privileges, accorded by the government, for international operations. It may be a state-run, state-owned or private but state-designated company or organization. Flag carriers may be known as such due to maritime law requiring all aircraft or ships to display the state flag of the country of their registry." This is not met by American.Dmoerner (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not the flag carrier but for some reason certain IP users think it is. If anyone adds info saying that AA is the flag carrier of the United States don't hesitate to revert it immediately. —Compdude123 17:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And also, someone changed that American Airlines is the world's largest airline in terms of passenger traffic and revenue but not the largest in terms of passengers (United is). Snoozlepet (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fleet update

I lack the Programming skills, and would like to request the fleet chart is updated with American's 42 new firm dream liners. citation is http://www.americanairlines.ch/intl/ch/newsAndPr_en/pr_dreamliners.jsp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator44 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 May 2012‎ (UTC)

That and this article indicate AA's intent to buy 787-9s, and not a firm order. Also, that American Airlines news page was started on 3/27/2009. So not new news. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks like no finalized 787 order until pilots contract is done per Flight Global. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

787

I added a entry a few months ago about their 787 order. It was reverted with the edit summary "Undid revision 472108795 by Jay8g (talk) not a firm order.". I was all right with that (I know very little about aviation and assumed I misunderstood AA's website). However I recently was looking at the List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries and it includes the AA order. Please help me understand this. (The source I used was [3] :Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the 787 Orders/ deliveries page lists the AA order. I posted a question regarding that on Talk:List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries. In my opinion it should be removed. —Compdude123 03:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know when, but the 787 orders page seems to be fixed so AA isn't on there anymore. --Greggy123 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted PLUNA under codeshares

I deleted PLUNA from the codeshare agreements section because PLUNA ceased operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.35.142 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I deleted Gol Airlines from codeshare agreements

I deleted Gol Airlines from codeshare agreements because it is past August 13 and the codeshare has been terminated since then. Should have been removed earlier.72.89.35.142 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fact

Is it oK for me to add that they are one of the only companies who responds to your twitter posts if we give examples. If its ok I want to do it. Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 02:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you'd need more than just examples of the airline doing this. You'd need to find a reliable source that actually says American Airlines is one of the only companies that does this (which I doubt you'll find--plenty of companies maintain an active presence on Twitter). Esrever (klaT) 03:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is requested that a photo be updated, to improve quality to this article.

It is requested that the photo of Americans Flagship First Class Cabin, located in the ON-BOARD SERVICE Section be updated to this photo "https://www.aa.com/content/images/aboutUs/newsroom/img_first_class_suite.jpg" in order to improve the quality and accuracy of this article as American just created a New Flagship First Class cabin.

(Kinz7865 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

That's a copyrighted photo. If you want to add a picture of the new first class cabin, take it yourself and upload it. Esrever (klaT) 03:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It would fail our fair use requirements since, once the cabins are starting to be used in flight, people can take the photos and be uploaded under a free license. Sorry, we cannot use it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Closing request, with an additional note: please see Wikipedia:Image use policy for information on copyright and licensing as they pertain to Wikipedia. It may be possible to find an image without taking it yourself. Rivertorch (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It is possible (Flickr, other locations) but because there is that high chance, we just cannot accept that image. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Split should be vetted properly {{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}

The following split should on the table for discussion: 

{{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}

I don't know if the above is a split or a rename proposal, but just wanted to put it forward for discussion. The above is in reference to the article American Airlines–US Airways merger.

