Talk:British Airways/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rank in Europe

BA is listed as the third largest airline in Europe according to the list of largest airlines, behind Air France and Lufthansa. Is there a source for it being number 2? Eusebeus 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It generally needs a cleanup and I personally feel it is unreliable - the data is less than BA mainline figures (scheduled flights) - I may clean it up at a later date. TheTallOne 16:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the last published figures (2005) BA came in 2nd in Europe in terms of Pax traffic RPK and lufthansa 3rd, in terms of profitability the order was reversed due to Lufthansas group activities. Source: The airline industry guide 2006/7 published Sept 2006 by Airline business magazine.

Confusion of Loganair

Is Loganair really a subsidiary of BA? I thought it held a franchise to operate as BA, which is a different concept. Wikibob 00:23, 2004 Feb 28 (UTC)

The list of locations to which BA flies to in paragraph 2 is a long list that basically covers the entire globe, wouldn't it be simpler to just say this? Grunners 01:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes you can check on the IATA Web site which provides stastics on Airlines

BA abuse of the geographical names

The map which British Airways shows on its flights to the middle east, uses a wrong name instead of Persian Gulf. British people started using the wrong name before anyone else in Europe.

There are companies which provide software to British Airways and other airlines. Following to the UN-resolutions many activists have gone on record for notifying them and requesting that correct name should be used. Meanwhile, many activists have stopped flying with British Air.

They bluntly refer to Persian Gulf as "The Gulf," as if the Persian Gulf name cannot be used. Have you seen them use it for the Atlantic or Pacific ocean? "The Ocean!"

We suggest not to fly with British Airways until they correct the problem. --Mani1 07:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Umm, what? BA refer to it as "The Gulf" for historical reasons, because it's the most important gulf in the world, and because "Persian" is actually somewhat offensive to the non-Persians who have plyed the waters of the said gulf for millennia. No? Anyway, fascinating, but rather minor, surely?

James F. (talk) 18:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Most people in Britain say "The Channel" rather than "The English Channel". Similarly, the French say "La Manche". That's not a reason to avoid the Channel Tunnel! Be realistic; everyone knows that, unless in a specific context, "The Gulf" refers to "The Persian Gulf". Mat334 00:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I'd like to know whether all these activitst avoiding British Airways are also avoiding Gulf Air? Mat334 00:18, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the dirty tricks scandal that BA ran against Virgin on this page. It's as if it never happened. And BTW, I agree, it's "The Gulf", meaning, in the UK at least, "The Persian Gulf", unless otherwise stated. We like to understand the implied meaning behind our language, taking the context in which the information is recieved into account when drawing our conclusions as to it's meaning. Simply complaining that the wrong name was used when in fact it was a shortened version of the correct name, was lame to say the least. If I were to say the "UK" without saying the "United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Island", it would not be because I had learned the wrong phrase. What is this, the language police?

Sorry, it is not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island, but United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

• In any case, Mani1, you said "British Air" rather than "British Airways". I suggest that you stop critizing others for supposedly incorrect language use until you do so yourself. Mat334 01:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the stupidest arguement I've ever heard. "Don't fly until British Airways until they correct the problem??" --Prisonnet 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Dirty Tricks"

Yes, there needs to be information on BA's uneasy relationship with Virgin. However, bear in mind that a lot of what Virgin says or does is merely Richard Branson trying to create hype. Mat334 01:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I've posted the info for a book about the case. james_anatidae 02:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Published by Virgin?! That's hardly NPOV. Mat334 12:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Not originally. It was first published in 1994 by Little, Brown & Co, part of Warner Books. (ISBN 0316908460). The version I posted is just the updated and revised version. james_anatidae 22:39, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Separate Destinations article

If we have to have a separate British Airways destinations article (about which I am not convinced - it does not seem sensible to leave the original British Airways page to view this - the destinations were originally listed alphabetically on the BA page, which I think is much better) then at least it should state the date when these destinations are actually being served and where the information is taken from eg Summer 2005, BA timetable. Ardfern 3 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

The list of BA destinations is massive, and listing them on after the other in this article rather than in a bullet-point list (as it appeared, briefly), as well as being messy, ugly and confusing, doesn't touch the depth of the extent of BA's services. Listing city after city without a note to what continent or country they're in, or even which airports it serves, doesn't convey the reach of the airline. How many people know where Lusaka or Manama are without having to click on those cities or look at a map? If there were 15 or 20 destinations, then I would agree that there is no need for a separate article, but when a more comprehensive and explanatory list can be included elsewhere with a clear link between the two, I think it's highly complimentary and also fits into the growing network of airport articles with links between each. It's also consistent with the other large airlines in the world (see Category:Airline destinations).