--71.135.164.241 (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with American Airlines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the two articles. Oddbodz (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Very short article, nothing to suggest it was a separate subsidiary airline. From what i have gather from the source in the article is that the Cargo aircraft where part of the main airline. JetBlast (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Mark999 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep separate and expand. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Expand the article and merge into the main AA page under the former subsidiary section or something like that. Alisterbarrett.king (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge quite useless, ugly, and quite frankly not informative to wikipedia. Pure Awesomeness Commonly called Evoogd20 02:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have moved this from its original location at Talk:American Freighter while closing the discussion., as this is where it should have taken place. Oddbodz (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hubs

Please do not add US Airways hub airports to the page as 1) the merger still requires various approvals and 2) American and US Airways remain separate carriers until a single operating certificate is achieved. Thanks! Also, will LGA become a hub if the merger is approved or will it remain a focus city? Snoozlepet (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed before, but AMR describes its "cornerstone markets" as "New York, Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O'Hare, and Miami". ie AMR refers to New York as a cornerstone city (ie a hub), not to either airport. This is specifically in contrast to Chicago, in which AMR refers to O'Hare as the hub. So I see no reliable source supporting the argument that JFK is currently a hub but LGA isn't. That position will obviously be even more untenable when AA picks up more LGA slots as part of the merger. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Livery info

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

History

There have been some edit wars over this section. I just added some references to help. However this section is still a mess and probably should be a new article for the Formation of American Airways to cover the period around 1930. From what I'm seeing our articles are contradicting each other. The claim is that as few as 80 airlines to over 90 airlines were combined into the new American Airways. The first consolidation was into around 4 holding companies like Aviation Corporation and within a year that all was consolidated into one company. Avco has a partial list and some references that might be a good starting place to research and build this new article. Finally we need to be careful on how we deal with the current merger. The US parent acquired the AA parent out of bankruptcy. With US being the survivor and it was renamed or retained the AA name. Not sure how this should be dealt with when it happens but some of the reverted adds where saying that AA acquired US which is not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


PHX listed as AA hub?

Why is PHX listed as an AA hub on the info box? It is a US hub, and it is probably too early to list it. If not, why didn't editor add PHL, CLT, and DCA?tommer419 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it. US Airways hub airports should not be listed until a single operating certificate is achieved which is sometime in 2015. There is a hidden note in the infobox saying it. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Huge rewrite needed to avoid Wikipedia being an AA stooge

Meat puppets of American Airlines and Wikipedians unwittingly helping them are the problem. AA is effectively being taken over by America West/USAirways. AA public relations probably wants a WP article describing the long AA history. Do not be fooled into helping them and being a corporate stooge.

Instead, most of this article's content should be an article called "American Airlines (historic)". This article entitled American Airlines should begin with America West and trace how the names changed to AA

The history should not begin with AMR and earlier. That is dishonest.

Please defend the integrity of Wikipedia.

Stephanie Bowman (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not an issue of integrity. I think much of what you raise was pointed out above. And yes, AA was acquired by US Airways Group and not the other way around. Happens all the time like Norwest Bank acquired Well Fargo Bank. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Elimination of text that is or borders on advertising

I have discussed this matter with a very experienced user, JamesBWatson, who happens to also be an administrator. Some seating information that is or borders on advertising was removed in the United Airlines article. I propose a similar move for American.

In terms of removal, the vast majority of the article remains intact, just some marketing like stuff removed. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

LGA as a Hub

Where is everyone getting that LaGuardia is a focus city. AMERICAN AIRLINES listed in its hub listings as: New York, NY (Both JFK & LGA)

Someone needs to provide a reliable source of information that explains LGA is a focus city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

LaGuardia Airport

Since when did LGA became a AA hub? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As for as the announcement goes, JFK is the only airport to be upgraded to a 'hub' but LGA has no where near enough flights or increase to become a hub. Zaps93 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The only announcement from AA is that JFK will get an increase in daily number of flights. By looking the destinations served by AA on the LGA page, it is not even close to being a hub and it is not a connecting poing for AA flights anyways. I think the IP might by confused when he saw "New York" listed as a hub, he thought that it includes both LGA and JFK. This is the same for CO....on their website the EWR is also referred to as "New York" but LGA and JFK are not added. That's because one: CO does not even fly to JFK second: for CO flights out of LGA the only non-hub destination is to Aruba but that's served seasonally so it can't be. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely, LGA is certainly not a hub for AA. I think you are exactly right and maybe the confusion has come from the wording of the most recent press release from AA and the CEO’s letter to employees which talk about their New York hub and then give the total number of flights from LGA/JFK combined. They never specifically said LGA was a hub and, for the reasons you indicated, it is clearly not.(82.45.56.46 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

I have looked all over AA's website and could not find anything that just said "JFK", every time it was referred to as only "New York"...Similar to how CO refers to EWR as “New York”. I also want to just point out that AA also doesn’t refer to O’Hare when talking about Chicago. When looking at the flights at AA’s four hubs (MIA, DFW, ORD, and JFK), it is clear that LGA is nowhere near a hub status in the amount of flights served. If no one has any logical disagreements with LGA being put back as a focus city, I will put it back later today. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would watch this page after the protection expired....I am 100% positive that the IP who started the dispute will be back to add LGA as a hub despite the discussion. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Take 2

Here we go again.... Snoozlepet (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It may have JFK ages because it has never officially been a hub before the release mentioning both JFK and LGA. Yea AA never specifies O'Hare in Chicago but they also never mention Midway. AA mentions JFK and LGA with a combined flight count in their hub press release and exclude EWR without ever using the term "focus city" at all. Editor800 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
It wasn't a 'hub' release, it was an operation update. As for the matter at hand, as far as I am aware, JFK was always considered a hub though it was a focus city and now that is has been upgrading to more flights to make it official, LGA status as focus city has/will stay the same. If you can provide an excact reference to state LGA is a 'hub' I shall take back all my comments, but as far as I'm aware along with other users... It's not a HUB. Zaps93 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing indicates that LGA is not a hub. So I have fixed this problem by giving it hub status. Nrwairport (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Take 3

2015-06-25: By visiting this page on American's website listed here: https://www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/arriving.jsp , it lists the mainline American hubs, and LGA is NOT included.--Kmk1011 (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hub Information Section

I added a hub information section because it has one on Delta's page, I think it would be appropriate and informative to include that on American Airlines' page. Nrwairport (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the hub information section is actually useful, but it doesn't need to have wikilinks for each airport. Those airports are already linked elsewhere on the page. See WP:OVERLINK. Esrever (klaT) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A few thoughts on this: – Do not put Pittsburgh on the list!! This was a former US Airways hub, and should be noted on the US Airways wikipedia page. Since it was at no time an American hub, IT DOESN'T BELONG ON THIS PAGE!! – Boston Logan, San Jose (CA) were added to the list of former hubs – JFK: AA has the third largest operation at JFK behind Delta and JetBlue. I believe it was a hub for them before the TWA acquisition, and since the merger with US Airways, it has now become the #2 transatlantic gateway after PHL.--Kmk1011 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

–

LaGuardia IS A HUB

If you go to http://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/specialAssistance/pets.jsp and scroll down, it says

If you’re traveling on a connecting flight, your checked pets will only be able to connect through one of our hub cities. If you’re connecting between American and another airline, you’ll need to claim and recheck your pet and pay applicable charges to each carrier.

Charlotte, NC (CLT) Chicago O'Hare, IL (ORD) Dallas Fort Worth, TX (DFW) John F Kennedy New York, NY (JFK) LaGuardia, NY (LGA) Los Angeles, CA (LAX) Miami, FL (MIA) Philadelphia, PA (PHL) Phoenix, AZ (PHX) Washington Reagan, DC (DCA)


Are the hubs listed per AA. Do not remove LGA as a hub.

Nrwairport (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The text you pasted in is clear enough: hub cities. LGA is in a hub city, of course. This page, already linked above, is very clear that there are exactly nine hubs, of which LGA is not one. Click "More access through our hubs": [4] Esrever (klaT) 22:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article needs to be accurate about merger

There is a great danger of editors unwittingly editing what a company wants and not the truth. Luckily, there are reliable sources to document the truth.

Corporate folks know the value of a name, like American Airlines. They want the world to respect the name. The fact is that US Airways took over American Airlines and kept the American Airlines name. This is not unique. America West took over struggling US Airways and kept the name.