No qualms about adding a date reference at the top of the destinations article though. This one is consistent with the BA Summer Timetable, so something to the likes of "Valid from 03/05 to 10/05" (say, I don't know dates off the top of my head) would be helpful. --Ayrshire--77 4 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

Industrial Action

I've removed the recently added "Industrial Action" section for now, as I really don't see it as particularly relevant. Yes, it so happens that in the past three years in a row wildcat strikes have crippled the BA network, but only for a period of 24 hours, all focused at Heathrow, and in 2003/4 a limited service managed to operate from LHR even at that. The knock-on effect is obviously greater, but it's not as if the airline is frought with industrial relation problems. There's no mention of the frequent strike actions at Air France or Alitalia in those articles, nor the long strike by Aer Lingus staff last year, so why here? Many companies are hit with strike action from time to time, unless it's prolonged and seriously damaging I don't think it merits a mention. --Ayrshire--77 07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• The information was perfectly valid, and it should not have been deleted. So what if similar information is not mentioned elsewehere. A user is not obliged to ensure uniformity throughout wikipedia when adding new sections. The strikes at BA are substantial, and last for longer 24 hours. They certainly have one of the worst industrial relation problems among top UK companies. Astrotrain 20:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Glasgow International Airport

I added in Glasgow International Airport as a focus city. BA used to operate a GLA-JFK-BOS route. I'd think that earns the honour of a focus city. Not exactly a secondary hub though. And also Loganair has it's home-base here. Thanks, --anon. 21:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there me again, someone has removed the part about GLA. I will add it back in again, but if it is removed this time then I won't enter it again — I get the point. But also, someone has changed the website address to the older one. The person is not British. If you have saw the ads. done by BA, at the end of the ad their address is: http://www.ba.com. --an. 14:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove Glasgow, although I did change the address. ba.com simply redirects to britishairways.com, so I changed it to avoid the redirect. Dbinder 15:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I removed Glasgow, and I'm going to do it ag

MRLD

If you see the deletion tabI put it up because someone vandalized the page. I did not commit the vandalism I am try to put a dletion tab on it. Mrld 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More External Links

• IP user, you will be permanently banned if this link is ever reposted here on on the BA webpage. Jsw663 13:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• • The reason for the above has been posted here. Jsw663 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

subsidiary

It would appear that "Airways Aero Association Ltd." might be a BA subsidiary. They operate the "British Airways Flying Club" and run the "Wycombe Air Park/Booker Airport". There also appears to be some information her under Captain Airclues. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Airways Aero Associations Limited (name changed on 3rd January 2006 from Association to Associations) is a subsidary of British Airways PLC (99% share) (they are 66 subsidary companies not many of them are mentioned in the article !. MilborneOne 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Future Fleet

Their have been 10 orders made for the 777, which was confirmed to myself 2 days ago from a senior manager.Benny45boy 11:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you include a citation to a reliably published source for this? Addhoc 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a reliable citation please. "Verbally in internal meetings" is not acceptable as a citation. Mark83 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I accept the point mentioned above, is there any proof of the future Airbus options orders, because I hadn't heard about that. Benny45boy 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Threat

Do we really need a very large section on the terrorist threat, maybe a separate article should be created?? Benny45boy 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree Greenboxed 00:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Flight Numbers

The article states that "[g]enerally, odd numbers are for services departing Britain, even numbers are for services entering Britain." I would like to contest this. I would argue that eastbound flights have odd numbers, whereas westbound flights have even numbers. E.g. a section in a USA Today column (at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2005-10-31-grossman-side_x.htm) supports this argument. Also, in practical examples, flight BA794 flies from Heathrow to Helsinki (eastbound) and BA795 back from Helsinki to Heathrow (westbound). Countless other examples can be found. A correction might in order. --GaryK84 00:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates

A few vague dates in the article need cleaning up. For example:

In July, British Airways announced...

July which year?

British Airways announced recently that they will launch their new Club World product towards the end of Summer 2006

Prime example of the misuse of 'recently' - Summer 2006 has been and gone. Recently relative to what, then? Carre 18:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I think I even wrote the section, as far as I am aware it still hasn't been launched, so I will rewrite the sectionBenny45boy 21:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Call signs

I am not aware of British Airways using the call sign Santa anymore, as I am not sure whether or not they even do charter flights, does anyone have any info on this. 137.222.10.57 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that they have used SANTA for christmas charters out of London Gatwick last year - it doesnt matter if they do not use it is still offically allocated to ba.MilborneOne 21:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If they are no longer using it, it should be mentioned here. Brian Jason Drake 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cross wearing controversy

I removed the statement

Neither was Christian support for Eweida universal."Cross row stokes Christian anger". BBC News. 2006-10-15. Retrieved 2006-11-25.

as the dissenting voice was very much a lone voice, from someone who no longer speaks for his church. [1] If restored it should be qualified, however the section of the article is getting too long anyway and will need consolidating and tidying in due course.