Consider these references that really illustrate the point. 1. US Airways shareholders get stock in the new company. AMR/American Airlines shareholders in the bankrupt company get shafted. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579247953849152692

2. Doug Parker, the CEO of US Airways, will hold the same position with the new airline, while AMR CEO Tom Horton will serve as non-executive chairman. The deal is essentially a purchase of AMR by US Airways, as US Air shareholders will receive a share in the new company for each of their US Air shares. Quote from http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/news/companies/us-airways-american-airlines-merger/

3. "Really, US Airways took over American,” Boyd, the consultant, said. “It’s just that they kept the American name.” Quote from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-last-days-of-us-airways/2015/09/25/f5530686-60a6-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

A solution to this might be to include in the infobox when the current corporate entity came into being. Another part of the solution is to acknowledge the roots of American Airlines and also strongly note the roots are in US Airways (and even America West). We cannot honestly paint a picture of American Airlines starting in 1930 and merging with all these airlines. I understand that many feel uncomfortable with a timeline that the American Airlines company would like to hide, i.e. that America West was started and eventually took over and conquered American.

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Reading the article again, it is very troubling that wrong information is being given. The American Airlines company was just formed December 9, 2013. It is not from 1930. The American Airlines name is NOT from 1930. So what we are doing is creating a romantic image of the American Airlines name and re-writing history. Therefore, we should decide on how we are to deal with it.
I propose having a lot of history about American Airlines and the predecessor companies. However, the gist of the story must include that the company is from 2013 and is basically a renamed USAirways/America West company. There is no shame in that happening. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not "wrong information". The airline continued to exist, even after the management team changed. No one disputes that US took over American, but that doesn't mean that American ever ceased to exist as a brand at any point. American Airlines as a brand has existed since 1930. The company that has owned that brand has changed from AMR Corp. to American Airlines Group, which was indeed formed in 2013. Esrever (klaT) 02:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You bring up a good question. What is this article about? Is it about the a) company or division, b) brand name, c) operating certificate, d) publicity information that the airline wants us to write? D is wrong without thinking. If it is A, then so be it but would have to modify the article a little. If B, same thing, needs slight modification, though the least change. C) That would be the biggest change because the American Airlines and predecessor companies have had several CAA and FAA operating certificates and would also be a hard thing to research for sources since the news media is usually not so precise. I believe Wikipedia editors may want B (brand name) but A is possible. I think A is the best choice with history devoted to predecessors to the company. Bottom line, I propose the article be about the division of the company that runs the airline. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It's just an article about an airline. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. Esrever (klaT) 01:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I discussed this with a very knowledgeable Wikipedian whose expertise is aviation, User:Fnlayson. Here is a summary of what I wrote and his response.

You are one of the leading authorities in Wikipedia as far as aviation knowledge. You might not be a leading figure in the world, but in Wikipedia you are. Therefore, I seek your comments either here or the relevant talk page.

The American Airlines article is not quite what it should be, in my opinion. I feel there is confusion among different editors. What should the article be about?

a. the corporate entity, American Airlines Group. I believe this is completely wrong because there is a separate article on the American Airlines Group.

b. the corporate division or subsidiary that operated the passenger airline. That is a reasonable idea.

c. the American Airlines brand name. Very similar to B. Also a reasonable idea. The difference between B and C is that C may encompass more than one subsidiary. I have yet to research it but American Airlines may have a cargo division, frequent flyer program company, etc. Because these are related, I think C may be the best.

d. the American Airlines operating certificate. No, this is too esoteric and would be very hard to write because we would need to research what airlines had what operating certificate.

e. hybird of a and c. This is a very difficult thing to write because many, many editors would not be able to agree on a hybird. There could always be a push for a by some and c for others. This would create conflict.

f. trace the history of the current entity which is America West. Later in the article, there would be recap of the history of the American Airlines name, which dates from many decades ago. One could argue that the article should be written with the history of America West and how it acquired the American Airlines name. However, American Airlines wouldn't like such an article and a lot of people, reading "merger" in the news would feel uncomfortable with that idea. I believe F would be the most logical choice but I think the knee jerk reaction is that many would be uncomfortable with it.

I think C avoids the problem that American Airlines is really America West. The current management and ownership starts with America West who eventually took over American Airlines' name and owns the stock. Owners of the old AMR (American Airlines) stock got zero, nada, because of the bankruptcy. If you bought $10,000 of AMR, you now own $0.00.

Thank you for your ideas. I lean towards C as the best compromise but I can live with any consistent principle and apply it to the article. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Lead of American Airlines only covers the airline itself and does not mention that its parent is American Airlines Group (but should). I suggest focusing on the airline and any of its subsidiary airlines (option c). Please discuss this on the article talk page and/or WT:AIRLINES, if you haven't yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Therefore, I concur and think that this article must be carefully written to reflect the corporate ownership (American Airlines Group) and the history of the current airline and brand name. We must be extremely precise. We must not invent any kind of history. Predecessor entities may be duly noted and described but must not be blurred with the current American Airlines. For example, we must critically assess the first entity with the name, American Airways. Certainly include it but any connections with the current American Airlines must be accurately described. In other words, be careful. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It's all the same airline. I'm happy to see American Airlines Group mentioned in the lead (and have added it already), but the rest of it is just you overcomplicating this. Esrever (klaT) 23:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Esrever, this is over complicating the history. David J Johnson (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. However, trying to avoid being "complicated" is the wrong way to go and contrary to expected Wikipedia behavior. In practice, article writing will be easy but with a clear cut goal, future conflicts can be avoided. But to summarize, just look at my suggestion above for the detail and, in a few word summary, it will be about American Airlines, the company or part of the company that runs the airline (assuming that American Airlines Group, which has a separate article, probably has a bunch of divisions such as financing aircraft, etc.) Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikipedia also revolves around consensus, and you don't seem to have generated consensus yet for any wholesale changes to this article. It's not that the article or the topic can't be complicated: you're just approaching it from the wrong perspective. This notion that the company only really came into existence after the merger is flawed and contrary to any basic understanding of the airline's history. Esrever (klaT) 18:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Who says there are wholesale changes of the article? Who says that I want to say American Airlines started a year or two ago (not me). Merely seeing what people want and what is logical. Cannot have an illogical article but among logical choices, consensus is usually instructive. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I just edited the accidents section which included crashes from before the US Airways takeover so there should be no fear that I advocate Esrever's fear that the article would start with 2013 (and no crashes).

accidents and incidents

I am in a long term effort to improve this article to the point of point similar to a featured article. This is the first section to be reviewed and improved.

I proposed to:

1. review many airline articles on Wikipedia to see the custom as well as the portal.

2. all hull losses and major incidents from 2000 on will be included. The 1979 DC-10 was very significant in causing the DC-10 to be banned (later dropped) so hull losses from 1979 on should be included. To not cherry pick, all hull losses that had passengers killed starting with the 1979 DC-10 crash should be included. (DC-10, Cali 757, Little Rock and then 2000-on)

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have decided to include only the crashes where the plane was destroyed and more than 1-2 lives lost. There have been some accidents where one flight attendant died or the plane was written off because of a lot of damage but all that information can be seen in the sub-article about accidents. I think this is a good compromise over a huge section and no section. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
There is a dedicated Accidents and incidents article for this airline. There is no need for unnecessary duplication on the main page; the purpose of the separate article is to remove clutter from the main article in the first instance. SempreVolando (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
This can be trimmed if you wish. However, to have nothing makes it very bare. If there is nothing, then the best thing would be to eliminate the section and have it listed in the "see also" section at the bottom, which I think is the best of a bad situation. Going this route also would suggest that other sections be gutted, such as the AAdvantage section. A possible compromise is to reduce the description. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

fleet

The next section that I want to start to work on is the fleet. Problems include that it is constantly changing. I think it is futile to try to differentiate between owned and leased planes because, while it is possible to look up ownership data online, there are hundreds, nearly 1000 planes to look up. The citations would be in the thousands and overwhelm the article.