Springnuts 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Also I removed

BA suggested that dangling items such as necklaces are prohibited on health and safety grounds."Archbishop attacks BA cross rules". BBC News. 2006-11-21. Retrieved 2006-11-25.

as it is just not supported by the reference given - nor by BA's public statement about the affair on their web site (now removed as overtaken by the statement announcing the review)

Springnuts 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put the health and safety point back in as it is mentioned twice by the National Secular Society. I have also re-inserted Eweida's public statement about Jesus because it is on the BBC website: [2] Finally, I have removed the claim that Tony Blair supported her because this is very POV - he actually said that BA shouldn't bother fighting these things. Jsteph 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest that this debate, or Nadia Eweida herself, merit a page of their own. Jsteph 06:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst freely admitting this needs to be covered I disagree with the promience that it has been given. I propose a separate article to be created or I will dramatically reduce the article to about 3 lines.Benny45boy 13:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a somewhat contentious sentence - I suggest that the Biographies guidelines would not allow it, certainly as currently formulated and without any justifying reference. [[3]] Springnuts 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean the quote about Jesus. This is on the BBC website and is presented as a direct quote, so to me it's reliable. I could, however, put in something more oblique. Jsteph 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a separate page be created about this controversy. On reflection it's probably not worth creating one about Eweida herself. Jsteph 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple of things -

I disagree with Jsteph about Blair not aligning himself with Eweida - he used the words "do the right thing" - but it is I guess arguable that he meant "the right thing is not fight it as it is not worth fighting" as opposed to "the right thing is to let christians wear crosses openly".

I concur that a separate page is needed - I mentioned above that this section is getting too long. The BA article should have a short ref with a link to a separate page. Question - if title is not Ewida, what should it be?

Springnuts 22:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

British Airways cross controversy? Jsteph 02:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, I have gone ahead and created the page - it's British Airways cross controversy. It started as an exact copy of the information on the BA page, but I have applied further edits to it. You may want to change the title. Also, I have copied the debate on this talk page to the new article's discussion section. Finally, I've cut down the information on this article so we don't incur the wrath of those who write about BA. :-) Jsteph 03:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I don't wish to offend anyone who is Christain, this woman has been working for BA for goodness knows how long now and has never once complained about the uniform policy, and thus, I feel that the tone of the article is biased in favour of the woman and needs to be redressed if this is going to count as an article and not an arguement Benny45boy 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

New Club World

When do people think that the Club World article should be altered in order to reflect the new Club World product being the definitive product and not just a, future product. I appreciate that it isn't on all aircraft however, it will be on the majority by the summer/autumn and thus, I Benny45boy 20:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)believe that the section should be altered to reflect this.

Flight Numbers

I have removed this section due to it being inaccurate and irrelevant. However, if somone believes this is relevant then I will not remove it again. However, if it is put back as being a reversion of vandalism then I shall delete it again.Benny45boy 16:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you don't have a section on BA's codeshares with other airlines, such as the extensive London Heathrow-Singapore routes, and Singapore-Australian cities codeshares. Thank you, Social Studiously.

Number one transatlantic airline

Quote from Delta Air Lines: Delta ... carries more passengers across the Atlantic than any other carrier worldwide Now which one is it?--Arado 10:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeing customer code

As I understand Wikipedia policy, the burden is on contributors to provide a way for readers to verify their information using reliable sources, and I cannot see how the Boeing customer code is an exemption to this. There is no source information at all given in either this article or List of Boeing customer codes; hence it should have a {{Fact}} tag, but someone keeps removing it. Brian Jason Drake 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right there is a burden on contributers, especially if challenged. I have added a link to the official UK Aircraft Register listing Boeing aircraft registered to British Airways and showing the use of the 36 code. MilborneOne 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Engineering

The engineering section is getting to be quite large! Does anyone think it should get it's own article? Greenboxed 17:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, there's a lot of excess information in the section that, if it is not moved to a separate article, needs to be condensed. NcSchu 18:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Greenboxed 20:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures used in article

All these pictures show British Airways aircraft in the latest livery, which has been used since about 2000. Can we have some pictures of aircraft in the (IMO more attractive) Landor scheme (the cigarette-packet style) and the original red-fin schemes? Dyakson 01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)