Therefore, planes operated by American should be the key. Of course, that might mean that planes owned by American but operated by regional airlines don't count. If there are only a few, it could be mentioned. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's constantly changing, just put in the bits that stay relatively stable, along with an appropriate citation and an "As of" statement. Who cares who owns the individual planes? If AA says they have a fleet of 943 planes, just go with that. Again, stop complicating this. Esrever (klaT) 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as the complaint "stop complicating things", the product (article) will look very uncomplicated but the thought going into it has to be as precise as possible. Some airlines try to fool people and use questionable ways to count planes, such as to count planes used by other airlines that franchise the regional airline name. If we go by what a dishonest airline says, then Wikipedia becomes a source of free advertising. What we want is an encyclopedic article. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The funny thing is when a plane crashes, an airline is quick to say "no, that's not our plane, it is (insert name of commuter or regional airline)" but when counting the fleet, some airlines count these planes that they don't even own or operate, just to give the illusion of being larger. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a chart with a list of planes that American Airlines operates. A similar chart appears in British Airways and Japan Airlines, both good articles. Such chart also appears in United Airlines, Finnair, Lufthansa, Air France, JetBlue, Air Canada, Hawaiian Airlines, etc. I am thinking of modifying it, such as having a blue color instead of red. However, inclusion of the chart is not vandalism, as one poster wrote. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalism but the fleet table is not really needed, the information was moved to a child article ages ago and clearly does not need to be repeated here. MilborneOne (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Intro paragraph revamp

"The company, ...also has a significant presence in Atlanta, Boston, London-Heathrow, Raleigh-Durham, San Antonio, and San Francisco."

This line of text is unnecessary and I have removed it. These are not hub airports, and, therefore, it's irrelevant to list them. Yes, they are shown alongside the hub airports in the text at the link provided (http://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/destinationInformation/airportInformation.jsp), but it doesn't mean that they are hubs, or that they have major operations there. In the case of ATL, BOS, SAT, and SFO, I suspect these are listed due to the fact that American operates from more than one terminal at these airports as the result of the merger. (Kmk1011 (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC))--Kmk1011 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In the case of at least ATL, American operates service only to its hubs and not to any other destinations, so it doesn't even fit the definition of a mini-hub. Mattwillmarron (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I also removed the third paragraph in the intro relating to the US Airways merger, and relocated its pertinent information in the "Merger with US Airways" section of the article. (Kmk1011 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC))

Child articles

Administrator MilborneOne has started an interesting trend here. It is to not duplicate information in child articles, like the fleet and accidents. I am uncertain of the wisdom but see the logic that it is a reasonable alternative way of editing and will build on that work. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a new trend but fairly standard way of doing things. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance bases

I'm pretty sure that the "Maintenance bases" section is completely inaccurate. All of the sources are broken links, and I cannot find any sources to backup that information. — Music1201 talk 07:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:American Airlines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 01:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


Well written: Overall, the writing quality is decent. Since there are many reasons for failing this nomination, I won't take the time to comment on bad grammar or unclear sentences, but on criteria 1b. The two tables "revenue passenger miles" and "revenue passenger kilometers" should be combined and use the same values. The short "predecessors" section seems odd and could be removed, since the content appears elsewhere in the "history" section. There are a couple short paragraphs in the "Bankruptcy of AMR Corporation", "Merger with US Airways", "New headquarters" sections that need to be better incorporated into the prose. The "Sponsorship" section should have some more details about the relationship between AA and those teams (years/length, amount of the sponsorship). Regional subsidiary American Eagle is mentioned in a few parts of the article, but a subsection of "Corporate affairs" should be made to explain AA's relationship with AE's operations.

The "Destinations" & "Fleet" section need a summary of the content of the main articles for those topics. The "AAdvantage" and "Accidents and incidents" sections are empty and should also have a summary of the main articles for those topics. See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

The lead is inadequate. It needs to summarize the main parts of the article. In particular, the current lead doesn't really have any information about the history of the airline (a significant part of this article).

Verifiable: Lots of content in this article lacks a reliable source. The article is filled with "citation needed" tags and refimprove tags for sections.

Broad in coverage and Neutral: No issues here except for the sections that need a summary of the main articles for those topics. The only major topic I can think of that is missing from this article is codeshare agreements and any joint ventures (eg. see Delta Air Lines#Alliances).

Stable: Many back-and-forth edits in past couple of weeks.

Images: Given the other substantial issues with this article, I won't go through every image to verify that license/copyright is ok. Overall, the images are relevant. However, there are lots of images of aircraft...in my opinion, many of them should be removed from the article.

Since there are substantial portions of the article without citations and many problems with content, this article is a long way from GA status. Therefore, I am failing this nomination. AHeneen (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on American Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Fleet

I have added a summary of the "Fleet" subsection, please have a look to see if there is any improvement.Chunhim lai (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

History of American Airlines

Support split - Article is over 100 kB, and the "History" section should be split to a new article entitled History of American Airlines. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Support — for the reasons stated above. NYCRuss ☎ 19:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

On-board amenities

Should we add a on-board amenities section? There have been many changes recently, such as American making their in flight entertainment free and free meals on coast to coast routes such as LAX to JFK. Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Airlines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Logo in infobox

I'm not quite sure that the prior-to-2013 logo is the appropriate logo to put in the infobox. Shouldn't it be used for the current logo of the company? Most articles have a section showing the previous logos anyways. Ren97 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It's just vandalism, like this, so revert on sight. The IP-hopping vandal has been doing this kind of crap across several airline pages in the past few days. Thanks for spotting it. - BilCat (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

American Airlines is a Major Airline it has narrow body jet, regional jets and wide body jets and it flies to a lot of locations too it’s a major airline it should be major not a american airline delta is a major too. RedProofHill123 (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Major war

American Airlines is a Major airline like delta and united. RedProofHill123 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for your claims. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus should be reached on the slant of the article

Currently, the article has a slant towards the AMR timeline. We, in Wikipedia, should decide what direction to take.

Option 1: American Airlines originates from America West. America West management took over American Airlines but they first took over US Airways, taking over the US name.

Option 2: The American Airlines brand name originates from the 1930's. This is the current slant.

Option 3: American Airlines originates from US Airways. This is the more modern slant and people can find out in other articles that US was taken over by America West management.

Option 4: Be very neutral and be very clear about all the above options listed.

I believe option 4 is the most transparent and desirable but option 3 has some merit. Option 2 would risk being too close to the public relations department of American Airlines. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Like it or not, the largest US airlines are Continental, America West, and Delta. American was bankrupt and close to dead when America West/US Airways took over. United was in a similar situation when Continental not only took over but they kept the Continental livery. One could even argue that the largest airlines are Texas International, America West, and Delta, though Texas International took control of Continental in the 1980's, decades before the combined entity took over United. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is to stick with the original American Airlines "slant". Yes, US Airways management took over most positions with the merger, but it was not like US Airways itself took over American. In fact, as stated on the actual corporate American Airlines Group page, stakeholders of AMR would own 72% of the company and US Airways shareholders would own the remaining 28% following the merger of the two airlines. Also, American Airlines as an entity never went bankrupt, but rather its corporate parent, AMR. The current airline is also named "American", not "US Airways". US Airways ceased to exist when it was merged into American, callsign, IATA and ICAO codes and AOC# included, while American, as an airline, never ceased activity. If there should be any talk of "AMR" vs "US Airways group" slant talk, I believe this discussion should rather be debated on the corporate company page of the airline at American Airlines Group. Piper13 (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That would be more of option 2. As long as there is some transparency, that is a reasonable answer. I must say that your use of the word "stakeholder" is what public relations departments use because American Airlines shareholders got nothing. The stakeholders were primarily creditors. In contrast, you use the word "US Airways shareholders". The insertion of the word "stakeholders" is very tricky because it risks making Wikipedia lose credibility for using potentially deceptive wording. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The words "Stakeholder" and "Shareholder" were in fact used on the Wiki page forAmerican Airlines Group, where I got the information. Piper13 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also add that the official American Airlines history on its website [1] takes the original American Airlines "slant", with the first mention of US Airways and America West only in the 2000s. Piper13 (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
From a public relations standpoint, AA clearly has the stronger and more recognized name so they wouldn't want to write that AA was in bankruptcy and in sorry shape when the America West boys took it over. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea but we don't say they are democratic just because their embassy literature says so. On the other hand, sometimes it doesn't pay to rock the boat so kowtowing to the AA slant has some merit. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/about-us/history-of-american-airlines.jsp

Phoenix Primary Western Hub

Per the article from Dallas Morning Star, "Barry Broome, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, said he has been assured by Parker that Phoenix will be the merged airline’s western hub. “And that’s a big deal for Phoenix to be their primary western hub over Los Angeles, Denver and San Francisco,” he said."Loss of a corporate headquarters may cost Phoenix jobs, prestige — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:5981:1520:1515:9D8:F4A:8FA7 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination

I reverted, as clearly a US DOT data showing AA leading the airline industry in racially motivated mistreatment of customers is noteworthy. The discrimination incidents by AA have certainly received more coverage than the WP:PROMO content currently in the "Cabins" and "Reward programs" sections. Icewhiz (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Support removal, clearly undue weight, the number of complaints referenced is only in double figures compared with the millions of passengers in 92 years that didnt complain. MilborneOne (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I have moved the NAACP travel advisory discussion underneath the environmental record paragraph, as a level three heading rather than a level two. I have also removed the discussion of the recent incident, per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, I agree with @MilborneOne: and support removal entirely, should consensus agree. --HunterM267 talk 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You also removed -

"According to a Bloomberg analysis of US Transportation Department data, based on Air Travel Consumer Reports from 2016 through August 2017, Americans Airlines leads the US airline industry in racially motivated mistreatment of customers. American had 29 complaints compared to 17 for United Airlines, and 9 each for Southwest Airlines and Delta Air Lines.[1]"

Which is not recent, and is an in-depth analysis of AA's discriminatory record. I'll note that if individual widely covered events are pushed off of the main airline page, then perhaps a Timeline of discrimination in American Airlines article should be created.Icewhiz (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ American Airlines Leads the Industry in Complaints of Racial Discrimination, Fortune, 26 October 2017
I would oppose such an article, also 29 complaints in one year, no mention of the other ninety years or the millions of passengers that travelled without an issue clearly has serious weight issues. Clearly each complaint was important to these 29 but it doesnt make them noteworthy in the big scheme of things. MilborneOne (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the removed quote - I consider its inclusion to be non-notable. The wording of this sentence is important. The Fortune article and the sentence written discuss a Bloomberg Analysis. This analysis, and the data itself, concludes that American Airlines received the most complaints of discrimination compared to the others in that period. It does not, however, quantitatively conclude that, as a result of these complaints, "American Airlines leads the US airline industry in racially motivated mistreatment of customers". The DOT's report includes a wide range of complaint categories - from disability, to customer service, to baggage, etc. Similar conclusions can be (and have been) drawn in airline comparisons. However, the mention of this airline's number of complaints, in a single category, over a limited period, is not notable, especially given that the same article and data is discussed in the sources for the paragraph that is already there, regarding the NAACP. --HunterM267 talk 23:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
A timeline article would easily be notable per policy. As for AA's discrimination record - editors' opinion discounting 29 complaints or second guessing a sourcs means little. Fortune quite clearly states: "In addition to this anecdotal evidence, data about flier complaints show American Airlines as an outlier in the racially motivated mistreatment of customers. Consumers lodged more complaints against American Airlines based on race than their competitors, according to a Bloomberg analysis of U.S. Transportation Department data.". Black on white in the source.Icewhiz (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
In a one-year period. It's not news. Esrever (klaT) 23:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence is located in the source, but I disagree that the conclusion drawn in that source is notable enough for it to be in the article. The NAACP advisory might be, which is why I personally left that paragraph in. --HunterM267 talk 23:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines/Archive_2&oldid=1148113436"